The Administration Thread

[rammieib]

We’re 10% into Feb now and still have zero clue what the plan is…

[strawhillram]

2 hours ago, BucksRam said:

Agree - I had to go for a lie down.  Marmite - urgh, food of the Devil ?

And bovril is even worse

[jono]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I think they'll examine and debate each parties arguments, and then disclose their thoughts and intentions with the hope of reaching a unanimous agreement. A bit like a panel of magistrates decide an outcome I would imagine. I guess which way each voted may not be made public though if that's what you meant.

That is how I would like to hope it is run. You just wonder about the conflict of interest given that appointees have been appointed by a party with a fixed view. What are their instructions from those that appointed them ? What are the terms of reference for the arbiters . “We want a fair and reasonable outcome having considered all the details” or “We want you to argue our case in a classic adversarial legal  fashion.

Are they examining magistrates or opponents with two sides of an argument ? 

[strawhillram]

6 minutes ago, rammieib said:

We’re 10% into Feb now and still have zero clue what the plan is…

same could by said for 100% of jan and Dec . . .

[strawhillram]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

I think they'll examine and debate each parties arguments, and then disclose their thoughts and intentions with the hope of reaching a unanimous agreement. A bit like a panel of magistrates decide an outcome I would imagine. I guess which way each voted may not be made public though if that's what you meant.

 I think they'll examine and debate each parties arguments, and then disclose their thoughts and intentions and then give Gibson a call to get his verdict.

[Indy]

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

This gives the EFL a potential problem. Those named have an operating model where they buy cheap and sell big, if they don't sell big the model implodes. There  large debts over the Covid period are in most part due to the slump in the transfer market. They have asked for a proportion of the debt to be excluded due to this.

The EFL's problem is that I doubt if they have done this for Reading and Derby. Also how do you quantify the amount lost as it could be that you don't have suitable players to sell for circa £20m. Also is the slump in fees true? Forest have just turned down £12m for Johnson (good player) which is a large sum!

So if the EFL allow the exclusion of more Covid debt than for Reading and Derby do those clubs (bearing in mind they look likely to be contesting  the 4th from bottom place) have a case against the EFL and other clubs for loss of income?  

It’s worse than that though, isn’t it? It’s not just that we haven’t had the same consideration on player value due to Covid. Didn’t the amortisation case finding (the final one that gave weight to the expert witness testimony) specifically say that the notional disposal value of a player could not be part of a club’s accounts. As our whole amortisation method was based around the changing notional values of players, they reasoned that it wasn’t valid. So to allow it now would raise questions about our 9 point deduction.

If they argue that it wouldn’t apply to our amortisation figures because it was as a result of Covid being a force majeure event, then that calls into question why we weren’t allowed to make that case in relation to our administration 12 point deduction. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

11 minutes ago, rammieib said:

We’re 10% into Feb now and still have zero clue what the plan is…

We have a fully documented plan

1. Prayer

2. Fingers crossed

3. The wearing of lucky underwear

 

[cosmic]

26 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

He doesn’t know

[RoyMac5]

Just now, cosmic said:

He doesn’t know

He often knows more than others do.

[Ghost of Clough]

31 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

Plange and Kellyman get us to the end of March. Funding beyond that depends on funding raised without any public knowledge. 

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Plange and Kellyman get us to the end of March. Funding beyond that depends on funding raised without any public knowledge. 

? Huh.

[strawhillram]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Plange and Kellyman get us to the end of March. Funding beyond that depends on funding raised without any public knowledge. 

I know nothing of that funding

[Ghost of Clough]

14 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

? Huh.

Badly worded. I was thinking more loans, selling clauses (such as Delap's sell-on), etc. The things we won't necessarily find out

[Rammeister]

43 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

same could by said for 100% of jan and Dec . . .

Could be said for 100% of the time from 1976.

[Woodley Ram]

44 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s worse than that though, isn’t it? It’s not just that we haven’t had the same consideration on player value due to Covid. Didn’t the amortisation case finding (the final one that gave weight to the expert witness testimony) specifically say that the notional disposal value of a player could not be part of a club’s accounts. As our whole amortisation method was based around the changing notional values of players, they reasoned that it wasn’t valid. So to allow it now would raise questions about our 9 point deduction.

If they argue that it wouldn’t apply to our amortisation figures because it was as a result of Covid being a force majeure event, then that calls into question why we weren’t allowed to make that case in relation to our administration 12 point deduction. 

Excellent point

[jimtastic56]

Wayne was not happy with the Admin team in his post match interview. Lack of communication was a problem and he wants to know where the transfer fees are going.

[Orphanram]

I comment very infrequently, I always try to hold a balanced view and have this far been sceptical of the administrators but accepting of the difficult job they have. WR’s Interview has just shone a light on exactly who and what they are. Sending the manager a text message to say a player is leaving is a grade A example of cowardice and poor leadership, which they are being paid handsomely to demonstrate regardless of the tough task they have. Enough is enough has been a phrase targeted at the EFL but Q need the same public pressure applied to them from now on in. I’m sure there will likely be a queue of Neville Chamberlains ready to hand wring and say just let them get on with it but if something smells smelly than it’s probably smelly. 

[Kingpin]

2 minutes ago, Orphanram said:

but Q need the same public pressure applied to them from now on in.

Yes. Who remembers them coming in as if they were minor celebs. Seems a long time ago. 

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, Orphanram said:

I comment very infrequently, I always try to hold a balanced view and have this far been sceptical of the administrators but accepting of the difficult job they have. WR’s Interview has just shone a light on exactly who and what they are. Sending the manager a text message to say a player is leaving is a grade A example of cowardice and poor leadership, which they are being paid handsomely to demonstrate regardless of the tough task they have. Enough is enough has been a phrase targeted at the EFL but Q need the same public pressure applied to them from now on in. I’m sure there will likely be a queue of Neville Chamberlains ready to hand wring and say just let them get on with it but if something smells smelly than it’s probably smelly. 

Sounds worrying. If they don't have the guts to speak to Wayne, how can we expect them to stand up to the EFL?

[hintonsboots]

3 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Wayne was not happy with the Admin team in his post match interview. Lack of communication was a problem and he wants to know where the transfer fees are going.

Well Mel wasn’t speaking to him in the end, and Q are Mel by proxy, so no change there.