кафе is in Genitive, though, you cannot really tell because all its forms are the same. Anyway, кафе goes second because this is how you use Genitive modifiers:
- хозяин ресторана = an owner of a the restaurant
- теория относительности = the theory of relativity
- бутылка молока = a bottle of milk
- коробка конфет = a box of candy/chocolates
That's the thing with neuter loanwords. They only have one form (if the word is a direct borrowing without any wrapping with Russian suffixes). The same goes for loanwords that do not match any declension patterns or feminine loanwords that do not end in -а/я (e.g. names like Маргарет).
The difference is, neuter-looking loanwords do seem to have the same endings as Russian neuter nouns but end up indeclinable.
Or: "English isn't so article-compulsive a language." (The hyphen really should be there, as the combined noun and adjective form a kind of compound ajective.)
It's is perfectly good English to say, "Vera is café administrator" (no hyphen in this sentence, since it's two nouns).
I'm not happy with this question not taking my answer either... I first wrote "Vera is the administrator of a cafe" and now "Vera is the cafe's administrator"... I think that it requires the possessive "cafe's" or "of the cafe" since it is genitive case, although I agree that if we treat administrator as a job title your translation works.
In "administrator of the cafee" (without "the" in front of "administrator), the word "administrator is both/either a title or a descriptor. Using two or more nouns in a row in English is common, turning all of them except the last one into adjectives - or sometimes titles, e.g., "the boy scout troop member".
There are probably plenty of English native speakers who look askance at that translation. Might not be available in their dialect, so they've never been exposed to it at all. Might be something they think only a non-native speaker would say. Might consider it annoying "biz-speak" with its unbecoming disdain for articles of all sorts. Might be native speakers of other languages who recall from their English textbooks that professions always require articles in English, unlike in their native language, so seeing a violation of the textbook rule makes them presume it must be an error.
Or it could just be that there's no poster with the handle "audiophile" in this thread, so what's the last line supposed to mean?