atherstoneram

3 minutes ago, alram said:

administrators are not doing their job if they don't work alongside the efl and sort it out. 

 

black balling the efl risks the golden share getting revoked, then the creditors get nothing.

 

it is absolutely to do with the efl, we are members of their organisation and they need clarity about the coming season - not to be ignored. i can't believe people disagree with this point?

No it isn't absolutely to do with the EFL.

4 minutes ago, alram said:

i can't believe what i am reading in regards to people sticking up for the administrators after all the stuff they have done for the past however long now.  

 

just shows you, you can do anything and some will still back you no matter what.

 

they are not fit for purpose, they should be removed from their position

On what grounds, you, me or anyone else doesn't know what they are having to deal with. Yes people are saying things should have been sorted by now, they haven't but that doesn't mean they are not fit for purpose

2 minutes ago, alram said:

derby are members of the EFL, the governing body should know what is happening in the processs. its nothing to do with GDPR or NDAs, it is using them as a smoke screen to hide behind.

That's why administrators are appointed, nothing to do with the EFL.

5 minutes ago, Rosythram said:

The EFL are are a governing body!

You have obviously been participating in the happy water if that’s your belief.

I wouldn’t trust them to take my dog a walk, I honestly think if they did they would bring me back a different one.

 

Doesn't matter what i or anybody else believes but they are the governing body. Some happy water might do me good ?

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

He's an administrator - he should know how it works. 

But he hasn't been appointed as administrator of the club.

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can't see too many happy with that. 

Perhaps we should ask Birch about the bidding process.

Ah it's just tedious. Q are either going to go back to MSD or sell someone like Knight to continue the process as the last thing they want is to have to answer to questions about earlier bids they turned down.

Nothing to do with Birch regarding the bidding process.

20 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Appleby has already bid.

He may well have but only the administrators know the contents of the bid.

34 minutes ago, alram said:

no. i expect them to work with the efl, not pull the whole NDA cobblers they have hid behind from the very start. 

if there is nothing to hide they wouldnt be hiding behind it. 

WHAT IS GOING ON AT OUR CLUB?

Of course there has to be NDA's in place, their place is to work for the creditors, not working with the EFL. The EFL are just the governing body of the association we are in,they cannot interfere with administration processes.

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

It means our debt is bigger than Chelsea’s. And isn’t true.

No but Chelsea et al aren't in administration, it is the biggest debt for clubs  that have been in administration.

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Whilst there are buyers there will be no liquidation of the Club.

Only if they meet the minimum requirement to exit administration.

Just now, Jimbo Ram said:

We won’t be liquidated, too many local businesses happy to keep us afloat….

You mean the local businesses that have already been shafted. By businesses you must mean fast food shops and pubs.

6 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

 

Say though they imposed a deadline and all of the 'interested parties' said hey wait, that's not enough time for us to finalise our plans, and they all pull out? What then? 

Everyone in the process is surely clued in on the real timeline anyway? 

They must all know themselves based on their own communications with the EFL at what point the plug is pulled. 

As ever the onus is on the bidders to actually bid; if their hand isn't already forced by the consequence of inaction then there need to be serious questions asked of them too. 

Indeed, the administrators will give them as long as possible for a bidder to come up with a credible offer and it is no use saying they must accept a bid, even the highest bid may not be enough then there will come a time when the EFL will say time is up. Don't believe the club is too big to be liquidated, no business is too big, the debt may just be too high.

2 hours ago, Oldben said:

Hasn't Q failed in terms of not giving the fans enough information and I've not seen any information from them to the fans about the process.

Not at all, they legally don't have to divulge any information to us, the process doesn't concern the fans or give us any entitlement what is going on. Only creditors can ask such questions and then will only be on a need to know basis.  

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

We'd be foolish to pay off football creditors up front, considering a decent chunk of it will be if we win promotion to the PL over the next 2 seasons with Bielik.

Isn't one of the conditions to exit administration that football creditors have to be paid in full up front.

2 hours ago, Premier ram said:

How many forum members is that you have wound up Roy this week , you seem particuarly argumentative at the moment , havnt you got a lawn that needs mowing or a dog that needs walking , give some on here a break

Doesn't wind me up, too long in the tooth for that, i feel sorry for him really because he seems to believe all the rubbish MA gets the media to publish.

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Well, by your method? Appleby's bid went in on Wednesday.

I have noticed that when you can't give a credible reply you just give a smiling emoji.

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Well, by your method? Appleby's bid went in on Wednesday.

And...... 

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

So Appleby's bid isn't enough then?

Can't see where anyone else or myself have said that, If Appleby's bid is acceptable and meets all the requirements of exiting administration why go back to other supposed bidders.

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is that what your creditors think?

You do what they do in property you go back to other bidders and say do you want to beat this deal. But Q aren't playing that game.

Doubt the administrators would be interested in gazumping if the bid meets the creditors required level and the EFL are happy with the bid. Other bidders, what other bidders, they may have made a claim that they are interested in purchasing the club but that is different to submitting a bid.

3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

Of course. But my point was, they don't have the same ability to (e.g.) repossess the stadium if we don't pay in full, that MSD have.  So they have no security. So by definition they are unsecured (even if they are a higher preference of unsecured etc etc), and the EFL rules over 25% and 35%/3 apply etc.

You are probably correct with that but they don't have to accept 25/35% and could demand more irrespective of what the EFL state, they have a bigger say than just unsecured creditors, that is why they got a ruling in their favour.

18 minutes ago, Phuket Ram said:

The MSD debt is £24m. This is cleared by whoever buys the stadium. Anything above that amount is used to pay football creditors, and then unsecured creditors like HMRC.
 

Others know more precisely, but I’d imagine it needs to be around £18-20m. But unsecured creditors can optionally be paid 35% of what they are owed through a 3 year repayment plan. Obviously this makes it more difficult to buy/loan/sign players as it is an ongoing expense. Similarly if the ground is leased - same problem (ongoing expense).

So we’re looking for a buyer to pay a total of around £42m to reduce unnecessary ongoing costs and avoid the points penalty.

We would also own the stadium again. 
 

Appleby is rumoured to have bid £40m. I don’t think that’s true, but if it was - I would take it. 

HMRC are not unsecured creditors.

10 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

So there is this stadium valued at over £80m and a league one team valued at next to nothing for sale for £45m. As an investor why isn't it a good deal? 

Because of the large amount of debt to be serviced.

12 hours ago, TuffLuff said:

I can’t quite believe that, as a fan, you can believe anyones narrative on getting this sorted. A slither of info, no matter the source, will make fans fall hook, line and sinker time and again. 

We are desperate for some proper investigative journalism, but it does seem like most reputable journalists keep an arms length away from the story. When things get desperate we might get a tweet, but no one is really looking in to what’s happening. 

Do you wonder why reputable journalists keep at arms length?

They are not going to comment on an administration which is in progress, if they report something which brings the process into question they would find themselves in front of a judge. People forget this is a judicial process.

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

"Legal documents allege that Ashley's group, MASH, were told they were named as preferred bidders in January and it is claimed Jackson failed to inform the Football League, despite insisting he would."

Well I suppose they could be done in crayon and not admissible.

Doesn't matter what they are written with if it's only alleged, so no concrete evidence then?

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

I'd rather believe him than you. Hmmmm.

Be more credible if he or his lawyers came out and made the statement instead of hiding behind journalists yet again