The Administration Thread

[Maharan]

2 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Apart from they have given us the requirements under which we need to work with. Wage Cap etc. So their just interfering for the sake of it, without being privvy to the discussions actually happening.

The amazing thing for me is we are actually on the Preferred Bidder Announcement Day (I don't think it will happen though!) and as fans, we are actually no further down the line in knowing. Some think its Ashley, some think its Appleby.

I genuinely think it will come out through a media source before its officially announced. Why? Because the public will be the last to know and so many people will find out officially before us that it will be leaked.

There’s restrictions because the club is in administration. There are a lot of people not going to get the money they are owed by the club. Do you think it’s okay for us to continue as if nothing has happened? 

[BobdeBilder]

Just now, Maharan said:

There’s restrictions because the club is in administration. There are a lot of people not going to get the money they are owed by the club. Do you think it’s okay for us to continue as if nothing has happened? 

Leicester did.

[Ellafella]

23 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I find that perfectly reasonable to be honest. Before the EFL allow us to establish new contracts - in accordance with the restrictions we are already operating under regarding fees, wage limits, etc. - I too, for the integrity of the competition, would want to be assured that the Rams are adequately funded to the end of May. There is also the little matter that between now and May that we might need to pay some instalments on Joswiak and Bielik. The EFL didn’t put us in to Administration with debts of c60m (or was it £80m? - lost track ?) it was our owners. I am pretty confident the Administrators will be able to do that, so it is a complete non-story.

The EFL are a bunch of spineless duckers for how they are dealing with the Boro and Wycombe claims, but are a little hamstrung by their members collective agreement on the arbitration process under their rules.

Fair comment. I do so hope time shows that your view is reliable. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

just on the Wycombe and Boro "football creditors" thing.

At present they are not football creditors, or creditors of any kind.

But!

If the club comes out of insovancy, and their claims are found to have merits either by negotiation or in court, they are due to be paid in full by a solvent business - insisting on a football creditors status does not improve the position of Boro or Wycombe or legitimise their claims and there can be no legal basis to regard them as creditors.

They might be regarded as businesses we are in dispute with,but that is not the same thing.

[Ambitious]

[Ellafella]

2 hours ago, Gritstone Ram said:

This proof of funds stuff. Why not start selling next seasons season tickets?

Yes; 3 year season ticket with a nice discount to induce people to commit?

[StarterForTen]

4 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Apart from they have given us the requirements under which we need to work with. Wage Cap etc. So their just interfering for the sake of it, without being privvy to the discussions actually happening.

Those 'requirements' were merely part of the P&S breach judgement; nothing to do with being in Administration, which requires further governance.

The Club (through the decisions of its old owner) has dug itself into a deep financial hole and the EFL are merely holding on to the shovel until they know we are digging our way out, not digging deeper.

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 minutes ago, BobdeBilder said:

Leicester did.

And it was thought to be not ok, so everything changed because of what Leicester did.

[MACKWORTHRAM]

This board meeting that the EFL had yesterday.

Isn't Steve Gibson on the EFL board?

[RadioactiveWaste]

 

[roboto]

1 minute ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

This board meeting that the EFL had yesterday.

Isn't Steve Gibson on the EFL board?

No. There's a Boro representitive on the board, but not the curly one.

I think it's been discussed before that this person wouldn't be allowed to work on, or have any decision making powers, on a case directly involving their club.

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, Maharan said:

There’s restrictions because the club is in administration. There are a lot of people not going to get the money they are owed by the club. Do you think it’s okay for us to continue as if nothing has happened? 

Nobody is saying that. We have 15 players out of contract at the end of the season. We have one player out of contract at the end of this week.

it’s accepted we are not paying anything for anyone in January not even loan fees.

We have an admin team whose job it is to act in the interests of the creditors , so they certainly will not be acting as if nothing had happened. 
 

Why can’t the Efl just leave them alone and let them get on with the job they are being paid to do?

[Wolfie]

[RAMS1992]

[simmoram1995]

8 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

This board meeting that the EFL had yesterday.

Isn't Steve Gibson on the EFL board?

Nope but boro do have a board member 

[Derbados]

Just now, RAMS1992 said:

Reluctanthicko. . . Fake profile 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Derbados

[Grumpy Git]

19 minutes ago, rammieib said:

Some think its Ashley, some think its Appleby.

At this rate it'll be AA for me too.

[RAMS1992]

Just now, Derbados said:

Reluctanthicko 

Fell for that!!

[TuffLuff]

3 minutes ago, RAMS1992 said:

Moxey?

 

Ah?!!!!? I should have known

Edited January 14, 2022 by TuffLuff

[StarterForTen]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Why can’t the Efl just leave them alone and let them get on with the job they are being paid to do?

Who is suggesting that they aren't? My interpretation of the 'show us the money' news that John Percy broke last night was merely about a request to extend contracts or sign new players, which they are wholly entitled (and correct) to do so as - at the time the request has been made - the Club remains an insolvent entity.