kevinhectoring

If we were better run, sure, we could be a lower PL side. With money, we could be higher. But Newcastle? No they should be better than that. As we shall see

Glad you raised this. If the admins are successful in finding a buyer and sorting out HMRC and the dreaded efl, then surely it will dawn on the anti-Mel brigade that his agreement to waive his mountain of ‘soft loans’ was our salvation. well, maybe not A more interesting question is how the loans are waived. Because we know from the Samuelson documentary that after a sale, he could waive part of his loans periodically, and give us a massive FFP boost. I’m guessing the admins will not be pursuing that line, but let’s see PS if you have a son, daughter, niece or a nephew, they will be able to show you how to change your avatar

Perhaps the nda just protects info AA receives from the admins. If so he can still talk about their plans

Angierams’ friend in Blackpool mentioned one source of irritation for fans of other clubs. He was saying the uncertainty annoys them because people don’t know where they stand in the league. I can understand that but it’s a completely different thing to say it’s our fault. He also criticised the administrators for appealing which is just bizarre. Before they take any decision, the admins ask themselves: is this a good thing for creditors? The suggestion the administrators are just a continuation of the club under MM is nuts

Don’t know the answer, there are so many variables : is there an agreed decision, is there an appeal, are there interventions by other clubs that impact timing ??? Certainly the lack of transparency and independence needs to be addressed

Yes, this view makes sense. But if their approach is: ‘we must make sanctions bite if we can’, and if they are consistent in that approach, we shouldn’t assume they are on a vendetta against us.

I think unsecured creditors need to get 25%, that’s the baseline. If they don’t agree to 25% and if the new owner is willing to pay enough to give them 25%, then that forces a sale of the business. In other words the club’s business is sold to a Phoenix, and the sale proceeds are divvied out by a liquidator of the ‘old club’. This gets 25% to the creditors so we can continue to trade it’s that threat of a sale to a Phoenix that should compel the unsecureds to agree a deal. in a rational world a sale to a Phoenix is unnecessary. Instead MM’s shares in the club are transferred to the new owner and creditors compromise. But if creditors force a sale of the business I don’t think it’s a disaster - the club still continues as a going concern which is what we want This all assumes HMRC will also be rational, by the way. They should be, provided they believe the integrity of the auction process, and the amount they get is driven by the amount of the highest bid. If they don’t accept that amount they force a liquidation

Is it ? Certainly @Carnerothinks so because he awarded @PistoldPetea home run. So, do these words from Mark Phillips’ loose lips mean : A the EFl launched disciplinary proceedings against a member club. It wanted to ensure that any sanction had some effect, instead of none, because otherwise the proceedings are pointless and a waste of their members’ money and make a mockery of the enforcement regime B They’ve got it in for us (as I think you are claiming) (We know btw that some on the EFl board have got it in for us, but that’s not the point) I don’t know the answer to the question for sure by the way because I’m not in the room when the EFL decide how to handle these matters.

For sure creditors take a haircut (and Mel gets a full body shave). What I’m saying is that the admins will need enough to get 25% to unsecureds. The bidders will know roughly what that baseline number is and if 3 have put up the deposit I reckon that means there will be a deal

really encouraging. I guess they will all know what the baseline number is to get a deal done (ie pay off enough creditors ) so even with just 3 it would be almost bound to lead to a deal

Of course there is a faction at the EFL who want us relegated. We know how their board is constituted. And there will be others - some of the full timers - who are offended by some of the things we have said and done, I’m sure they won’t shed a tear if we go down. All I was pointing out is the EFl have not stated - or even implied - in any communication that they want to see us relegated. Despite several assertions to the contrary on here

Nothing illuminating apparently

I’m not being disingenuous I’m just pointing out what was actually said in their statement. The enormous irony is that if the DC had given us a six point deduction that just might have satisfied the EFl, led to a quick deal on FFP (a few more points) and perhaps avoided administration

This is the point that really is worth debating. I wish the rams trust had raised it more forcefully when they met the efl

Hopefully people will read this quote and see that the EFL did NOT indicate in the statement that they wanted to see us relegated. That’s all