atherstoneram

To see the club survive would be the icing on the cake.

Alright don't get a cob on.

Another libellous post the mods choose to overlook. I can prove it’s untrue - that one said his name was Carl 

I haven’t said I take everything q say at face value but if they said no bidder was willing to take on responsibility for Boro claims I have absolutely no reason to doubt that.
The allegation made by Ashley  is that they were told by q that he was preferred bidder. That was at a time when Boro claim was still current. Q thought they could deal with that claim in a certain way Efl had other ideas. Who was right Efl or q may be hotly disputed. Either way Ashley’s bid was not progressable without Boro claim being disposed of one way or another . Once it was why didn’t Ashley then proceed with his bid? 

As for Appleby claim, has he offered to pay June wages? If not his offer is not compliant as he claims because we will immediately be faced with a 3 point penalty and possibly much worse. 
 

The people composing those type of statements tend to:
a) not fully understand the situation
b) have an agenda against Quantuma 
c) both of the above

The crunch will come next week, the EFL will seek reassurance from the administrators that they have got a short term loan or offers for players to cover this months wages, if they can't raise a short term loan then i can see the EFL taking further action (not the 3 point deduction) and bring things to an end. We can't keep trading whilst insolvent.
It is not in anyones interest to let the debt keep rising.

To see the club survive would be the icing on the cake.

The crunch will come next week, the EFL will seek reassurance from the administrators that they have got a short term loan or offers for players to cover this months wages, if they can't raise a short term loan then i can see the EFL taking further action (not the 3 point deduction) and bring things to an end. We can't keep trading whilst insolvent.
It is not in anyones interest to let the debt keep rising.

I don’t know what you’ve posted... I’m complaining about MM who has ruined the club and made it unsellable. 

You said hand it over to whoever offers the most £'s but to hand it over to someone who knows how to run the business firstly they have to meet the administrators criteria for exiting administration. 
"So clear the debts and hand it over" what do you think the administrators have been and still are trying to do, it is not their fault if the debt is too high and nobody willing to pay it.

Oh yeast of little faith

You do write some drivel at times Kev. Q's every action is under scrutiny. They are officers of the Court. They will not be influenced by anyone in fulfilling their legal duties, and they are obliged to report any conflicts of interest. Not sure why you have it in for Q as you do.  Has Andrew Hoskings knobbed your Mrs in the past?

The crunch will come next week, the EFL will seek reassurance from the administrators that they have got a short term loan or offers for players to cover this months wages, if they can't raise a short term loan then i can see the EFL taking further action (not the 3 point deduction) and bring things to an end. We can't keep trading whilst insolvent.
It is not in anyones interest to let the debt keep rising.

The problem will be, Quantuma agrees a sale of (pick a random number) £28m to a bidder, nothing major moves with the stadium/MSD/Morris or Quantuma's fees, so they take a bid to the EFL saying we'll pay 50% of football creditors and nothing to other unsecured ones.  The EFL reject that out of hand and the bidder walks away having wasted a couple more weeks.  Or on the off chance they do allow it, HMRC reject their 0% settlement and the bidder walks away.  
There is no viable bid for less than ~£40m.  (Obviously I'm including the bid, any 3rd party money to buy the stadium, and any concessions that can be wrangled out of Quantuma and Morris in that figure.)  It will get to the point of failure (whether that be the EFL saying they'll kick us out of the league, or the creditors rejecting the settlement) and the bidder will walk away.

Your last sentence is certainly not an option for the administrators, that's why they are here, dealing with the shitstorm the former owner created.

Any other business would be liquidated for trading while insolvent. I really hate to say this but it is going to take a fairly big loan to see the season out, yes players budget will be down but the club won't be exempt from the increase of utility prices, wage increase for any staff on minimum wage (if any) plus other sundry price increases.

If we sell a player it goes towards funding the season.

So in the last 24 hours on here, we've had people on here openly criticising Quantuma for:
Ignoring the EFL (they're the regulator!).
Complying with EFL demands to sell players to raise funds.
Selling players and devaluing the club/risking relegation.
Not selling players to raise funds and cut costs (to avoid racking up so much extra debt paying wages etc).
And some people think Quantuma are the major problem here...

Maybe. Asking a Government minister to investigate newspapers speculation to see if it’s true sounds like a waste of time to me. 
 
And anyone who seriously thinks that q has ignored progressable bids is living in cloud cuckoo land. As for bids made in Dec , q made it clear none of the bidders wanted to take on liability for Boro claims. Is there any suggestion that isn’t true? If so I find a suggestion that q didn’t tell the truth about that extremely unlikely.
 

You'll be surprised how quickly it can all happen. 

I think supporters groups sometimes make things worse. 
 
They think they know more and are entitled 

I understand what you're saying, but that is why Q have to prove the Club has funds to play for the whole season. Otherwise the EFL will not let us start, they don't want us dropping out or being kicked out.

I don't get what you are saying. You're in administration with large debts you aren't able to run the business as a going concern without funds. 

Latest supporter groups statement is misleading, inaccurate and in the case of BAWT, hypocritical.
Offers from Ashley or Appleby in December could not be progressed due to Boro claim and EFL approach to it. Surely every Rams fan knows this, yet not mentioned in the statement? After the Boro claim "accord" betwen SW and MM in February,  the way was clear for either Appleby or Ashley to close the deal. Why didn't they? Only in April did CK surface, and his was the only then compliant bid. The allegation that months were lost due to pursuit of CK is just false... although I agree better checks on his money could have been done.  But wasn't CK re-introduced to Q by Nigel Owen of BAWT?
And can someone tell me what the point of the supporter group statement was? It seems misguided and pointless as well as misleading.

You carry on keep saying they will give in the end, it's not happened up to now so can't see why it will happen any time soon. Football administration is different to other business administrations, they are a stand alone, we are part of an association whose rules we have to abide by, they can expel us from the league and it is no use saying the law of the land won't allow them.