The Administration Thread

[Mucker1884]

10 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Stealing. Smoking. Early steps on a slipery slope towards becoming a DCFCfans forum poster....

Yeah right!  Stop trying to act cool!  I reckon you were actually the school swot!  Teacher's pet, most likely!
I bet you were up at that time of night with your head in a pile of books. 

... That's assuming the word "Slipery" is Latin?   Show off!

 

?

[kevinhectoring]

8 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

8 hours ago, David said:

There is a lot of discussion even this morning on if it's even possible, worth noting that Rick Parry hasn't instantly ruled it out unlike some fans.

 

Until someone can explain how this High Court action works, best to assume it’s legal gobbledegook. 
 

As for Parry’s comment, it doesn’t mean a jot. He’s been told there’s a proposal to resolve all this in a case in the High Court involving MM. He might reasonably say -

“well obviously it  doesn’t need my permission. But it sounds pretty unlikely,  I think some litigators need to kick the tyres on this one”.

Of course he doesn’t say that. He simply states he has no objection. It means nothing: of course he has no objection  
 

Somehow his comment has morphed on here to Parry saying: “yes I think it’s a sensible and viable way to resolve this and it should proceed  

Edited February 5, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Indy said:

100% agree. 
 

He walked out. He should shut the door behind him. 

Re Chris Kirchner:

He can always come back in. A lot of people on here doubt his financial status but his company sponsored the F1 Dubai Grand Prix last week. That doesn't come cheap. I am not at all sure where he is coming from because I find his tweets rather cryptic and my achilles heel in the puzzle world has always been cryptic crosswords. But someone on here may be able to decipher what he is saying so that we can all understand. Or maybe he could simply explain it himself for all of us to understand if he wishes to rekindle his interest?

I am encouraged by the fact that neither the Appleby bid or the Ashley awaited bid has disappeared yet because both of those parties have a track record in running clubs in the PL and EFL. CK does not but if he wants to tell us why he should be a preferred bidder, I am sure we are all ears but at the end of the day the ultimate decision falls to Q.

So as far as the fanbase is concerned, I guess all I am asking CK as just one among the many, is to explain his position or perceived grievance about how he has been treated by Q clearly. If he is not prepared to do that, please go away and leave us alone. This club has been too much part of our lives for us to be distracted by someone who has no further interest in our predicament. So if you're really out CK just move on and let us deal with our future. Otherwise make your position clear so that everyone understands.

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Guest

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

As for Parry’s comment, it doesn’t mean a jot. He’s been told there’s a proposal to resolve all this in a case in the High Court involving MM. He might reasonably say -

“well obviously it  doesn’t need my permission. But it sounds pretty unlikely,  I think some litigators need to kick the tyres on this one”.

Of course he doesn’t say that. He simply states he has no objection. It means nothing: of course he has no objection  

No it means he is speaking for the EFL - see the email address he is using!

If he can speak for the EFL without discussion...

[RadioactiveWaste]

17 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Yeah right!  Stop trying to act cool!  I reckon you were actually the school swot!  Teacher's pet, most likely!
I bet you were up at that time of night with your head in a pile of books. 

... That's assuming the word "Slipery" is Latin?   Show off!

 

?

I used to skive PE to hide in the libary reading books, yes, guilty. I really really wasn't a cool kid.

[atherstoneram]

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

What were you doing up at 11pm on a school night ?

He didn't say it was 11PM just that his mam and dad were late risers.

[Rev]

1 hour ago, one_chop said:

I used to nick my dad's fags at 11 and light them on the cooker when they was in bed. It didn't do me any harm and I never set fire to the house. The authorities go overboard nowadays.

When I was a similar age, my mum would get me to light her fags on the cooker if her lighter was out, and carry them through to the front room.

When it wouldn't light properly, she explained that I'd have to suck the cigarette while lighting, but don't duck arse the fag or I'd get a wet tea towel round the legs.

 

[kevinhectoring]

36 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

No it means he is speaking for the EFL - see the email address he is using!

If he can speak for the EFL without discussion...

if he’s saying nothing at all it doesn’t matter who he’s speaking for.   

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

if he’s saying nothing at all it doesn’t matter who he’s speaking for.   

He hasn't said "nothing at all". He has said he can't see why they would object. and it may solve "one of the jams". And in fact right now there is only one jam, or two if you count Boro and Wycombe as two. 

like you say it shouldn't be up to him. But then again how Quantuma go about rescuing the club shouldn't be up to him either but that hasn't stopped EFL poking their oar in.
 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

if he’s saying nothing at all it doesn’t matter who he’s speaking for.   

He's not said anything that matters or anyone could be held to.

Anything in that email could easily be disowned with a phrase amounting to "I'd only skimmed it, but having had time to think and read it properly there are X, y, z"

 

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

He's not said anything that matters or anyone could be held to.

Anything in that email could easily be disowned with a phrase amounting to "I'd only skimmed it, but having had time to think and read it properly there are X, y, z"

 

Yes but he's one person. Why should he speak for 'the EFL'?

[papa_lazarou]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yes but he's one person. Why should he speak for 'the EFL'?

Isn't he the figure head of the EFL....? The mouthpiece, although orifice is probably a better description due to the £_@# that comes out.

Edited February 5, 2022 by papa_lazarou

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, papa_lazarou said:

Isn't he the figure head of the EFL....? The mouthpiece, although orifice is probably a better description due to the £_@# that comes out.

Still what gives him the right to speak for them all? Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Edited February 5, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Gritstone Tup]

4 hours ago, GboroRam said:

True, but I must say it depends on the child. At 11 I think I would have been fine to stay on my own for a while. Maybe not in a strange hotel room though. 

This is an odd one, how many 11 year olds are left on a Friday and Saturday night some looking after younger siblings. I’m not saying it’s right but this is common place imo!

[Gritstone Tup]

1 hour ago, Rev said:

When I was a similar age, my mum would get me to light her fags on the cooker if her lighter was out, and carry them through to the front room.

When it wouldn't light properly, she explained that I'd have to suck the cigarette while lighting, but don't duck arse the fag or I'd get a wet tea towel round the legs.

 

A different era buddy

[papa_lazarou]

14 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Still what gives him the right to speak for them all? Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

You make a good point Roy, but these organisations tend to have one twonk who talks for everyone else. Would be very interesting if they contradicted him wouldn't it?

[davenportram]

7 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

This is an odd one, how many 11 year olds are left on a Friday and Saturday night some looking after younger siblings. I’m not saying it’s right but this is common place imo!

There’s no legal age to be left on your own either - just when parents thinks the kids are capable of looking after themselves.

[uttoxram75]

6 minutes ago, davenportram said:

There’s no legal age to be left on your own either - just when parents thinks the kids are capable of looking after themselves.

My mum and dad used to leave us in a chalet in Butlins at the Filey camp, people were employed to walk up and down the lines of chalets and report crying children.

Whilst mum and dad were living it up drinking Watneys Red Barrel and Babycham and playing bingo, the chalet numbers of bawling brats were displayed on a board like the hymn numbers in a church.

I often had to threaten my younger brothers to shut up so as not to embarrass our parents.

[Tyler Durden]

4 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

My mum and dad used to leave us in a chalet in Butlins at the Filey camp, people were employed to walk up and down the lines of chalets and report crying children.

Whilst mum and dad were living it up drinking Watneys Red Barrel and Babycham and playing bingo, the chalet numbers of bawling brats were displayed on a board like the hymn numbers in a church.

I often had to threaten my younger brothers to shut up so as not to embarrass our parents.

What about Cherry B

[uttoxram75]

3 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

What about Cherry B

Mum was a Babycham girl I think! Cherry B girls were a bit too racy!!!!!