The Administration Thread

[Ramarena]

28 minutes ago, angieram said:

 

I haven’t been paying attention to Wigans woes, but do I have it right that this is the fourth failure to pay players, but first punishment?

[Ghost of Clough]

4 hours ago, Ramarena said:

I haven’t been paying attention to Wigans woes, but do I have it right that this is the fourth failure to pay players, but first punishment?

1st offence is usually the suspended penalty. Begs the question why it takes 4 separate occasions for a penalty to actually kick in. 

The EFL are laughably inconsistent:

Derby - 1 month = 3 points suspended penalty

Sheff Weds - 4 months (1 occasion) = 6 points suspended penalty

Wigan - 3 months (3 occasions) = 3 points suspended penalty

Edited March 20, 2023 by Ghost of Clough

[G STAR RAM]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

1st offence is usually the suspended penalty. Begs the question why it takes 4 separate occasions for a penalty to actually kick in. 

The EFL are laughably inconsistent:

Derby - 1 month = 3 points suspended penalty

Sheff Weds - 4 months (1 occasion) = 6 points suspended penalty

Wigan - 3 months (3 occasions) = 3 points suspended penalty

Spellchecker appears to have chaged incompetent to inconsistent 

[ram59]

On 20/03/2023 at 21:39, Ghost of Clough said:

1st offence is usually the suspended penalty. Begs the question why it takes 4 separate occasions for a penalty to actually kick in. 

The EFL are laughably inconsistent:

Derby - 1 month = 3 points suspended penalty

Sheff Weds - 4 months (1 occasion) = 6 points suspended penalty

Wigan - 3 months (3 occasions) = 3 points suspended penalty

Yes that Derby 1 month was down to a failed take over by someone who passed the EFL fit and proper test, the wages were paid shortly after. Sheff Wed and Wigan both committed multiple breeches with the current owners at fault.

[Carnero]

https://www.marketingderby.co.uk/news/the-reluctant-hero-who-brought-rams-back-from-the-brink/?utm_content=buffer6c918&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Interview with David Clowes 🖤

[Caerphilly Ram]

1 hour ago, Carnero said:

https://www.marketingderby.co.uk/news/the-reluctant-hero-who-brought-rams-back-from-the-brink/?utm_content=buffer6c918&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Interview with David Clowes 🖤

Full interview is available via the digital version of the magazine here;

https://heyzine.com/flip-book/8867b12b48.html
 

I found that really interesting and insightful, shed light on the acquisition of the club including conversations with Kirchner (🫣) about the stadium. Talks up Stephen Pearce (I know, I know) and Warne, and perhaps most importantly for me the plan of being back in the championship within 5 years. That perspective from the owner is key as it matches my own expectations. I’d love us to win promotion as soon as possible but if it doesn’t happen I can process the disappointment and understand the broader context of our situation. What a top bloke he is! 

[angieram]

How complicated is this? 

The firm who owns the ground is the same three people who own the club, and the reason they are going into administration is because they can't pay back a loan made for the purchase of the ground by a company owned by one of the owners of the club (and the ground!) 

Honestly, makes Mel look like a saint, some of this stuff! 

[B4ev6is]

Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then.

[RoyMac5]

24 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then.

Did our ground go into administration?

[Tamworthram]

22 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then.

Give it rest B4. What rules have Peterborough broken? IF the club ever goes into administration then we can see if they’re treated differently.

[Sparkle]

18 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Did our ground go into administration?

The only bit that didn’t 😂

[DavesaRam]

All it means is that Peterborough or its owner(s) didn’t upset the EFL by threatening a breakaway league.

[Grumpy Git]

58 minutes ago, angieram said:

How complicated is this? 

The firm who owns the ground is the same three people who own the club, and the reason they are going into administration is because they can't pay back a loan made for the purchase of the ground by a company owned by one of the owners of the club (and the ground!) 

Honestly, makes Mel look like a saint, some of this stuff! 

I think the term is ‘leverage’?

Basically a rich man’s method to buy stuff with debt but not be on the hook if it goes tits-up.

[Tyler Durden]

1 hour ago, B4ev6is said:

Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then.

There's a guy who works for me reminds me a lot about you B4. He constantly harps on at me about perceived injustices he thinks he's been on the wrong end of in the dim and distant past and in some cases he's regurgitating stuff from literally 20 years ago 

I keep telling him to try to move on as it's not helping his mental wellbeing any.

And that no one can change what's happened in the past but we can strive to make sure that we deal with things in a professional and appropriate and consistent and even manner going forward.

Just some food for thought for yourself I guess.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Tyler Durden

[ram59]

3 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Give it rest B4. What rules have Peterborough broken? IF the club ever goes into administration then we can see if they’re treated differently.

But are the Peterborough owners guilty of sharp practice here?  Let's face it, if the owners of the club and the ground are one and the same, then it appears that the debt has effectively been transferred to the company owning the ground in order to avoid punishments being given to the club. Is the reason that the company owning the ground is in financial trouble, the fact that the club are not paying the going rate, to use the ground. In other words cheating to avoid FFP. If the club paid the going rate to use the ground, would it mean that it was the club going into receivership rather than the company owning the ground?

Brighton have a similar arrangement, the owner of the club owns the ground which cost about £140m to build, he charges the club a nominal fee to use the ground and runs up losses at the company which owns the ground, these debt is now closer to £200m. The owner is effectively subsidising the club, much like the taxpayer is subsidising West Ham with the national stadium, but the taxpayer doesn't also own West Ham and so doesn't gain any benefit.

[Tamworthram]

8 hours ago, ram59 said:

But are the Peterborough owners guilty of sharp practice here?  Let's face it, if the owners of the club and the ground are one and the same, then it appears that the debt has effectively been transferred to the company owning the ground in order to avoid punishments being given to the club. Is the reason that the company owning the ground is in financial trouble, the fact that the club are not paying the going rate, to use the ground. In other words cheating to avoid FFP. If the club paid the going rate to use the ground, would it mean that it was the club going into receivership rather than the company owning the ground?

Brighton have a similar arrangement, the owner of the club owns the ground which cost about £140m to build, he charges the club a nominal fee to use the ground and runs up losses at the company which owns the ground, these debt is now closer to £200m. The owner is effectively subsidising the club, much like the taxpayer is subsidising West Ham with the national stadium, but the taxpayer doesn't also own West Ham and so doesn't gain any benefit.

I don't know the full details of Peterborough's case or how much rent they pay but, as I see it, they haven't broken any rules so you can't accuse the EFL of treating us worse than them. 

If you think back to our circumstances, if Mel's company that owned PP had gone into administration but not Derby County then we wouldn't have been treated in the same was as we were.

[richinspain]

26 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I don't know the full details of Peterborough's case or how much rent they pay but, as I see it, they haven't broken any rules so you can't accuse the EFL of treating us worse than them. 

If you think back to our circumstances, if Mel's company that owned PP had gone into administration but not Derby County then we wouldn't have been treated in the same was as we were.

But the EFL could invent some new rules and backdate them!

[angieram]

9 hours ago, ram59 said:

But are the Peterborough owners guilty of sharp practice here?  Let's face it, if the owners of the club and the ground are one and the same, then it appears that the debt has effectively been transferred to the company owning the ground in order to avoid punishments being given to the club. Is the reason that the company owning the ground is in financial trouble, the fact that the club are not paying the going rate, to use the ground. In other words cheating to avoid FFP. If the club paid the going rate to use the ground, would it mean that it was the club going into receivership rather than the company owning the ground?

Brighton have a similar arrangement, the owner of the club owns the ground which cost about £140m to build, he charges the club a nominal fee to use the ground and runs up losses at the company which owns the ground, these debt is now closer to £200m. The owner is effectively subsidising the club, much like the taxpayer is subsidising West Ham with the national stadium, but the taxpayer doesn't also own West Ham and so doesn't gain any benefit.

Absolutely guilty of sharp practice. One of the  men who owns the club and the ground also owns the company that loaned the money to buy the ground. Moving it around to take the hit where it causes least harm.

But not against EFL rules. 

Currently. 😉

[kevinhectoring]

13 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Give it rest B4. What rules have Peterborough broken? IF the club ever goes into administration then we can see if they’re treated differently.

Seems likely the stadium company is bust because the club can’t afford a market rent. But that the club is being kept away from the insolvency because that way the owners can do a deal with the banks without EFL sanctions 

[Ian Buxton's Bat]

I don't know the ins and out of the Peterborough situation but it seems that there are many ways to run a club [i.e. players, staff, kit, ground and training facilities (owned or rented), travel etc] at a significant loss without falling foul of the very precise FFP rules.

We've heard of various ruses.....selling ground to yourself, having a 'sister club to play the transfer market via inflated, under-inflated player values, having other companies under the same parent company and shifting funds around etc. Without proper scrutiny it's hard to know how much of this this true and how much is mud-slinging.

Maybe the EFL and premier league would be better to take a holistic look at finances, state what activities are required to run a club and look at the aggregated profit and loss of the contrived portfolio of companies that are used to play accountancy gymnastics.....of course a bugger of a job.

One thing that can't be disputed is that the company that owns the Peterborough ground is not in financial trouble because of over-spend on the number of toilets in the away end.