"The situation remains confusing for administrator Andrew Andronikou, who is adamant he has discovered the promise of an extension was nothing more than a verbal agreement."
I remember being taught at school that a verbal agreement was, legally, just as binding as a written contract, from what I recall of o'level economics. Obviously the former is more difficult to substantiate than the latter but purely in terms of law it's binding. I'm not sure where the burden of proof lies, but the fact that AA has admitted the verbal agreement existed he may well have shot himself in the foot (for once)