Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

That statement is so full of generalisations it's untrue. 

Ashley seems to get slagged for running low cost business models, well fair play to him if that's how he's made his pile. 

When you've accumulated an amount of wealth equivalent to Ashley's then I guess you will be in a position to criticise. 

Yeah. Get rich by exploiting other people. It's the British way.  The empire was built on it. ?

Rule Britannia....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

What a strange thing to post - It's not the 18th century you know, one doesn't have to be landed to vote, people are entitled their opinion regardless of their wealth.

Thanks for pointing that out to me, much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

That statement is so full of generalisations it's untrue. 

Ashley seems to get slagged for running low cost business models, well fair play to him if that's how he's made his pile. 

When you've accumulated an amount of wealth equivalent to Ashley's then I guess you will be in a position to criticise. 

Tyler posts a sentence "That statement is so full of generalisations it's untrue"

On a message board that's full of generalisations it's untrue ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Not looked for any news all day and waited until after I’d driven all the way home to check the forum.

I was laughing when I read the updates.

You couldn’t make it up about us could you?

Shambles.

All the posts, from a wide cross section of supporters, shows the depth of concern about the club.????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCFC will need monthly cash injections of approx £1m to trade on an ongoing basis, as well as additional cash injections to pay down HMRC and unsecured creditors over the next 36 months. It would appear that for whatever reason, money laundering issues, public holidays, month has got a Y in it, golf tournaments or cash availability, there is a problem in funds meeting deadlines, if this was an ongoing issue then DCFC would not be able to trade for an extended period of time.

  Therefore Q in my opinion have picked the wrong PB and would do well to revisit alternative interested parties asap.

FWIW the administrators are a preferred creditor and given the lack of realisable assets left in the club the "lucky" buyer of the club will have to pay their fees on top of the selling price of the club, given the animosity towards MA by Q and vice versa, in my opinion that is potential reason why MA is being ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Exactly this. It's totally..."Aggh, ...we've been expecting you... Mr Kirchener". It seems very cunning and calculated with more than a smidgen of chicanery. It adds to a general mis-trust of MA that his conduct is less than perhaps it seems {Oh look I've got £28 M just sitting here waiting for you to talk to me}. Then again, some people would just say "that's business" and slap MA on the back in a Silverback/Aplha Male sort of way before giving him a bear hug and suggest they go on a hunting trip together.  

CK's demeanour at the golf tourno where he was door-stepped suggests that he was fuming because he knows he's been played by forces beyond his control after all of his concerted and genuine efforts.

 

Wow. MA must be more influential than I thought if he's managed to delay CK's transfer of funds long enough (using AML checks or whatever) to enable him to jump in and save the day.?

I like CK and would much prefer him to MA (based purely on reputations) but something doesn't sit comfortably with me regarding the claim that he's tried to send the money (a number of times according to some reports) but it's being held up for an extraordinarily long time with AML checks.

My hope is that the fact that Q haven't yet withdrawn his PB status indicates that they have seen evidence that the funds have been sent and should be cleared shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tamworthram said:

Wow. MA must be more influential than I thought if he's managed to delay CK's transfer of funds long enough (using AML checks or whatever) to enable him to jump in and save the day.?

I like CK and would much prefer him to MA (based purely on reputations) but something doesn't sit comfortably with me regarding the claim that he's tried to send the money (a number of times according to some reports) but it's being held up for an extraordinarily long time with AML checks.

My hope is that the fact that Q haven't yet withdrawn his PB status indicates that they have seen evidence that the funds have been sent and should be cleared shortly.

To be fair, there could be merit to the claim it's being held up for a longer time due to it being transferred from crypto currency or originally having been earned from crypto, as opposed to a more traditional income source. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Charlotte Ram said:

DCFC will need monthly cash injections of approx £1m to trade on an ongoing basis, as well as additional cash injections to pay down HMRC and unsecured creditors over the next 36 months. It would appear that for whatever reason, money laundering issues, public holidays, month has got a Y in it, golf tournaments or cash availability, there is a problem in funds meeting deadlines, if this was an ongoing issue then DCFC would not be able to trade for an extended period of time.

  Therefore Q in my opinion have picked the wrong PB and would do well to revisit alternative interested parties asap.

FWIW the administrators are a preferred creditor and given the lack of realisable assets left in the club the "lucky" buyer of the club will have to pay their fees on top of the selling price of the club, given the animosity towards MA by Q and vice versa, in my opinion that is potential reason why MA is being ignored.

Quantuma aren't going to do that if, as suggested Kirchner's money should arrive shortly and his offer is the best for the creditors. Mike Ashley isn't being ignored, his bid just simply isn't good enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Am sure the Roman Empire was built using slaves as a foundation to it but let's not let facts get in the way of progressing a personal agenda 

So you're not familiar with slavery and the British Empire then?

Besides, all of these examples do not justify Mike Ashley's employment practices.

And what personal agenda are you accusing me of having???

Edited by IslandExile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

To be fair, there could be merit to the claim it's being held up for a longer time due to it being transferred from crypto currency or originally having been earned from crypto, as opposed to a more traditional income source. 

I agree and that may be why the PB status hasn't been withdrawn yet but, it must be released eventually.

As I've said before, for me the critical thing will be if the PB status is withdrawn. If it is then my money would on either the money hasn't been sent or CK can't prove it has. It should be relatively easy for him to prove the money has left his account.

Crypto is of course relatively new and will carry a higher degree of risk but I'm sure the banks will have developed an AML process for such sources of funds. In any event, MA wouldn't have any influence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Isnt this removal of exclusivity another red herring?

As I said yesterday, contracts have been exchanged. 

Removing exclusivity may give the administrators opportunity to speak to other parties about a deal BUT unless Kirchner has broken any conditions of the contract the deal is still his to complete.

Other than on here, have you noticed that you actually see very few red herrings nowadays. All those grey herrings from that America are the problem my mum says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IslandExile said:

So you're not familiar with slavery and the British Empire then?

Besides, all of these examples do not justify Mike Ashley's employment practices.

Yes but you were singling out the British Empire in particular when in fact the Roman Empires use of slaves predated that by hundreds of years. 

Just found it strange that you chose to mention one instance but conveniently ignore another.

Ashley got done for indirectly not paying staff minimum wage by artificially extending their working day with unpaid bag searches at the end of it.

Not sure how you can even mention the word slavery in the same breath as this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Am sure the Roman Empire was built using slaves as a foundation to it but let's not let facts get in the way of progressing a personal agenda 

Doesn't make it acceptable just because people throughout history have exploited other people. Personally I don't want Ashley and if he owns the club I will not got to matches. Just my own little stand against a man whose business model I don't like. I left DW sports when he took it over. Sometimes you have to make a stand. I didn't go to matches when Robert Maxwell owned the club either. If other people support him that's fine,  that's their choice.

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...