FlyBritishMidland

4 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

It’s utter nonsense, we owe them nothing. Let them take us to court.

Ashley, Appleby and Rush??

2 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

 

CREDITOR:
A term used in accounting, 'creditor' refers to the party that has delivered a product, service or loan, and is owed money by one or more debtors.

Neither Boro nor Wycombe fall into any of the above categories so they can't legally be added to the creditor's list.

That’s exactly my thoughts.  They can’t be a creditor as they haven’t provided any goods or services.  Gibson obviously knows he has a weak case in the courts so is trying this route.  The EFL won’t support it as there is no case to answer and their process is defined as courts/arbitration and settle between the parties.  If they do, they know they will be opening a huge can of worms for clubs suing each other and our admin would launch a counter claim against the EFL.

That’s of course assuming it true.  Not a single quote.  Even the Daily Mail are able to have “sources”.

5 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Backed his managers???

10 in 14 years.  Two of which were always temporary (Shearer and Carver).  Shearer may have turned into permanent but they went for Hughton instead, and that didn’t turn out too bad.  A better record than Mel!!

15 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Oh god - yet more delays with Ashley now appearing interested.

No thanks at all to him. Can anyone find anything good he did in Newcastle?

In the Prem, ran sustainably, backed his managers.  I’d take 12th place in the Prem with no debt right now.  And the occasional cup run.

21 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

Why is John Percy hearing things like this from Quantuma yet the fans don't hear anything at all?

Pretty sure that’s a quote from one of their previous press releases and not something issued recently.

I’m a glass half full kinda bloke so I’ll set myself up for a bit of ridicule with positive take on the East Mids news article.  It was reported that Appleby and his gang are ready to take over as soon as the administrators allow.  I’m pretty sure that in one of their first interviews on Talk Sport, Quantuma talked about a handover period of around a month once the preferred bidder is confirmed.  Isn’t it possible that they’ve already been told they’re the preferred bidder, are finalising the finer details and entering the handover period.  Consultation and communication is also ongoing with the staff at the club.  This would tie in with Percy’s article at the start of the week that mentioned the takeover being completed in Feb.

Just trying to cheer people up ?.

I thought I’d have a quick google and find out what’s the typical time for a football club to be in administration for and came across this.  This was published in February 2021 and Wigan came out of administration in March, I think, so making their period about 8 or 9 months.  We’re now 12 days short of four months, the shortest time so far.  The average is about 9 months, give or take.  Obviously we don’t know the ins and outs or how complex these may or may not have been.

We know our situation isn’t the most straightforward with the number of companies Mel set up, who owns the ground (or who doesn’t), the amount we owe various creditors (inc HMRC), etc.  The administrators have been optimistic, maybe to allay fans fears, but I think shows that they’re far from stringing it along and there’s a long way to go before there’s cause for panic.

And the maximum amount of time a club can be in administration is 18 months.  Just trying to be helpful ?.

3 hours ago, Barney1991 said:

Completely agree when people ask questions it is quicker but then again I don’t think you would give 3 deadlines to put your work in to miss all deadlines. Think somebody higher up would be asking questions on what you are doing with your time. The admins have made a rod for there own back by giving deadlines and missing every single one and also what doesn’t help is we have been here before this time last year so it’s like deja vu and look how that ended!!

Fair point but there’s been four working days since the last announcement.  And three of them are hardly normal days as most people are on hols.

Using the word imminent is leaving themselves open to criticism but in some regards they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.  Try and keep fans informed the minute something is missed they’re jumped on.  Say nothing they’re accused of hiding something.

At this point, let them get on with it, let them keep the staff at the club informed.  Wait until there’s something meaningful to say.  I don’t think Kirchener has helped as it was his hissy fit that led to the last statement, probably in haste.

21 minutes ago, ShoreRam said:

100% Completely counter productive, when people could be working on reaching a conclusion they're having to deal with amateurs, frustrating.

How many of us at work are asked why things can’t be done quicker, usually by someone who hasn’t got a clue?  And then you’re thinking “it’d be a lot quicker if you left me alone rather than taking up my time with your questions”.  Probably what the admins are thinking now.

8 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

According to Percy in today's Torygraph:

"One party is fronted by former Wolves chief executive Jez Moxey, working on behalf of General Sports Worldwide, which includes former Derby chairman Andrew Appleby and former chief executive Sam Rush. It is understood they tabled an increased bid of around £30 million for the club on December 23."

He also says the administrators are focusing on internal communication with staff at the club.  And quite right too.  Those who rely on DCFC to pay the mortgage and put food on table deserve to know what’s happening before any of us.

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

They went into liquidation.

They went into administration in July 2020 and we’re taken over in March 2021.  They were in administration for that period but not liquidated.

1 minute ago, ShoreRam said:

Quite - It's entirely normal that the minutes would need to be agreed, I find it strange that people would think otherwise. Even in a run of the mill business meeting I may check with some of the attendees that I capture things correctly.

Imagine the scenario where 4 groups released minutes and they were all slightly different in their understanding, there would be a meltdown!

And even more important to make sure they are all consistent and accurate when they’re being published on organisations websites, etc for anyone to read.

Confirmed off on the clubs Twitter feed

15 minutes ago, Curtains said:

“Bleaker by the day “is a strange thing to say .

 Now Nixon may not know anything but we  have 106 pages with his name on the headline .

But he hasn’t said that.  Some random journalist (who’s based in Paris according to LinkedIn) has written an entire article based on a nine word tweet.  And he spelt ‘precedent’ as ‘president’!!

This thread reminds of me and my dad having a very similar discussion in 1984.  We decided no-one.   Non-league football for me.  How it should be - honest football, no razzmatazz and played at 3:00 on a Saturday or 7:45 on a Tuesday/Wednesday.

5 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Honestly, when you read how some react to their articles, is it any wonder that clickbait trumps old-fashioned reporting of the facts? Suggest we just give Mr Kirschner a warm welcome and roar the lads to victory as I very much doubt the guy would bother flying in for the game if his interest was waning.

And then the DET scan Twitter and post an article saying fans are “frustrated” and pass it of as news ?.

I like playing out from the back but not a fan of a CH taking the goal kick to the keeper - and it doesn’t matter who the keeper is.  My principal is never pass the ball back to the keeper between the posts in case of a mistake.  If it’s the goal kick your open to a mistake like yesterday, if it’s a normal back pass the ball could bobble, roll under the keepers foot, etc and lead to a goal.  I’d much prefer the keep takes the kick out wide to a defender.  There’s less chance of a goal if you lose possession and the keeper is in the right position.

3 hours ago, angieram said:

I actually think we had one at the end of last season when Waghorn stepped up and helped us stay in the Championship.

Without that, we could be in the mess we are in now, but a whole division lower.

I thought that the day the news came out about the -9.  OK, we should win a few more making it easier to stay up but it would still have been a big challenge.

It’s been an interesting week.  Our club has had a few sliding doors moments in the past (Sir Brian leaving, Charlie George’s shoulder, Zamora, etc) but looking back how important were the injuries to John Eustace and Chris Martin in 2014/15?  Without those we would arguably have achieved automatic promotion, Mel would have bought a PL team, no FFP issues even if we’d have come down.

Even Thorne’s injury against Ipswich on the last day of the following season.  Again, without that the big spending may have paid off.

Instead we’re staring at League 1 - which could turn out to be a good thing in the long run although it might not feel like it now.

Life’s all about fine margins.  In years to come we’ll have sliding doors moments that go in our favour.

3 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

...but if they they do then get relegated the EFL's answer is only to fine them, or it has been so far.

If Villa come down again do you think the EFL will immediately stick them under a transfer embargo and seek to deduct them 12 points?

No, they probably wouldn’t.  They may not even fine them.  Is there a time limit that the charge can go back?  Which shows the whole thing is broken.  And the prize makes it worth the gamble, which doesn’t make it right.

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think it is   And that’s supported by what MM said on RD

Look at EFL’s policy towards promoted clubs who failed FFP and compare that to what we are being subjected to. It is a total  joke 

Trouble is, they’re no longer members of the EFL so can’t be punished by them.  The clubs breach FFP in the year they get promoted then submit accounts already being in the PL and the EFL are powerless.   If we’d have gone up in 15/16 we’d have been fine too.  It’s a problem when you have having two organisations running the game.

14 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Yeah, I mean desperately unlucky losing two key players to injury in the first game of season. but why not use the loan market FFS?  

Exactly that.  I think Bryson was out for 2 - 3 months and Hughes for the season.  A couple of season long loans would have seen us through.  It’s what we did the season before when Thorne was injured.

28 minutes ago, vonwright said:

...and still ended up £60m of debt, only £20m of which was supposedly due to COVID (£20m being higher than the average annual matchday income of all championship clubs in 2018/19, the last season for which most figures are available, and more than twice the matchday income Forest declared that year when they had roughly the same crowds as us).

I think we have to be honest about just how much of a financial basket case we became under Mel. Are the EFL really singling us out for particular attention, or did we quite a lot to single ourselves out? No other club used our controversial amortisation policy, and the EFL were perfectly within their rights to appeal the original decision. Under normal circumstances nine points - if it represents a final settlement of P and S breaches - wouldn't seem so bad. We don't know what the accounts for recent years are going to show but there's a very real chance they are going to look pretty awful, given that the effect of the amortisation policy was to back-end transfer losses, and we've lost a lot on buying expensive but worthless players. 

We were also the only club to go into administration, and that's an automatic 12pts. We have now adjourned the appeal - presumably the administrators realised the chances of success were limited, and not worth delaying settlement of other issues. In my view that's sensible as there wasn't much chance we were going to win a force majeure case when we had been put into administration by an owner who had set the club up to make enormous losses, had previously shown a willingness to sustain these losses, but who had then decided he couldn't or wouldn't sustain further losses (not least because we already had huge debts). 

We need clarity, we need a sale to a more pragmatic and business-oriented owner, we need stability. I would have loved us to have stayed up against the odds but honestly, they are the real priorities this season. 

 

 

An excellent post, particularly the bit in bold.  Like it or not, we (or Mel) put ourselves in this position.  If we were whiter than white it wouldn’t have come to this.

20 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

We don't know that. Legal advice may have been that there is no chance of winning the argument.

Exactly, they won’t have taken the decision lightly.  It may finally put it to bed with no appeals, etc that may have affected a sale, or at least means a new owner has a clean slate.  It’ll also mean that we can start to plan for next season with certainty.  Assuming it’s true of course!!

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Your argument falls apart because we let so many leave on a free.
How many players have we SOLD at a P&S loss? Weimann, Jerome, Albentosa, Shotton all about on par with what their book values would have been at the time. Profits on Ince, Christie and Vydra.

That’s sort of my point.  We made a number of bad signings that reduced to nothing but the way reduced their value over their contract didn’t really reflect that.  Mel said in his post-admin interview that the club changed the policy to reflect a small reduction initially then larger reductions at the end.  That works for someone like a Tom Ince but not for Nick Blackman.  Our problem is we had too many in the latter category that, as you say, left on a free.