The list of people I am angry with seems to be getting longer.
The administrators may not be at the top of it, that would be reserved for MM.
But the decisions they are making, and the manner that they are making them, are undermining the managers position.

I was making the presumption that Derby actually wanted to keep him as opposed to letting him go because he wasn't going to cut it which seems reasonable if he's good enough for Villa to come sniffing. I also assume he wasn't being touted by an agent to get away so the kid would have been no worse off waiting to see what happens with the new buyer even if Derby can't currently offer him a contract. But he doesn't get a choice?

Villa don't need him right now but of course we do need the money right now due to the protracted nature of the administration but what a horrible burden to put on a 16 year old kid. I know the Admins have a job to do and it's but jeez this is awful.

I've received a reply from my MP. Not sure it will help us much in the short term at least, but we have to keep the pressure on Parry.

I know little of Omari K, but WR clearly recognised his potential enough to put him on the bench at 16. Quite a reference.
He represents the future of the club in the manner that Shinnie represented our immediate fortunes. Both of them were removed without the manager's consent.
It's as if someone, who Wayne has 'beef' with, has influence with the club's administrators is somehow (still) pulling the strings.
But now Im taking it into the realms of speculation

I read that the Shinnie deal had something to do with getting future payments for sell-on deals off the books. Like the Delap option with Man City but in reverse. Not sure if it related to Shinnie himself or the players we got from Wigan or it was both and somehow the perfect storm emerged between player and the specific buying club. And on top of that 250K in wages. An opportunity the admins felt too good to miss?

However, still something that could/should have been explained to the manager if indeed it was not.

Precisely the point, Fin

Assuming the £250K wages figure for Shinnie is accurate, it's no wonder we are in the mire.

1.9M in wages for TL, Scouse ...

There is no doubt that wages have been a huge part of the problem. Kirchner said as much when he pulled out. A model where wages outstrip revenues is not sustainable.

It's Gibson's gripe because he lost players like Waghorn to Derby because we offered double wages or something like that.

At least not sustainable without getting to the Prem of course ...

Leave the the administrators out of any blame game. They are here to do a job and their guiding principle is the creditors. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't have a choice. Not pleasant for them but if they fnck up then it's their careers and job and company that will come into the firing line along with possible legal proceedings.

Like I say - they have no choice.

And to echo Vidal - it's the EFL who are the bad guys - not fit for purpose and corrupt.


And Mel Morris - but that's gone.

Fin, Gibson's gripe about Waghorn was not that we offered higher wages. Morris agreed with Gibson that they would not engage in a bidding war but would agree the same fee and wages and let the player choose. But then Morris went behind his back and offered Ipswich more money.

comment by lastapostleofvidal (U1491)
posted 7 minutes ago
Fin, Gibson's gripe about Waghorn was not that we offered higher wages. Morris agreed with Gibson that they would not engage in a bidding war but would agree the same fee and wages and let the player choose. But then Morris went behind his back and offered Ipswich more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£500,000 more as I understand?

It would come in handy for my gas bill.

You understand that because that's what I said previously, Scouse.

comment by ViewFromCroxteth (U1581)
posted 43 minutes ago
And to echo Vidal - it's the EFL who are the bad guys - not fit for purpose and corrupt.


And Mel Morris - but that's gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by ViewFromCroxteth (U1581)
posted 42 minutes ago
Leave the the administrators out of any blame game. They are here to do a job and their guiding principle is the creditors. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't have a choice. Not pleasant for them but if they fnck up then it's their careers and job and company that will come into the firing line along with possible legal proceedings.

Like I say - they have no choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The administrators are here to do a job View, but don't for one second think they'd put their profits behind any sentimentality for the club.

They are here to make a profit and from my experience of being a creditor (they have to send you details for their fees), they make a very nice profit in ALL CASES, if the business survives or not!

comment by lastapostleofvidal (U1491)
posted 25 minutes ago
Fin, Gibson's gripe about Waghorn was not that we offered higher wages. Morris agreed with Gibson that they would not engage in a bidding war but would agree the same fee and wages and let the player choose. But then Morris went behind his back and offered Ipswich more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

£500,000 if what vidal said a few days ago is accurate.

comment by ViewFromCroxteth (U1581)
posted 45 minutes ago
Leave the the administrators out of any blame game. They are here to do a job and their guiding principle is the creditors. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't have a choice. Not pleasant for them but if they fnck up then it's their careers and job and company that will come into the firing line along with possible legal proceedings.

Like I say - they have no choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they do have a duty, and are paid enough, to ensure that there are excellent channels of communication with the manager, so that he doesnt look like a complete idiot after every pronouncement he makes to the media.

comment by lastapostleofvidal (U1491)
posted 29 minutes ago
Fin, Gibson's gripe about Waghorn was not that we offered higher wages. Morris agreed with Gibson that they would not engage in a bidding war but would agree the same fee and wages and let the player choose. But then Morris went behind his back and offered Ipswich more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it wasn't Waghorn then but there was another player where that happened. I think Matt Clarke was actually headed to Boro' before derby stepped in to derail the deal.

And how much more did Derby offer for Waghorn? I've not been able to find out that amount ....

10K fine for the Forest fracas

I might have paid that for someone to punch Samba ...

comment by 🏁 AnglianRam 🏁 (U17428)
posted about 2 hours ago
comment by ViewFromCroxteth (U1581)
posted 45 minutes ago
Leave the the administrators out of any blame game. They are here to do a job and their guiding principle is the creditors. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't have a choice. Not pleasant for them but if they fnck up then it's their careers and job and company that will come into the firing line along with possible legal proceedings.

Like I say - they have no choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they do have a duty, and are paid enough, to ensure that there are excellent channels of communication with the manager, so that he doesnt look like a complete idiot after every pronouncement he makes to the media.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by 🏁 AnglianRam 🏁 (U17428)
posted about 2 hours ago
comment by ViewFromCroxteth (U1581)
posted 45 minutes ago
Leave the the administrators out of any blame game. They are here to do a job and their guiding principle is the creditors. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't have a choice. Not pleasant for them but if they fnck up then it's their careers and job and company that will come into the firing line along with possible legal proceedings.

Like I say - they have no choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they do have a duty, and are paid enough, to ensure that there are excellent channels of communication with the manager, so that he doesnt look like a complete idiot after every pronouncement he makes to the media.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they do not have that obligation.

comment by ViewFromCroxteth (U1581)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by 🏁 AnglianRam 🏁 (U17428)
posted about 2 hours ago
comment by ViewFromCroxteth (U1581)
posted 45 minutes ago
Leave the the administrators out of any blame game. They are here to do a job and their guiding principle is the creditors. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't have a choice. Not pleasant for them but if they fnck up then it's their careers and job and company that will come into the firing line along with possible legal proceedings.

Like I say - they have no choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they do have a duty, and are paid enough, to ensure that there are excellent channels of communication with the manager, so that he doesnt look like a complete idiot after every pronouncement he makes to the media.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they do not have that obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe not but costs them nothing to be courteous and is probably a good idea all round, huh?