BTRFTG

Not normally, but this one's puffed-up, nobody really likes it, it's well past it's best by date so I named it CoD.

I doubt few amongst the £30+ million on our wage bill could be described as requiring 'hardship' payments. That said, if the players here ever needed use of a food bank there's a two decades out of date tin of mixed fruit with CoDs name on it at the back of one of my cupboards.

I think at lower levels they do but there's no binding obligation on them so to do, it's hardship payments. But in those cases most players are given their contracts to work elsewhere. Wonder what would happen for somebody on £30k per week?

I see Dylan Williams is reported to have been sold for decent money despite having played few first team matches I wonder if that's to do with him being on a second year scholar's contract out of the Academy such if they go bust he immediately goes on a free?

Reg 66 seems pretty specific that it's club payments outstanding they'll cover, not player wages. That's my point about players being constrained (by contract?) without consideration. Makes no sense to me.

I'd imagine they fall on fixed dates or at fixed performance targets and if they aren't hit pre liquidation they'll be lost given they never were crystalised.

One assumes players are paid in arrears, such unless there's extraordinary payment the day prior to liquidation there might be an element of unpaid wages. There's also the intriguing possibility of what might happen if, pre-liquidation, players claim constructive dismissal owing to their employer's conduct? In normal circumstance there would be little point given the employer would go bust, but there's also an onus on the employee to mitigate the employer's potential losses (even in insolvency,) and how might they do that if not being able to play elsewhere owing to a 3rd party preventing them from so doing?

More good points but wouldn't that further strengthen a player's hand? One presumes the EFL owe a duty of care to those whose registrations they seek to hold for their members benefit. If a player demonstrates a club was allowed to continue operating without a realistic chance of fulfilling the contract held by the player (not difficult once the contract has been annulled,) might they not have a claim against the EFL for failure to act?

I get that for lower league but when it comes to multi-million pound players I wouldn't be so sure. Doubtless the EFL claim they have a 'contract' with each player via whatever was in the annulled contract but that being the case what's the 'consideration' from EFL to player? Ditto in respect of acceptance and intention. I don't think it would take much to argue that any clause binding the player to the EFL in case of a contracting club losing membership was never intended to be applied - " why would I have signed for a club I thought was going to go bust? Had I known that might happen I wouldn't have signed, thus contend I didn't accept being under the control of the EFL as there was never an intention for that to happen?"

Not withstanding the lack of non-impaired accounts for all entities, if you break down the bullets in your post, sadly for you, as a fan the reality is Boro have been proved correct on all counts. Lest not forget the sale also gave screen for MSD to loan funds to be used as cashflow. Maybe you know as it's not published elsewhere, but it's assumed MSD became involved as they were planning to take over by buying out Morris but post loan they got cold feet. Why was that? What changed their mind?

Davefevs - but HXJ's info is very interesting. Look at Regulation 66 of the EFLs Rules. I presume because only small fry have gone to date most players haven't spent long in limbo and have been allowed to go on frees. Better players with higher values, could be worth lawyers getting involved.

Thanks to your knowledge I just looked up regulation 66 and strikes me, should a bigger club go, this could become a whole Bosman can of worms. From a skim read it looks as though the EFL retains all rights over transfer elements within the player's contracts (academy aside,) whilst picking up no other liability from those contracts. Surely that's unfair restraint of trade? Reference is made to payments to member clubs being paid but not individual players. The impact on a player is clearly where their personal valuation differs from that placed on them by the EFL. Say in the case of Knight his agent (illegal but happens all the time,) tells clubs he knows to be interested and in whom his client is interested to bid £1 for his client. Although the EFL value him much higher surely such offers could form the basis of a market valuation? If the EFL aren't paying the player and there's no 'consideration' I don't understand what right they'd have to constrain his ability to work?

Not where clubs cease to be members, though see HXJ's informative post.

Interesting, that's the first I've ever heard of that. Is that clause a standard addendum to all players contracts? Seems quite a restraint of trade to me. One assumes the EFL doesn't continue to fulfill the player's contract?

No, free agents may sign for whoever they wish at any time. That was the point about the 8 who'll be 'celebrated' (sic) this weekend. In their day when clubs folded the administrators retained their registrations to attempt to sell on, though that could take years. No income, can't play elsewhere. That's why they negotiated hard for their registrations plus the monies they took in lieu of contracts. No dream or benevolence on their part and who could blame them? Part Bosman but rules have now changed. Club fails to fulfill your contract and registration reverts to you

More interesting are reports in papers today of Jason Knight saying he'd like to stay at Derby despite attracting serious interest from The Premier. Were I in his shoes, knowing if I don't go this window opportunities will still be there in the summer, what's to lose by sitting it out? Club goes bust I'm a free agent and you can have me for a percentage of what you would have spent on a transfer fee. Derby saved, they're unlikely to keep me next season in Div 1 hence will be desperate to get me off their hands. Win, win for him, I'd say, but minefield for Derby if he doesn't go immediately.

Well we know who the beneficial owner is of each entity and in the case of the loan charge we know it's original value, though reports say further loans have been made to keep the club trading, one assumes secured against the asset. Naturally the local 'rag' will say anything to keep it's viewership onside (not sure Reach publish papers anymore.) The preferred bidder is pretty much 'chicken and egg' as they can't be announced until all bidders are happy that documents provided for their due diligence are in order and they've been able to submit their BAFOs for consideration. As the EFL highlight, by the end of the month the plan needs to be in place and that has to include the EFL having conducted their 'fitness' assessment on whoever the preferred bidder is. They aren't being given much time by the administrators.

No comparison. Pasties saw kids running up and down the street pointing and shouting with little in the ground. Reading: on the terrace it was as though McAlpine's had turned up and begun digging footings for a towerblock......

I've the anniversary edition of the 'All You Need Is Cash' DVD and on Idle's directors notes, he relates he was seriously unwell when the album was recorded so yes, you're right in he sings in the movie but not on the record. As for 'Cheese & Onions', there's that fine McCartney quote that it's '..the greatest Beatles song never written by the Beatles.'

Very happy to have waited in the shelter of the rear open doors of an Old Billmobile in the car park, as some of ours had been bricked. Could see the getaway car in the distance, just couldn't get to it. To be fair the copper called it right as once they let City out from that hellhole behind the gates where we were fodder for their bricks, the Old Bill let Cardiff burn themselves out as their attention very quickly turned from City to the Cardiff directors against whom they were protesting. The rear of the stand took one hellava beating.

Because there's a charge against the ground and that, ultimately, is guaranteed by Morris. If the club goes bust he's still on the hook to MSD, would have to pay them in cash, but he would still own a pretty much worthless football stadium without a team. He doesn't have to sell, but he'd be crazy not to. Nothing clever about the 'sale' which was done wholly to artificially create 'income' (sic) to improve the FFP figures. Remember, no monies changed hands. Using different companies he effectively bought his own stadium at an inflated price using loans taken from, er, himself (plus the MSD loan used for cashflow.)

If you think paying over twice ones total income on staff costs alone, forget all other outgoings, was due to the virus then you're deluded.

Not to forget there was an existing floating charge against the freehold from when it was constructed though I'm told that was minimal. Some time ago I posed the question as to whether the figure of £81m was required to account for that and the MSD charge but apparently not?

Without accounts who knows? Perchance if there is a lease it came either with an extended rent free period, else peppercorn rent. Of course, if the former, there should still show an amortized charge against both budget and liability but nothing against cashflow. I'm not sure how FFP deals with lease amortization?

As no monies were exchanged during the sale (other than the 3rd party loan charged by MSD against the freehold,) why would the holding company expect to receive rent? Other than to create an artificial 'income' (sic) the beneficial owner of the stadium never changed.