The Administration Thread

[DCFC27]

17 minutes ago, BobdeBilder said:

To my way of thinking, if Ed Dawes is confident enough in the information he was told, he should name the person providing the information.

Good way of never getting information from them again. 
 

[Mostyn6]

25 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

3 to 4 hours depending on your ability. Obviously I am in the 3 hour bracket. (Excellent when playing with my balls)

It's always a lot quicker when you blob out of bounds off the tee.

[Redlandram]

Dear All 

I strongly suspect that this is a matter of the buyer having to satisfy Anti Money Laundering requirements so routine but painful. 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, RipleyRich said:

I'm not sure that starting the season in administration is possible without a squad and under a Transfer embargo.

Unless of course the EFL are prepared to bend the rules.

You clearly know nothing then about the so called rules 

[Comrade 86]

14 minutes ago, Alpha said:

The guy spending 20m won't lose anything. He's buying something. By choice. 

Lazy answer by that guy. Probably sounded really cool and flippant in his head. 

And being ritually harassed daily (as is his wife) on Twatter for the 'privilege' of saving a football club.

Think your assessment is a tad binary mate. Not pleasant at all for any party bar the trolls who want to see the club fail.

[DJAY]

Paraphrasing Kirchner, he said something along the lines of "I surround myself with people who know what they're doing". Ok fair enough, he's busy doing other things, but surely he could have handed the process off to Garry Cook whilst he was otherwise engaged who would be able to keep us updated on the situation.

The issue we have here is there has been very little communication since the last missed deadline. Very little communication breeds confusion and speculation! If he had handed this to someone like Garry Cook to update accordingly means he can do his golf tournament, and Garry Cook could keep people updated. Even if it was an update, from someone official, to state that proceedings were still ongoing.

[Caerphilly Ram]

16 minutes ago, Alpha said:

The guy spending 20m won't lose anything. He's buying something. By choice. 

Lazy answer by that guy. Probably sounded really cool and flippant in his head. 

Which typically seems to be Nixon’s approach 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

Great, Saudi blood money is involved which definitely makes it an attractive proposition. What is 120k to Kirchner? he's supposed to be on the verge of tying up a 20 million pound deal for us. I presume this is the same tournament that is trying to rival the PGA and they have not taken kindly to it past the inaugural event which they're not going to bar anyone from. 

There’s very few people in the world with a lot of money who haven’t trampled over lots of others to get it in a variety of unpleasant ways.

[Seth's left foot]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Do we know if the non playing staff at Newcastle United were treated the same as the Sports Direct workforce?

Good point.

[Alph]

Just now, 86 Hair Islands said:

And being ritually harassed daily (as is his wife) on Twatter for the 'privilege' of saving a football club.

Think your assessment is a tad binary mate. Not pleasant at all for any party bar the trolls who want to see the club fail.

I stopped reading twitter after BLM. Seems everybody is at extremes all the time. 

Probably, I just didn't like that guys response to concerned fans who for some Derby is about more than football. I know for a lot it's their only escape and their entire social life. 

I didn't even know he'd had grief online. Should have guessed

[jimtastic56]

48 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Ed Dawes is to journalism what Heather Mills is to tap dancing.

Not very P C to compare Ed to a person with a disability. But Ed has really put his reputation on the line here. Are we all going to apologise if his story turns out to be true?

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, jimtastic56 said:

Not very P C to compare Ed to a person with a disability. But Ed has really put his reputation on the line here. Are we all going to apologise if his story turns out to be true?

No, he'll get twitter rage as if he was the one who made it collapse out of spite because some people are more angry than sensible.

[Comrade 86]

8 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Seems everybody is at extremes all the time. 

Not everybody, just the usual noisy minority who shout down the calmer heads. Still the best source for a lot of information despite that, if you can ignore the baying few. That's not always easy I concede ?

[Leeds Ram]

11 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

There’s very few people in the world with a lot of money who haven’t trampled over lots of others to get it in a variety of unpleasant ways.

That doesn't mean you abandon certain moral principles. There's a difference between Mike Ashley (willing to conduct unethical business practices to get a better deal and make quick buck) and regimes that commit gross human rights violations who treat their 'citizens' as 'subjects' who have no guaranteed rights or protections from systematic abuse. 

[i-Ram]

9 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Not very P C to compare Ed to a person with a disability. But Ed has really put his reputation on the line here. Are we all going to apologise if his story turns out to be true?

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

8 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Not very P C to compare Ed to a person with a disability. But Ed has really put his reputation on the line here. Are we all going to apologise if his story turns out to be true?

He shouldn’t be attacked. Maybe his info is wrong but he could possibly be right. The sale should be completed by now surely? And also Dawes said Kirchener had stopped contact- surely Kirchener would put in some reassurance, not just go quiet. I think if Dawes had it in good authority the deal is off, he was right to report that. At the moment it looks like he could be correct. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

That doesn't mean you abandon certain moral principles. There's a difference between Mike Ashley (willing to conduct unethical business practices to get a better deal and make quick buck) and regimes that commit gross human rights violations who treat their 'citizens' as 'subjects' who have no guaranteed rights or protections from systematic abuse. 

And obviously what involvement you have, did you sell advanced weaponry to this regime or happen to play golf with someone from the regime - both may individually questionable but are very different circumstances with very different implications.

(I know it's off topic,but I don't think there is a worse industry in terms of ethics than the arms industry - however, when you need to fight a war,you need arms to do it with...)

[Sparkle]

9 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

That doesn't mean you abandon certain moral principles. There's a difference between Mike Ashley (willing to conduct unethical business practices to get a better deal and make quick buck) and regimes that commit gross human rights violations who treat their 'citizens' as 'subjects' who have no guaranteed rights or protections from systematic abuse. 

Do you know that the oil/ petrol in your transport is probably Saudi or the home you live in is heated possibly from a despot not to mention a nice shopping trip owned by the same type of people - moral principles should be best served by the blind whilst those with vision turn away or not acknowledge reality. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Sparkle

[Comrade 86]

16 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

Not very P C to compare Ed to a person with a disability. But Ed has really put his reputation on the line here. Are we all going to apologise if his story turns out to be true?

What do we 'all' have to apologise for? Not sure I get where you're going with this. 

[hintonsboots]