Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

Quite interesting assertions there. One is that the slync investors got tired of CK’s shenanigans. No surprise there. His gallivanting around may well have messed up their fundraising round leaving staff unpaid ? 
The other is the claim that Stretford ‘self reported’ to the FA. That’s a weird one given he also claims to have had legal advice that he did nothing wrong. Perhaps q told him that if he didn’t blow the whistle then they would

lots more to come  

Sounds like they’re putting pressure on Kirchner to get their money back as promised.

The club won’t get penalised for this and neither will Stratford/Triple S. The story is leaked to draw public attention to Kirchner unable to put them back in adequate time (nearly a month after the wages were paid) and they want to put pressure on him to settle the debt.

The BBC article adds the issues at Slync with funding and cash flow and it’s likely that the jet is being sold to fund the wages at Slync and DCFC while he sorts his business out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arsene Titman said:

Neither. To avoid a points deduction, football creditors need to be paid in full, whilst unsecured creditors need to be paid 25% of what is owed to them. After all that has gone on, I can’t believe you don’t know that by now.

I know that. But there was a suggestion a few pages back that DC was looking at the -15 and 25% rather than the 35% over 3 years and a clean slate. So who’s the source for that piece of supposed ITK ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The options to avoid 15 points are:
- 25% paid upfront, or
- 35% paid over 3 years
That's to unsecured creditors only. The difference between the two is only £1m. 35% also means being under the EFL's restrictions for longer than the 25% option.

Cheers GOC. I hadn’t realised that at 25% we could still avoid the -15 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jono said:

I know that. But there was a suggestion a few pages back that DC was looking at the -15 and 25% rather than the 35% over 3 years and a clean slate. So who’s the source for that piece of supposed ITK ?

Whoever is responsible, they’re factually wrong.  25%, all paid up front, also avoids any points deductions.  It’s only if you are below that (and also below the 35%/3 years) that you get penalised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, roboto said:

The club won’t get penalised for this and neither will Stratford/Triple S. 

Seems right, what you say about the club. But so far as SSS is concerned, this may just be the warm up. What the FA will want to know is: who was funding CK’s bid? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Kirchner never intended to buy the club? What evidence supports this, against the mountain of evidence that indicates he did intend to buy it ?

I’m not aware of any mountain of evidence that he did intend to buy it other than what we’ve been told by people who would want us to think that. 
 

Kirchner must have known that the money he used for proof of funds couldn’t be used to purchase the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Why would I respond to him I only get abuse ?

That statement contains glaring omissions; it should have read - I only get well deserved abuse from him and many others on this forum.

BTW it seems you've made an early lasting impression on Gisby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gisby said:

Not got a clue but the quote you attributed to me was definitely from a post by @Brailsford Ram look back on the thread (like I have) as it’s there for all to see. I know what I post and I didn’t post what you quoted. 

Just to speak from experience on this.. 

If you try to quote by highlighting a bit of text and clicking the little 'quote selection' box that pops up, and this piece of text is itself a quote  the system can't recognise this, and will treat it as if you're quoting the person who's post contained the original quote. 

Edited by Coconut's Beard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

That statement contains glaring omissions; it should have read - I only get well deserved abuse from him and many others on this forum.

BTW it seems you've made an early lasting impression on Gisby.

Personally, I believe no poster should be receiving abuse from any other poster on this Forum, we’re better than that. This isn’t the Bristol City fans forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Turk Thrust said:

Think it’s the FA

According to the Daily Fail it is both. As for who leaked it well the first story went to Percy.. who gets most of the EFL's propaganda, then Matt Hughes another mouthpiece for EFL. Nixon out of the loop for obvious reasons.  

Edited by PistoldPete
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...