Wonder if this is the case stll....
I've looked into this further and have looked at the wording in the mortgages and charges documents filed at Cos House rather than the accounts.
From what I can see it looks like the holding company's, AB's and SMA's debts are secured against the undertaking and all assets & property present and future. There is an additional debenture which refers to the leasehold but this only gives the person entitled as SMA.
In English, that means if they wanted payment they could appoint administrative receivers to recover their debts out of any income the club received and instruct sales of any assets (most likely players) in order to recoup their dosh also.
Which is where the mix up in the media reporting came from I reckon. Entering administration wouldn't have 'wiped out' any debts per se, but it would have allowed them a way to recoup as much as possible whilst still keeping the club running day-to-day. The club would have been a horrific mess if this would have happened, no players left etc.
You could hypothesise that the above action would have been taken unless Ritchie was sold pronto. The other less cynical view would be that we needed to sell Ritchie to fund wages and the running of the club in the weeks post-sale and pre-football league ratification.
So the short answer to your question is pretty much a yes.
