So what about all the other clubs that did this?Derby ,Sheffield Wednesday ,Villa,Reading etc? I didnt see any of them doing what your stating.If it wasnt to help with accounting or for the owners to be able to spend a few extra quid on the the playing side why did their owners do it. Of course an injection of 16.6 million helps our cause with FFP and it takes away that excuse.Im not saying multi millions but some money will be spent either in january or next summer

Have they set their future stall out though?Can any of us really know that?Im not saying it definitely isnt the case but... It isnt the first time they have halted spending and made cut backs only for to then back the playing side reasonably well. This wage ceiling didnt always exist we were paying Rhodes 35k a week at one point. I just dont see why they wouldnt just sell the STC rather than what they have done. The cutbacks were necessary we couldnt keep running our wagebill at that level,when our income just cant support it.Yeah its the fault of the owners and Waggotbetc totally agree with that, there is not enough effort put into getting income into the club but its the reality we find ourselves in and i just dont see how we couldnt have been on brink with FFP. With the Armstrong sale and this money being injected into the club i now do expect money to be reinvested in to the squad hopefully another manager spending it

Then you try to sell the club not put it into admin.Or start selling a big player a season.We owe no money, the debt is entirely theirs with the exception of 14 million overdraft. If we went admin they wouldnt be seeing that 140 million back, granted they wont ny selling the club either but there is just no benefit to them putting us into administration. If the sale of the STC was about them clawing some of their money back they would have sold it to someone other than themselves. I understand the suspicion and find it disrespectful to us that the club werent more open about it but it just looks to me that its being used as a way to get money into with owners now restricted in what they can put in to the clubs they own

The venkys own it still.Are they going to charge themselves a premium to rent it?

But why would the owners put the club into admin.A debt of 141 million is owed to the venkys.The only other debt the club has is a 14 million bank overdraft. There is no benefit in the owners putting us into administration. They could have just sold the STC not set up another company sell the STC to themselves and make the accounts of the club 16 million better off

The telegraph article suggests we have met the accounting deadline

Why would they sell it to another company they have set up and then sell it to someone else? Surely if the plan was to sell it then they would do just that.Not set up a new company and sell it to themselves. Of course has to be suspicion with everything thats gone on but what reason would they have for doing it this way?They own the football club they could have just sold it off

Yeah a senior training ground valued at 16.6 million that cant be used for housing? In all fairness the value of the STC is nothing when they are already carrying a debt of 141 million. Of course it goes without saying that there should be suspicion but id have to disagree that administration is in their thoughts.Not one single inkling that they have been looking to sell the club, surely that would be considered and the club put on the market before administration is entertained.

Can i ask and its a genuine question as im not that clued up on this.Isnt the majority of our debt owed to the owners? How much debt do we have that isnt owed to them? Recent examples of clubs going to admin, the majority of their debt was owed to figures outside the club, taxman,loans etc which resulted in their owners being unable/unwilling to pay the debt off and continue to pay the the wages

Derby did and Sheffield Wednesday but i think the issue the efl had with it was that Derby/Wednesday overvalued it and it was sold for much more than its worth.Thats what my memory is telling me anyway, could ne wrong.

He effectively signed on for 3 years so i dont think he would be turning down 4 over worries about moving to another country like you suggested

Or he signed what the club offered. He signed a 2 year with extension of a year in the clubs favour i dont think he would have been turning down guaranteed wages for an extra year.

My point with Pears is yeah he will be most likely be on low wages but find it suspicous that a player whose family are close with the manager gets a 4 year contract, yet everyone else we sign or renew gets a 2 year deal with a year extension in clubs favour. Im not disputing the owners are a shit show, i dont think a change of management will make everything better.I just think Mowbray, Waggott and the others running the club on the owners behalf deserve part of the blame for the contract situation and should be rightly criticised for it .

We brought in another young goalkeeper last season aswell, who we paid a small fee for.Pears doesnt look championship standard a point Neil Warnock made when he sold him to us. When was the last time Ayala played 30 games in the Championship?Lucrative deal with no resale value.Im not disputing his talent, quality defender but his injury issues aint something new and he cant be relied upon. If id a choice last summer of tieing down Nyambe or bringing in Ayala i would have chosen a new deal for Nyambe. It isnt just on the owners plain and simple. I dont believe Mowbray and Waggott were trying to sort these contracts last summer.Mowbray was under delusions he had built a top 6 squad. They are given a playing budget and they use it how they see fit. Like bringing in 11 players last summer, about 4 contributed anything ,Kaminski,Harwood Bellis, Elliot and Dolan.

Now yeah as when you let them get to 12 months left then the players hold all the cards.If he gave Nyambe a 4 year deal like he did Pears then we wouldnt be losing for nothing

We didnt need 11 players last summer at all.Half of them didnt contribute anything.If he didnt need to change the team every week then 11 players were not needed to be brought in,we had a bloated squad thst lacked in quality. Surely you tie your own assets down before you bring others in. Of course i would have given Dack a new deal , my point is he had enough scope to bring in 12 players and give Dack a new contract something could have been done about new contracts. What would i have done about Mulgrew? not given him,smallwood and Bennett such lenghty deals. Downing shouldnt have been signed at all,he hardly played. And Pears isnt small fry .Give me one good reason why he was given a 4 year contract? I do have an issue with Ayala being our top earner he was paid for nothing last season.And he womt last this season without spells out the squad with injury.His history tells us that. You dont leave it till they have only 12 months left and then moan about it.Mowbray and Waggott are as much to blame as the owners on the contract front.

The likes of Lenihen, Nyambe and Rothwell the players with only a year left should have been sorted with new deals last summer. We can blame the owners for the contract situation due to the budget being slashed back this season but the money was there to get at least one or two of them sorted last summer so to me as much as Mowbray moans about it in the media he is as much to blame as anyone. I just cant get my head round why the owners would allow him to bring in 11(granted half of those were loans but they still cost) players last season 12 if you include Pickering but wouldnt allow new deals for the 3 mentioned. Ayala was given a deal and going off his previous wage and speculation at the time he would be top end of our wage ceiling, Pears was given a 4 year contract, Downing was resigned purely as a voice in the dressing room it seems as he hardly played.Dack got a new deal. We sign a left back for 650k and then leave him at Crewe for the second half of the season despite both our left backs proving sub standard in the first half of the season.Second season of paying Mulgrew near 14k a week for playing his football elsewhere. Yes overall blame lays with the owners for not taking any interest and in their reign never once putting competent people in charge but this contract situation Mowbray and co on the ground have screwed us big time.I just dont believe they were pushing the owners for new contracts last summer when it should and could have been done with the money wasted.

Tony pulis was in the papers when at sheff Wednesday saying how lucky Tony has been being given the time to build his own team. Id agree with Mcarthy it cant be the easiest working under this set up, but he has had decent money to work with and a lifetime in the job in the modern era.

Rothwell has one year left on his contract. Contract negotiations should have been taking place last summer not this one. Money was available to give Pears a 4 year deal and to sign Ayala.If Mowbray wanted Rothwell tieing down then he should have been going to the owners for the money for that not giving a Boro reserve goalkeeper a 4 year contract.

I dont think they will be here next season

Aye iv never argued against the statement that our owners are incompetent. My only argument is in the Mowbray and Waggott tenure they have been provided with sufficient funds for the squad not to ve in the state it is in.They have had plenty of money leading up to this season.

Agree with that.They have no buisness in football. However for 300k a year our Ceo should be doing more.Look at the state around the ground in the summer.I dont believe Waggott would have to contact the owners to get permission for him to pay someone to do a bit of weeding and pick some litter up

Fictional?So when JRC was fit last year, i imagined Nyambe on the bench? When there is another option then Nyambe isnt a shoe in to play.Mowbray has left him out loads. He has had plenty of money as Revidge pointed out these deals should have been sorted out long ago.He brought 11 players to the club last summer and half of them didnt contribute much at all.The money used for those players could have been put toward new contracts. The owners are allowed to put in a certain amount over 3 years and they have put that amount in.What income do we have? So it isnt speculative that we are close to ffp at all. Tell me where the money is coming from?The owners have put in what they are allowed.Thats a fact. The owners had no problem signing off on a 4 year contract for Ainsley Pears...that money could and should been added to what we were offering Nyambe.

According to Mowbray. Of course he always speaks the truth. Is he going to say Rothwell and Nyambe wont sign new deals ,because i dont rate them as highly as they rate themselves.He leaves Nyambe out whenever he can so i do not believe it is just down to money with Nyambe. Its like when you say if we cant bring players in because of ffp they why aint Mowbray and Waggott referring to it through media and using it as an excuse. How could they use it as an excuse?It would be on their watch and their fault thst we would be close to breaking the ffp rules.

Offers have been made according to the club. With all due respect you have no idea how much these players are wanting.You have no idea if its purely down to money why they havent signed on. Nyambe might be tied down now if Mowbray hadnt given new deals to Bennett and Smallwood or if he didnt leave him out whenever there is another option available Similar with Rothwell,only this season starting every week.