Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

Rams trust q and a seemed a bit depressing. Just waiting for Boro to respond , .. q position is club to club claims are not allowed, but no timetable , nothing we can do to stop players signing pre contract deals .

 

have to sell young players due to current dire financial situation . Situation changed drastically from when they were 95% confident but still confident. 
 

ashley still in the frame but will still take 12 weeks to resolve even from when we name a Pb. 

meantime we are still losing money.

Mel’s offer being challenged as not doable ( at least not directly) as it’s almost all the Club’s responsibility to stick to the FFP rules , not his directly.

so how do we get out of this mess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Sheff Utd 18/19
£21.3m loss
£40.7m wage bill

When you adjust for player promotion bonuses and addon transfer fees that were dependent on promotion what does that do to the figures?

The bonuses for the players alone was 8 figures if memory serves correct. 

Edited by TooFarInToTurnRed
Mistyped number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

I thought the minutes seemed more candid than usual, less edited and careful, saying it like it is, so probably why seemed more depressing. It was very clearly stated the claims and their effect on everything are the issue, nothing else which I liked with other side always trying to make out it is more than one issue. Also liked statement about what efl not allowing, never been seen in however many years of insolvency law etc. Also had spoken with sports minister etc.

generally thought the minutes were much more informative than over-edited careful previous ones
 

Might you share the RamsTrust minutes for me?

Thank U Reaction GIF by Amanda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very difficult to see what the admin are actually doing. They have had three credible bidders/interested parties since November/December. The legal claims have been there since the beginning. We are now into the beginning of Feb?! MM has even offered to get rid of the big obstacle that was in there way. After reading the q&a they (imo) alluded to more obstacles they can use to ramp up their remuneration.

They have said in the past they are willing to work night and day to get this through but so far all I can see is hot air and not a lot of substance. It is still my opinion that MM is still pulling the strings in this whole situation. Hence why Steve Gibson is so hell bent on suing us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

I thought the minutes seemed more candid than usual, less edited and careful, saying it like it is, so probably why seemed more depressing. It was very clearly stated the claims and their effect on everything are the issue, nothing else which I liked with other side always trying to make out it is more than one issue. Also liked statement about what efl not allowing, never been seen in however many years of insolvency law etc. Also had spoken with sports minister etc.

generally thought the minutes were much more informative than over-edited careful previous ones
 

Yes as you say that's maybe why they seemed a bit depressing. Even the bit about having confidential meetings and one of the parties leaking stuff to the media. I know it has been going on, EFL implicated by Morris and you wouldn't trust Gibson with anything. They are all such a bunch of Bamfords who just seem determined too wreck us. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gritstone Ram said:

Why would anyone guarantee something they don’t have control of. If MM indemnified the club he wouldn’t control its defence. Any new owner wouldn’t want to spend much on defending the case because it wouldn’t matter if they lost. The only way it could be done as a way out is how MM said if that is possible.

Good point. The agreement needs 2 key things. 
 
1 Exactly as you say, MM would need ‘conduct of the action’. So he would call the shots and have access to all club information he requires for the defence

2 the buyer would need assurances about his ability to pay. You might say, well he’s so wealthy... But the indemnity arrangements could be in place for years. So it would probably need some sort of security, maybe a bank guarantee 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Yeah I would have thought someone from Ramstrust would have posted them here I must have seen them somewhere else  twitter or something but thanks to Brailsford for posting them here.   

I have added them to the daily updates thread now but didn't do so last night as they are exactly the same as those David added from BAWT. Even got the same formatting. Agreed by the administrators. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Good point. The agreement needs 2 key things. 
 
1 Exactly as you say, MM would need ‘conduct of the action’. So he would call the shots and have access to all club information he requires for the defence

2 the buyer would need assurances about his ability to pay. You might say, well he’s so wealthy... But the indemnity arrangements could be in place for years. So it would probably need some sort of security, maybe a bank guarantee 

Kevin is an alternative some form of assignment of a right of action? As I posted earlier it seems DCFC would have a cause for action against Morris for breach of contract. Could they not assign that right to Boro or Wycombe . I don't now if that is possible or advisable but there must be a way out of this logjam.  The indemnity from Morris may be fine if that worrks except it keeps DCFC in the loop and prolongs uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...