The Administration Thread

[angieram]

7 hours ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Says the solicitors have refused consent in the body of the text. The solicitors who represent the various bidders do not want to speak to the EFL, more than likely under instruction from their clients, the bidders themselves. 
It’s good that Birch has taken time to respond to the supporters groups, something Quantuma have failed to do so far following the collective letter of concern that was sent. He’s clarified a couple of useful points around dates for admin and, as Roymac pointed out, there is one “unofficial” deadline as this week Q need to evidence that we can find funding to finish the season (which we kind of knew), other than that it’s just a sort of courteous reply that doesn't offer much.

The EFL want to be more involved in the process, but unless the prospective bidders consent they cannot be, and the line about solicitors not consenting makes it very clear, until someone is ready to show their hand fully the EFL, and the fans, have to wait. 
I’m sat here hoping the reason for Quantuma’s silence once again is because they’re too busy fielding calls from the interested parties and also planning/budgeting for us to be able to see out the season and that we will hear some sort of progress this week. Naively optimistic of me I know, I’m just not ready to lose all hope just yet. Keep the faith folks ? 
 

Quantuma did respond to the original letter, Caerphilly, they just said nothing.

"We have since corresponded with Quantuma to ask what the deadline is for receiving bids. The response was that although it has been made clear to bidders that timescales are short, no specific deadlines have been set, but there is good progress."

That's why RamsTrust composed the second letter, which was a bit more forceful and was agreed and signed by several of the supporters groups. You are right that so far Quantuma haven't responded to that one! 

I feel there are two separate conflicts here.

The first one is between prospective bidders, who are carefully leaking selective information to the press in the hope of pushing rivals into making statements that give them insight into where they should be pitching their own bids.

The second one is a war of attrition between Quantuma and the EFL, with neither of them trusting the other.

I think the EFL are convinced that Quantuma aren't playing with a straight bat and appear to be manipulating the bidding process in support of their preferred purchasers, rather than running an open competition. I would imagine that the EFL are very suspicious that the former owner might have something to do with that.

I think that Quantuma are very suspicious of the EFL's motives in wanting confidential information that may be used against them by the EFL in making threats against the future status of the club and then interfering in the bidding process. Are Quantuma thinking this completely independently, or is a former owner putting these suspicions into their head? 

I like your optimistic take on events. Mine is less so, in that I can see no sensible reason for Quantuma spending so long on Kirchner and his bid if they thought there were other credible bids out there.

I therefore think they are trying to fool someone to throw enough cash on the table to get us out of this mess whilst satisfying the intransigent demands of the former owner. I am increasingly thinking they won't succeed and I think the EFL think the same, hence the current standoff. I hope you're right and I'm wrong!

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

But that's illogical. 

At the point of entering administration, we owed  c£193m. That is the direct comparison with the above list.

OK, it seems from the administrators update that Mel hasn't claimed the £123.4m, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist, nor that the owners of the other clubs wouldn't do something similar if they went into admin.

To compare our £70m with Stoke's £230m is comparing apples to oranges - they are two different things.

No we didn't owe £193m on entering administration.

There is not £123m that MM could have claimed from the club.

You cannot buy shares in a company and then claim the money back if things go tits up.

[I know nuffin]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Exactly. Birch's reply says Q has told the EFL that they have responsibilities under GDPR. Why on Earth should EFL need to be told this? 

All whitewash being poured over it just for public consumption trying to make the EFL look good. If we are bought they can claim it was them that made the difference, if we go under my they tried to help. Trying to make themselves reluctant and fend off TCs reorganization.

[CBRammette]

35 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

But we dont owe £123.4m to MM so its irrelevant.

MM has pulled the plug and our club owes somewhere in the region of £70m.

If the clubs listed above had their owners pull the plug that is what they would owe.

Just correcting the poster that was saying our debts are the highest ever seen in the Championship, they are not even close.

 

Unfortunately our main debts are owed to people who want it back. MM certainly made sure of that

[alexxxxx]

I didn't think gdpr applied to businesses, just individuals. 

 

[angieram]

And Mel Morris did threaten to call his "loans" to the club in when there was talk of him paying for part of the MSD debt, so I think they are comparable.

[RamBeauIV]

5 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I didn't think gdpr applied to businesses, just individuals. 

 

Not quite correct.  e.g. BA got fined £20M for breaching GDPR.

[alram]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No we didn't owe £193m on entering administration.

There is not £123m that MM could have claimed from the club.

You cannot buy shares in a company and then claim the money back if things go tits up.

mel morris could absolutely have claimed the £123m owed but as an unsecured credtior. he could decide tomorrow that he wants his money back and could add a huge amount onto the purchase price of the club, we couldnt get out of admin without his approval.

 

all the clubs you mentioned in that list is mainly made up of debt owed to the owners from money they put in

 

you need to stop going on like our club has been run normal for the past few years. it is anything but normal, we have run up tax debts and loan debts which need to be paid back, a big difference between that type of debt and owner debt.

 

compare debts between owner debt and other debt with clubs in that list and you will see how much trouble we are in compared to every club in any division.

Edited June 19, 2022 by alram

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, angieram said:

I like your optimistic take on events. Mine is less so, in that I can see no sensible reason for Quantuma spending so long on Kirchner and his bid if they thought there were other credible bids out there.

I therefore think they are trying to fool someone to throw enough cash on the table to get us out of this mess whilst satisfying the intransigent demands of the former owner. I am increasingly thinking they won't succeed and I think the EFL think the same, hence the current standoff. I hope you're right and I'm wrong!

I think those two paragraphs are related. Q went CK because he was the only person willing to pay the 'Buy it Now' price.

Currently we have an Ebay auction on with no end date. Although the EFL could have set the fixtures date as the end date they haven't, but surely Q could choose that date. They must have realised by now that the 'Buy it Now' price is too much and no-one will pay it and they need to force bids?

Or, sod it, if Appleby has really bid £50m take it and run! ?

[CBRammette]

11 minutes ago, angieram said:

Quantuma did respond to the original letter, Caerphilly, they just said nothing.

"We have since corresponded with Quantuma to ask what the deadline is for receiving bids. The response was that although it has been made clear to bidders that timescales are short, no specific deadlines have been set, but there is good progress."

That's why RamsTrust composed the second letter, which was a bit more forceful and was agreed and signed by several of the supporters groups. You are right that so far Quantuma haven't responded to that one! 

I feel there are two separate conflicts here.

The first one is between prospective bidders, who are carefully leaking selective information to the press in the hope of pushing rivals into making statements that give them insight into where they should be pitching their own bids.

The second one is a war of attrition between Quantuma and the EFL, with neither of them trusting the other.

I think the EFL are convinced that Quantuma aren't playing with a straight bat and appear to be manipulating the bidding process in support of their preferred purchasers, rather than running an open competition. I would imagine that the EFL are very suspicious that the former owner might have something to do with that.

I think that Quantuma are very suspicious of the EFL's motives in wanting confidential information that may be used against them by the EFL in making threats against the future status of the club and then interfering in the bidding process. Are Quantuma thinking this completely independently, or is a former owner putting these suspicions into their head? 

I like your optimistic take on events. Mine is less so, in that I can see no sensible reason for Quantuma spending so long on Kirchner and his bid if they thought there were other credible bids out there.

I therefore think they are trying to fool someone to throw enough cash on the table to get us out of this mess whilst satisfying the intransigent demands of the former owner. I am increasingly thinking they won't succeed and I think the EFL think the same, hence the current standoff. I hope you're right and I'm wrong!

It seems where we are at the point where we need a qualified independent person in the middle of EFL and Q trusted by all parties to try and steer matters forward but time is running out

[Phuket Ram]

8 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I didn't think gdpr applied to businesses, just individuals. 

 

Yeah, I was biting my lip when I saw that too. You are of course right, GDPR only applies to individuals and their personal data. No idea why Q quoted it, but like covid, it’s a commonly referenced excuse these days

[CBRammette]

11 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I didn't think gdpr applied to businesses, just individuals. 

 

Yes but there would be information on individuals disclosed if details of bids are 

[angieram]

1 minute ago, CBRammette said:

It seems where we are at the point where we need a qualified independent person in the middle of EFL and Q trusted by all parties to try and steer matters forward but time is running out

That's exactly why we need an independent regulator in football. 

[Phuket Ram]

6 minutes ago, RamBeauIV said:

Not quite correct.  e.g. BA got fined £20M for breaching GDPR.

lol it is correct buddy, corporate data is nothing to do with GDPR. GDPR is law for the use of Personal Data. Of course companies get fined for breaking the rules but they are not protected by GDPR - is the point that was being made. 

[RamBeauIV]

2 minutes ago, Phuket Ram said:

Yeah, I was biting my lip when I saw that too. You are of course right, GDPR only applies to individuals and their personal data. No idea why Q quoted it, but like covid, it’s a commonly referenced excuse these days

Rubbish

[CBRammette]

7 minutes ago, RamBeauIV said:

Not quite correct.  e.g. BA got fined £20M for breaching GDPR.

Yes they as a company were fined because individual customers' data was leaked. 

[alram]

like i saiud yesterday GDPR is a convinient wall to hide behind.

 

it could all be sorted in 5 mins by all parties giving transparency.

 

but no, they want it all done in pure secracy, for god knows what reason! my guess is because Q are useless and want as few people as possible to see that.

Edited June 19, 2022 by alram

[AndyinLiverpool]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Cobblers   Q should just tell bidders that if they want to stay in the frame then they need to consent to disclosure to EFL

Once again Q make the wrong call 

Nope. Q cannot force anyone to give details to a third party and they cannot disclose information to a third party without consent.

[FlyBritishMidland]

39 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I didn't think gdpr applied to businesses, just individuals. 

 

Does apply to businesses. Maximum fine is £72M.

[PistoldPete]

42 minutes ago, angieram said:

Quantuma did respond to the original letter, Caerphilly, they just said nothing.

"We have since corresponded with Quantuma to ask what the deadline is for receiving bids. The response was that although it has been made clear to bidders that timescales are short, no specific deadlines have been set, but there is good progress."

That's why RamsTrust composed the second letter, which was a bit more forceful and was agreed and signed by several of the supporters groups. You are right that so far Quantuma haven't responded to that one! 

I feel there are two separate conflicts here.

The first one is between prospective bidders, who are carefully leaking selective information to the press in the hope of pushing rivals into making statements that give them insight into where they should be pitching their own bids.

The second one is a war of attrition between Quantuma and the EFL, with neither of them trusting the other.

I think the EFL are convinced that Quantuma aren't playing with a straight bat and appear to be manipulating the bidding process in support of their preferred purchasers, rather than running an open competition. I would imagine that the EFL are very suspicious that the former owner might have something to do with that.

I think that Quantuma are very suspicious of the EFL's motives in wanting confidential information that may be used against them by the EFL in making threats against the future status of the club and then interfering in the bidding process. Are Quantuma thinking this completely independently, or is a former owner putting these suspicions into their head? 

I like your optimistic take on events. Mine is less so, in that I can see no sensible reason for Quantuma spending so long on Kirchner and his bid if they thought there were other credible bids out there.

I therefore think they are trying to fool someone to throw enough cash on the table to get us out of this mess whilst satisfying the intransigent demands of the former owner. I am increasingly thinking they won't succeed and I think the EFL think the same, hence the current standoff. I hope you're right and I'm wrong!

Quantuma has said that Morris position hasn't changed. He wants the sale of PPS to cover the MSD charge, no more no less. I agree what you  say about CK deal being a sign of desperation, but the one good thing about that was that it did flush out an offer for tthe stadium and that at least was agreed.  Ashley may want to buy the club as well as the stadium but if his  offer requires some messy business with Morris is there really time for any of that? Wouldn't the "well heeled local business men" be a cleaner option especially if one of them has already agreed the purchase of the stadium?