DJAY

He had to sign a waiver form to say he would take responsibility of any injury he sustained due to coming back before being classed as fit in order to play in the final match of the 20/21 season.

He had to sign a waiver form to say he would take responsibility of any injury he sustained due to coming back before being classed as fit in order to play in the final match of the 20/21 season.

He had to sign a waiver form to say he would take responsibility of any injury he sustained due to coming back before being classed as fit in order to play in the final match of the 20/21 season.

He had to sign a waiver form to say he would take responsibility of any injury he sustained due to coming back before being classed as fit in order to play in the final match of the 20/21 season.

He had to sign a waiver form to say he would take responsibility of any injury he sustained due to coming back before being classed as fit in order to play in the final match of the 20/21 season.

Alan Nixon's comments make sense, BUT why doesn't Kirchner come out and say that himself? I think a message saying "Funds have been paid but are currently stuck in overly-stringent anti money laundering checks. Quantuma are aware and have been shown proof that it has been sent" would be infinitely better than radio silence. 
This would then stop speculative stories coming out to some degree, and offers clarification to the vast majority of people (ok you're still going to get people criticising regardless).
 

Alan Nixon's comments make sense, BUT why doesn't Kirchner come out and say that himself? I think a message saying "Funds have been paid but are currently stuck in overly-stringent anti money laundering checks. Quantuma are aware and have been shown proof that it has been sent" would be infinitely better than radio silence. 
This would then stop speculative stories coming out to some degree, and offers clarification to the vast majority of people (ok you're still going to get people criticising regardless).
 

Alan Nixon's comments make sense, BUT why doesn't Kirchner come out and say that himself? I think a message saying "Funds have been paid but are currently stuck in overly-stringent anti money laundering checks. Quantuma are aware and have been shown proof that it has been sent" would be infinitely better than radio silence. 
This would then stop speculative stories coming out to some degree, and offers clarification to the vast majority of people (ok you're still going to get people criticising regardless).
 

Paraphrasing Kirchner, he said something along the lines of "I surround myself with people who know what they're doing". Ok fair enough, he's busy doing other things, but surely he could have handed the process off to Garry Cook whilst he was otherwise engaged who would be able to keep us updated on the situation.
The issue we have here is there has been very little communication since the last missed deadline. Very little communication breeds confusion and speculation! If he had handed this to someone like Garry Cook to update accordingly means he can do his golf tournament, and Garry Cook could keep people updated. Even if it was an update, from someone official, to state that proceedings were still ongoing.

Yeah but the red dogs don't let facts get in the way do they. If this guy knew how to search correctly he would know the following:

His planes N-number is N9CK, which resolves to a Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP (550). It has a range of 6,750 miles so sufficient range to get to the UK. It is registered by a company that manages investments for private individuals (KFIM LLC) and was registered in Delaware on 03/05/2021 (which matches up with when he was meant to have bought it).
I think @Crewtonis right in that it's damaged and is currently being repaired, hence using a rental.

Yeah but the red dogs don't let facts get in the way do they. If this guy knew how to search correctly he would know the following:

His planes N-number is N9CK, which resolves to a Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP (550). It has a range of 6,750 miles so sufficient range to get to the UK. It is registered by a company that manages investments for private individuals (KFIM LLC) and was registered in Delaware on 03/05/2021 (which matches up with when he was meant to have bought it).
I think @Crewtonis right in that it's damaged and is currently being repaired, hence using a rental.

Sounds like a play directly out of Mrs Rooney's playbook to find the root of the leaks (not like it was hard to figure that out).

I'm not a Mel apologist by any means, but I keep reading 'Mel conned us' as a regular comment in this thread. How did Mel con us? From my understanding he didn't con us as he thought the amortisation policy had been confirmed by EFL as acceptable. 
If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would Mel have carried on using it? - No I don't think so, we would have used the straight line policy as per EFL suggestions. BUT, there was no recommendation to use only a straight line amortisation policy. If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would there have been proceedings hindering any takeover process - possibly but that would have been down to the arbitration process related to the stadium valuation (which we were found not guilty of). If the amortisation policy hadn't been retro-actively deemed by the EFL to be unacceptable, would we have failed FFP in the years we did? - I doubt it, once we knew we were only to use the straight line policy we would have cut cloth accordingly. The only thing we were found guilty of in the arbitration process was not making the footnote describing the amortisation policy clearer. But the arbitration process did conclude that this wasn't done in order to mislead.
I agree that Mel putting us into administration doesn't put him in the best of lights, and he didn't make the stadium sale public knowledge until after the fact, but to say he conned us is a bit over the top in my eyes.

I'm not a Mel apologist by any means, but I keep reading 'Mel conned us' as a regular comment in this thread. How did Mel con us? From my understanding he didn't con us as he thought the amortisation policy had been confirmed by EFL as acceptable. 
If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would Mel have carried on using it? - No I don't think so, we would have used the straight line policy as per EFL suggestions. BUT, there was no recommendation to use only a straight line amortisation policy. If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would there have been proceedings hindering any takeover process - possibly but that would have been down to the arbitration process related to the stadium valuation (which we were found not guilty of). If the amortisation policy hadn't been retro-actively deemed by the EFL to be unacceptable, would we have failed FFP in the years we did? - I doubt it, once we knew we were only to use the straight line policy we would have cut cloth accordingly. The only thing we were found guilty of in the arbitration process was not making the footnote describing the amortisation policy clearer. But the arbitration process did conclude that this wasn't done in order to mislead.
I agree that Mel putting us into administration doesn't put him in the best of lights, and he didn't make the stadium sale public knowledge until after the fact, but to say he conned us is a bit over the top in my eyes.

I'm not a Mel apologist by any means, but I keep reading 'Mel conned us' as a regular comment in this thread. How did Mel con us? From my understanding he didn't con us as he thought the amortisation policy had been confirmed by EFL as acceptable. 
If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would Mel have carried on using it? - No I don't think so, we would have used the straight line policy as per EFL suggestions. BUT, there was no recommendation to use only a straight line amortisation policy. If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would there have been proceedings hindering any takeover process - possibly but that would have been down to the arbitration process related to the stadium valuation (which we were found not guilty of). If the amortisation policy hadn't been retro-actively deemed by the EFL to be unacceptable, would we have failed FFP in the years we did? - I doubt it, once we knew we were only to use the straight line policy we would have cut cloth accordingly. The only thing we were found guilty of in the arbitration process was not making the footnote describing the amortisation policy clearer. But the arbitration process did conclude that this wasn't done in order to mislead.
I agree that Mel putting us into administration doesn't put him in the best of lights, and he didn't make the stadium sale public knowledge until after the fact, but to say he conned us is a bit over the top in my eyes.

I'm not a Mel apologist by any means, but I keep reading 'Mel conned us' as a regular comment in this thread. How did Mel con us? From my understanding he didn't con us as he thought the amortisation policy had been confirmed by EFL as acceptable. 
If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would Mel have carried on using it? - No I don't think so, we would have used the straight line policy as per EFL suggestions. BUT, there was no recommendation to use only a straight line amortisation policy. If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would there have been proceedings hindering any takeover process - possibly but that would have been down to the arbitration process related to the stadium valuation (which we were found not guilty of). If the amortisation policy hadn't been retro-actively deemed by the EFL to be unacceptable, would we have failed FFP in the years we did? - I doubt it, once we knew we were only to use the straight line policy we would have cut cloth accordingly. The only thing we were found guilty of in the arbitration process was not making the footnote describing the amortisation policy clearer. But the arbitration process did conclude that this wasn't done in order to mislead.
I agree that Mel putting us into administration doesn't put him in the best of lights, and he didn't make the stadium sale public knowledge until after the fact, but to say he conned us is a bit over the top in my eyes.

Agree, that is also not a good luck. I still don't know how that accumulated to so much. Has that been explained yet?
However, you could potentially say (depending on why/how that debt got so high) that it might not have been the case if we had been taken over sooner?

I'm not a Mel apologist by any means, but I keep reading 'Mel conned us' as a regular comment in this thread. How did Mel con us? From my understanding he didn't con us as he thought the amortisation policy had been confirmed by EFL as acceptable. 
If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would Mel have carried on using it? - No I don't think so, we would have used the straight line policy as per EFL suggestions. BUT, there was no recommendation to use only a straight line amortisation policy. If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would there have been proceedings hindering any takeover process - possibly but that would have been down to the arbitration process related to the stadium valuation (which we were found not guilty of). If the amortisation policy hadn't been retro-actively deemed by the EFL to be unacceptable, would we have failed FFP in the years we did? - I doubt it, once we knew we were only to use the straight line policy we would have cut cloth accordingly. The only thing we were found guilty of in the arbitration process was not making the footnote describing the amortisation policy clearer. But the arbitration process did conclude that this wasn't done in order to mislead.
I agree that Mel putting us into administration doesn't put him in the best of lights, and he didn't make the stadium sale public knowledge until after the fact, but to say he conned us is a bit over the top in my eyes.

I'm not a Mel apologist by any means, but I keep reading 'Mel conned us' as a regular comment in this thread. How did Mel con us? From my understanding he didn't con us as he thought the amortisation policy had been confirmed by EFL as acceptable. 
If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would Mel have carried on using it? - No I don't think so, we would have used the straight line policy as per EFL suggestions. BUT, there was no recommendation to use only a straight line amortisation policy. If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would there have been proceedings hindering any takeover process - possibly but that would have been down to the arbitration process related to the stadium valuation (which we were found not guilty of). If the amortisation policy hadn't been retro-actively deemed by the EFL to be unacceptable, would we have failed FFP in the years we did? - I doubt it, once we knew we were only to use the straight line policy we would have cut cloth accordingly. The only thing we were found guilty of in the arbitration process was not making the footnote describing the amortisation policy clearer. But the arbitration process did conclude that this wasn't done in order to mislead.
I agree that Mel putting us into administration doesn't put him in the best of lights, and he didn't make the stadium sale public knowledge until after the fact, but to say he conned us is a bit over the top in my eyes.

I'm not a Mel apologist by any means, but I keep reading 'Mel conned us' as a regular comment in this thread. How did Mel con us? From my understanding he didn't con us as he thought the amortisation policy had been confirmed by EFL as acceptable. 
If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would Mel have carried on using it? - No I don't think so, we would have used the straight line policy as per EFL suggestions. BUT, there was no recommendation to use only a straight line amortisation policy. If the amortisation policy hadn't been accepted initially by the EFL, would there have been proceedings hindering any takeover process - possibly but that would have been down to the arbitration process related to the stadium valuation (which we were found not guilty of). If the amortisation policy hadn't been retro-actively deemed by the EFL to be unacceptable, would we have failed FFP in the years we did? - I doubt it, once we knew we were only to use the straight line policy we would have cut cloth accordingly. The only thing we were found guilty of in the arbitration process was not making the footnote describing the amortisation policy clearer. But the arbitration process did conclude that this wasn't done in order to mislead.
I agree that Mel putting us into administration doesn't put him in the best of lights, and he didn't make the stadium sale public knowledge until after the fact, but to say he conned us is a bit over the top in my eyes.

Guy in front of me got knocked out by a chair one of the imbeciles threw.

Guy in front of me got knocked out by a chair one of the imbeciles threw.

Guy in front of me got knocked out by a chair one of the imbeciles threw.

Guy in front of me got knocked out by a chair one of the imbeciles threw.

I really want to trust your eyesight, but isn't that Sibley in the picture?