Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Curtains said:

This is what I'm struggling to understand- if Appleby has made a bid, why is the process ongoing?

Unless something drastic has happened, he'll walk the fit and proper test. I can't believe someone of his standing would bid without secured funding. If Appleby has bid enough to take us out of administration and retain the golden share, why has his hand not been snapped off?...assuming it hasn't. Same would go for Ashley or Morgan.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the bid isn't sufficient to retain the golden share. So why haven't Quantuma said, 'no bids can be accepted of less than £21m (or whatever the base figure happens to be), as they won't be sufficient to retain the golden share.

At this point, surely it can't be that complicated - there must be an actual minimum figure, unless everyone is trying to square HMRC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GenBr said:

Didnt they have a £15 mill parachute payment in 19/20?

Actually maybe, the article I got my information from is actually explaining how much is still owed from that year - although they did get a guaranteed loan from Close Brothers to bring payments forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

This is what I'm struggling to understand- if Appleby has made a bid, why is the process ongoing?

Unless something drastic has happened, he'll walk the fit and proper test. I can't believe someone of his standing would bid without secured funding. If Appleby has bid enough to take us out of administration and retain the golden share, why has his hand not been snapped off?...assuming it hasn't. Same would go for Ashley or Morgan.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the bid isn't sufficient to retain the golden share. So why haven't Quantuma said, 'no bids can be accepted of less than £21m (or whatever the base figure happens to be), as they won't be sufficient to retain the golden share.

At this point, surely it can't be that complicated - there must be an actual minimum figure, unless everyone is trying to square HMRC

 

It's highly competitive in parentheses though. But isn't clear who made this comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

I think I mentioned before, he blocked me for suggesting he was best man at Gibbo’s wedding.

 Nixon's credibility is shot to pieces now, his comments about the Kirchner deal, 'the champagne's on ice', all ready to go etc.

I think I'd trust one of our tea-ladies more now regarding gossip. Unfortunately, we're down to just Rita at the moment as Marge, Ethel, & Doris  have all signed for Chelsea, Villa, & Palace in the past month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Martin wasn't the same player when he got that new McClaren deal.  Probably some of that was fitness due his gastric issues to be fair but a ridiculous contract with a wage increase.  Keogh was here too long and had far to much influence.  I think Bryson earned a contract as he was fantastic the year before but 5 yrs probably 1 too many.  Players get injured like he did and aren't quite the same.  The same could be said for Hughes who lost movement and value after his knee injury.  Forsyth should have gone 5 years ago. The biggest waste of money for me was Bent on a 1.6 million salary and then back for another year when we thought he'd gone, Blackman on a 4 year deal after the only 10 good games in his career - hope he enjoyed his 4 year holiday around Spain, Turkey etc,  Butterfield at 4 million that Boro effectivly let go on a free 12 months before,  Jozefzoon at 2.7 - another 10 game wonder,   25 k a week for 4 years for a 31 year old Anya who didn't want to play football anymore,  and 5 million on a very average Waghorn who Rangers let go for 250k the previous summer. 

Thing is look down the road at Forest.  They spent about 8 million quid on 3 midfielders last year who didn't get a game and gave Colback a reported 40 k a week after Newcastle wouldn't match their wage offer and what happened to the 13.5 million wonderkid.  Boro spent 31 million on three strikers that all went on frees in one summer.  There all at it.  I'd think the only year we clearly went crazy was when we brought in Clement the new Alex Ferguson.  We're still paying for that now.

U missed 6m bradley johnson … i mean wtf 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

But I think the more subtle and interesting mistake is that we held on to players for too long.  We should never have convinced Bryson to stay when Burnley wanted him, for example.  The same with Keogh, Martin, and probably a lot more.  We ended up renewing their contracts and paying near-premier league salaries while we were in the championship.

Yes, but at the time it was done, Rush was 'protecting assets' , but it actually rebounded on the club as you describe, tying us down to expensive contracts & inflating the wage bill in one fell swoop. We're all wiser & definitely sadder after events (hindsight), but  cashing in on one of them & re-investing in the team - you cite Brentford as the best example - is what we should have done. The only  trouble is that I can't remember us receiving many high bids., like for Martin, for instance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know. Maybe ist just a preference thing. But I don’t quite understand all the  Nixon slagging. 
 

The bloke is cryptic at times. But, to me, that just implies he’s being honest. Most stories/situations are actually boring and process driven, as opposed to fanciful and conspiracy laden. 
 

Take the CK situation; there really was nothing to suggest he wasn’t going to get the deal done. All contracts were signed and agreed. He even sent the money. All of this can actually be tracked by the parties involved. Then he pulled his offer. So up until he pulled the offer, everybody involved seemed to agree it was all going well (if not a bit lengthy). 
 

I’m sure some details will come out about why it has gone done the way it has. And I’d be surprised if those details aren’t just boring process related issues. But that’s beside the point. 
 

Nixon can be a wee bit rash and frustrating at times. But he always seems pretty level on reporting matters. Or like I said, maybe it’s just a preference thing ?‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hanny said:

You know. Maybe ist just a preference thing. But I don’t quite understand all the  Nixon slagging. 
 

The bloke is cryptic at times. But, to me, that just implies he’s being honest. Most stories/situations are actually boring and process driven, as opposed to fanciful and conspiracy laden. 
 

Take the CK situation; there really was nothing to suggest he wasn’t going to get the deal done. All contracts were signed and agreed. He even sent the money. All of this can actually be tracked by the parties involved. Then he pulled his offer. So up until he pulled the offer, everybody involved seemed to agree it was all going well (if not a bit lengthy). 
 

I’m sure some details will come out about why it has gone done the way it has. And I’d be surprised if those details aren’t just boring process related issues. But that’s beside the point. 
 

Nixon can be a wee bit rash and frustrating at times. But he always seems pretty level on reporting matters. Or like I said, maybe it’s just a preference thing ?‍♂️

Alan posting here will not make you any money. I’d keep It behind your Paetron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Agreed. But also when he reached the stage when his losses became uncomfortable for him he changed overnight from the benevolent benefactor who promised to do for Derby what the Coates had done for Stoke. He stopped talking to us and didn’t tell us that he was no longer covering his losses. Only he and Pearce knew the seriousness of the situation he had created. We knew things weren’t what they used to be but the sudden unannounced fall into administration was shocking and humiliating. Even Rooney found out through watching Sky. He filed late on a Friday and then buried his head in the sand like an ostrich. It was like the man who hadn’t paid his mortgage for months and who had stopped opening the letters from the bank, answering the door to the bailiffs and handing them the keys. It was extremely cowardly and that I am afraid is the measure of the man.

Only in this case the charlatan got to keep the house.

Agreed.  And what really grates with me is he fails to take any responsibility.  When he did the interview a couple of days after putting us in administration he blamed everyone bar himself, EFL, COVID, anything he could think of.  And when Tracey Crouch spoke to him as part of her review he said if an independent regulator was in place he wouldn’t have spent what he did and we wouldn’t be in administration.  That’s like me saying to the bank that if the cash machine didn’t keep spitting out £20 notes I wouldn’t have gone overdrawn.  Making mistakes is fine, but at least have the guts to own up to them.

Edited by FlyBritishMidland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

But over £5 m in TV and media revenue and I think we would be higher than that especially in WOrld Cup year. So I think you need to revise your revenue estimate upwards by a few million. £20 m in total seems reasonable to me.

Only if we around the top 6 when the world cup comes round,laguishing mid table or near the bottom will see Sky focus on other clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Needlesh said:

If Wayne Rooney stays, we're box office in Sky terms. If not, less so.

We have been box office because we were fighting a 21 point deduction and kept in within a glimmer of a chance to almost the very end. If we had been relegated early March the interest for Sky wouldn't have been there. Rooney won't make that much difference the novelty of him being manager will have worn off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CornwallRam said:

This is what I'm struggling to understand- if Appleby has made a bid, why is the process ongoing?

Unless something drastic has happened, he'll walk the fit and proper test. I can't believe someone of his standing would bid without secured funding. If Appleby has bid enough to take us out of administration and retain the golden share, why has his hand not been snapped off?...assuming it hasn't. Same would go for Ashley or Morgan.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the bid isn't sufficient to retain the golden share. So why haven't Quantuma said, 'no bids can be accepted of less than £21m (or whatever the base figure happens to be), as they won't be sufficient to retain the golden share.

At this point, surely it can't be that complicated - there must be an actual minimum figure, unless everyone is trying to square HMRC

 

What if his bid is along the lines of.... 

"OK guys, so I'm prepared to put in 5 mil plus whatever I can sweat out of Don Amott and the Kirkland estate" 

"and we'll keep the academy kids, the canteen sausages guaranteed, but the weights and gym equipment will be phased out by December" 

Credible or not... ?

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...