Jump to content

kevinhectoring

Member
  • Posts

    1,807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kevinhectoring

  1. If the club or the auditors had in advance conducted an analysis to support their approach, I think we would have read a lot about it in the judgements. We didn’t, in fact one of the panels (can’t remember which) did not find there was any systematic basis for our approach. Second thing is that the club was asked in the proceedings to produce all internal documents relating to the approach. None were provided. This suggests that no analysis supporting our case was done in advance; and that our accounting policy was driven by a desire to pass FFP rather than a zeal to give a true and fair view The fact that (as we now know) we failed on a straight line approach supports that we adopted our approach to pass the test not proof positive for sure but this is why I don’t think our approach was driven by detailed analysis
  2. Not sure they used this data at the time though. I think they tried to justify the method after the fact. The most sensible method was suggested by @Ghost of Cloughwho proposed an amortisation profile based largely on the age of the player.
  3. I think the plan is to get HMRC to agree a deal conditional on a sale. Then to sell out of administration with MM receiving nothing. Then for the buyer to fund signings in Jan. I think HMRC might do that
  4. thanks that was an interesting post maybe it's the case but I don't think it's usual for administrators to be on that sort of deal at all. I think they tend to work simply on the basis of an hourly rate. I was surprised they thought 90 days was needed for a sale because they have a data room already set up for buyer diligence. They told us this needs only limited updating. And some buyers have looked before. Seems to me the key timing points are agreeing a deal with HMRC and EFL. The extended sale period is costly (in administrators fees, and interest). The delay suits MSD if the value of their secured assets comfortably covers their debt and interest, because no doubt they have a very high default interest rate. Of course they have a charge on the stadium so I would think they are very comfortably covered. (Did someone say it is worth 80m? Seems hard to believe if you look at the rent!) The ongoing costs erode the sale price and I guess the cost falls on the unsecured creditors because I don't think MM gets a penny for the shares. Well maybe a penny One reason they might have tried to force a quick sale is that if we go back into lockdown in November, the whole thing is in jeopardy and could impede a sale before the Jan window
  5. My point is quite a simple and obvious one. In the real world, if someone makes a general statement to the press, what they are not doing is making some sort of formal undertaking to do something extraordinary. It’s quite simple. Unless it doesn’t fit your agenda You’ve confused this by saying what you think he ought to have done or said. You’re entitled to your view on that. That’s a different debate
  6. B then. The real world not in keeping with your agenda
  7. A or B? Or something else. Just let us know what you think the words mean.
  8. And is that A an indication of his intention given the likely timescale or B an undertaking that whatever the EFl does to him and whatever else happens he will fund in perpetuity ?? B, you seem to be saying Really ? No. Not in the real world
  9. Where does it come from, this idea that the owner is obliged to continue to fund come rain or shine ?
  10. He obviously didn’t say for ever. And Chris Coles has updated us since
  11. No. It was made clear that he would not continue to do this for ever. Take a look at what Chris Coles told us
  12. Go on ... when did he say this, what did he say ?
  13. if he had decided to pay all the debt I don’t think we’d be in administration. What Hoskin said I think was that MM had agree to waive all of his own claims against the club
  14. Interesting. I have always assumed Pearce is Mel’s stooge and that they probably speak several times a day.
  15. Well if I have an ‘agenda’ part of it is to call out MM and the club and Rooney if they are unprofessional, undignified, skuzzy etc. And I understand others may disagree with my views You insinuate I have a different agenda, let me know if you’d like to share your insight
  16. Lending to the administrators is pretty safe because I think you rank ahead of everyone else including secured creditors. Could be MSD but more likely a bank. I’d guess that will be cheaper
  17. Of course it’s the same For what reason ? What an odd question, you seem to imply I have some strange agenda or ulterior motive. In case it isn’t completely obvious: the reason I raise it is because I think he behaved shabbily and I want to express my view. That’s all
  18. The notion Mel possesses the stadium and that he will ever get any value from it is completely at odds with the facts. MSD have a charge over it, and they have a charge over the shares MM has in the company that owns it. And the company that owns it still owes the club part of the purchase price. You heard the administrators say yesterday that the stadium and the club would both be sold to the new owners. And you heard them say MM was going to waive all his debts against the club.
  19. You asked whether it was accurate to say Rooney indicated he was glad to see the back of MM This quote is from the BBC website “Thankfully now, I won't have the worry of having to get in touch with him." so yes, what I said is accurate I don’t care what he says in private But if he and his PR advisers think it’s good for Brand Rooney to carry on like this, then we should all be worried.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.