Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57

Recommended Posts

This may have already been answered but i can't find the answer to it. I know players are creditors and once the takeover has been completed they will be paid in full. What about the club staff e.g office and store staff are they creditors? Will they be paid in full once the takeover has completed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pricey said:

This may have already been answered but i can't find the answer to it. I know players are creditors and once the takeover has been completed they will be paid in full. What about the club staff e.g office and store staff are they creditors? Will they be paid in full once the takeover has completed?

I think the majority of their pay is up to date anyway, but....by law they wouldn't be due full back pay - they'd be unsecured creditors (if they haven't had it) but in reality be hard for a new business owner not to pay them in full. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I think the majority of their pay is up to date anyway, but....by law they wouldn't be due full back pay - they'd be unsecured creditors (if they haven't had it) but in reality be hard for a new business owner not to pay them in full. 

Cheers

The reason I ask is because surely from the nonrefundable 1 million that FV gave to help with the running costs of the club surely it would have been a good idea to pay some of the monies the players are owed so we could have avoided another frenzy. Don't get me wrong I am not saying for 1 second the club staff don't/didn't deserved to be paid because they do, but to pay 6 players a bit of money or even offer to cover their monthly bills until the takeover has completed, surely that would have been an ideal solution and then we could have avoided this PFA shit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

You don't seem to have allowed for any finance costs attaching to the £25m FV are supposed to be coming up with or even the loans that are already on the books. There might be scope for cutting out more costs but costs tend to rise over a three year period and I rather doubt that the club is capable of pulling in anywhere near as much in 2019/20 as it did in 2016/17 when it  was pushing for promotion with 10,000 season ticket sales and an average matchday attendance of 15,000.

There will be no more Holdsworth/Anderson costs but I'd guess that these will be uncomfortably exceeded by administrators fees.

I couldn't help noticing a Nottingham MP at PMQ's yesterday bemoaning the fate of NottsCounty whilst Jeremy Corbyn complained about the government spending less on enriching still further the owner of Forest Green Rovers. He didn't mention Dale Vince by name still less how Mr Vince manages to extract so much money out of Ecotricity and pay so little tax on it.

Your correct 

I was assuming that whoever bought us paid cash and the football business would try to operate within the revenue it generates 

If football ventures are in fact borrowing all / most of the money then using the clubs revenue to pay the interest on those loans then we won’t have moved on at all really will we? 

We will still be losing money every month with owners not putting any money in, difficult to see any business plan for the football side there  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the players have come out and said things about wages now but that was only after the initial rumor of the PFA loan, doe's anyone else think there is someone leaking these things from the club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

Aye 

But it wasn’t a cash cow was it? Otherwise why did they pull out 

The fact is, adding £1m+ in rent each year to our overheads won’t do us any favours as we can’t operate with the current costs (apparently). If our turnover in league 1 is £8m and we need to spend 10% - 20% of that renting the ground back, we are even more fucked 

It’s a case of kicking the can down the road another year or two. But every time we kick it we are a little bit less attractive to potential owners who may want to spunk some money on the football side 

A sad state of affairs but it’s where we are 

 

I think De Vere were sold to Malmaison who pulled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Pricey said:

Cheers

The reason I ask is because surely from the nonrefundable 1 million that FV gave to help with the running costs of the club surely it would have been a good idea to pay some of the monies the players are owed so we could have avoided another frenzy. Don't get me wrong I am not saying for 1 second the club staff don't/didn't deserved to be paid because they do, but to pay 6 players a bit of money or even offer to cover their monthly bills until the takeover has completed, surely that would have been an ideal solution and then we could have avoided this PFA shit

This £1M relates to the monies put in by MJ prior to administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Well for one, the other clubs in our position were able to fulfill fixtures despite being in administration. And fwiw I think it's been established that precedent would say we'd be very unlikely to be banished to some jumpers for goalposts level upon liquidation, although with the season being so close I'd say all bets are off.

But all that is by the by. The point I was making is that there have been massive red flags about the viability of FV's takeover for months, and far from it being a case of drama queens or 'it's not like buying a packet of crisps', those concerns seem to be valid.

I also don't know how we can be in a position where the takeover is/was imminent, but the preferred bidders business plan is based on owning the hotel and getting a PFA loan or the players to accept being fobbed off again, none of which look likely.

I don't think you are understanding the subtlety of clubs being able to play in Administration and clubs in Administration who are (to all intents and purpose) insolvent under Administration.

Forgive me if the following comes across as patronising, it is not intended to, I'm simply trying to explain what the score is.

Bolton Wanderers Football Club, the one that plays in the league, is managed currently by Parkinson, as about six striking first team players for the coming season, etc, etc are not themselves a legal entity, they are in simple terms a service that is provided by a company called Bolton Wanderers Football and Athletic Company Limited.

Football Ventures want to buy that service and not BWFAC

That's kind of different to what has happened throughout our history when people like Eddie and latterly Ken has bought the company and thereby owned the service.

The intent if you like is for someone like FV to buy the service (the club) from BWFAC Ltd.

As long as BWFAC keeps going there is always a possibility that might happen.

The bad news though is that the Administrator has been called into BWFAC and quickly seen that it is fucked - it is to emphasise what I've already said above, 'to all intents and purpose' insolvent - dead in the water.

The Administrator has quickly concluded that BWFAC can not be saved and must be liquidated.

If the football club is not bought from BWFAC before liquidation, then the 'service' if you will - the provision of an EFL endorsed football team is terminated.  It is no more, gone, bang, kaput. 

It's not a question of playing whilst in Administration anymore like other clubs have done - like you and plenty others reason we should be able to - it's simply that if it isn't sold on to another solvent company prior to BWFAC's liquidation it simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

Now as for Football Ventures.

Lets start off by understanding who an Administrator is first of all, he is the representative of the High Court appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986, he isn't here to wheel and deal, he isn't mates of Eddies or Ken, he's here to do what he can in law to get the best deal for the insolvent company's creditors.

In BWFAC case when he first came in he quickly made his mind up that the company was all but dead but if he could sell on the football club then that would involve selling all the assets of BWFAC too, such as the stadium, car parks, land etc and would be more beneficially financially in his expert opinion for the clubs creditors, than simply liquidating the company and selling off its assets there and then.

He found just enough money left in the club to market it and go through the evaluation of the bids process - but that meant not paying the players and various others (the training ground cabin people for instance) - tough love, as paying them would have triggered liquidation instead. 

Once the money ran out he asked for £1m non refundable loan to keep it going or otherwise he would have no other option but to liquidate before the football purchase could be completed

In the professional opinion of the courts representative, FV were the only viable purchaser at the right place at the time - irrespective of how you, me or anyone else may think of them.  They were/are the only deal now left.

If they pull out there's nowhere left to go as BWFAC would be completely insolvent, unable to trade and would trigger instant liquidation and BWFC (the football club we all know and love) going out of existence.

I think it would be possible for FV to give further money to the Administrator to keep BWFAC going until the deal comes to completion but it would seem firstly that someone would have to give it to them first, in order to pass it on to the Administrator (possibly some truth in the rumours that FV were looking for other investors recently?) but the biggest problem everyone faces is who can give the EFL the guarantee that the club (BWFC) are financially able to complete the season, because without such a guarantee they simply won't be allowed to start it (unless the EFL bends their rules again?).

BWFAC certainly can't give that guarantee, they are terminal and will die once the Administrator runs out of money.

FV can't, they don't own the club.

The Administrator can't, they aren't in the business of running football clubs.

No one else can as there simply isn't time or money for the Administrator to go through another marketing of the club and evaluating bids.

The only show in town is FV, whether we like them or not.

 

As for me saying we'd play on Queens Park, that was just me trying to put some sort of perspective on our situation.  If there is no deal with FV there is no club.  So whoever starts one up, is starting one up from scratch - no money, no pitch, no players, no footballs, no history, no honours - nothing.

Up to them what they can raise/achieve and up to the EFL where they will slot them in the football pyramid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Pricey said:

Cheers

The reason I ask is because surely from the nonrefundable 1 million that FV gave to help with the running costs of the club surely it would have been a good idea to pay some of the monies the players are owed so we could have avoided another frenzy. Don't get me wrong I am not saying for 1 second the club staff don't/didn't deserved to be paid because they do, but to pay 6 players a bit of money or even offer to cover their monthly bills until the takeover has completed, surely that would have been an ideal solution and then we could have avoided this PFA shit

as admin said, they have been paying bills in order of need

insurances, re opening the training ground other bits of shit with the intention of getting a team on the pitch at wycombe

the business is in dire fcuking straits and if it survives it needs the goodwill of its employees

i do feel the pain of the players but striking is not helping

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sluffy, the administrator is not a representative of the court. He is appointed by the entity who has the charge over the companies assets, the high court only check that his appointment is valid under the charge.

And the administrator can trade the company. What he can't do is run up losses otherwise he could be made personally liable for the debts.

Hence my question earlier about when the TV money comes in.

 

Edited by pauldeva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pauldeva said:

Sluffy, the administrator is not a representative of the court. He is appointed by the entity who has the charge over the companies assets, the high court only check that his appointment is valid under the charge.

Thank you.

I was trying to simplify the situation as best I could for others to understand.

What I've said still holds true as to what and why the situation is as it is.

Or do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pauldeva said:

Sluffy, the administrator is not a representative of the court. He is appointed by the entity who has the charge over the companies assets, the high court only check that his appointment is valid under the charge.

And the administrator can trade the company. What he can't do is run up losses otherwise he could be made personally liable for the debts.

Hence my question earlier about when the TV money comes in.

 

I see you edited your reply above to include the final line whilst I was replying to your first comments.

I refer you back to who would guarantee to the EFL that Bolton Wanderers could financially complete the season?

If there is no guarantee the EFL shouldn't allow the club to start (unless they bend their own rules)

Remember also that the EFL have already indicated that whoever takes on Bolton Wanderers will be trading at a loss for at least the next two seasons and must be capable of keeping their company solvent whilst covering the trading losses of the club.

TV money/EFL payments alone is clearly insufficient in the EFL's own view to sustain clubs at the third tier level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Thank you.

I was trying to simplify the situation as best I could for others to understand.

What I've said still holds true as to what and why the situation is as it is.

Or do you disagree?

I don't see why he can't trade with a positive cash flow, there will be £2 million in gate receipts assuming 10,000 at home gates, £1.5 million in TV money and he may be able to sell a couple of the players. He's got £350k for Connell, Matthews and Oztumer may be saleable.

Non league teams run on next to nothing in wages and overheads less than £1 million.

Obviously he has considered this but may be under pressure from the EDT. 

In theory the bulldozers could go in to flatten the stadium, pay off the secured creditors and the team could play at another ground. 

Maybe that is what will happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I see you edited your reply above to include the final line whilst I was replying to your first comments.

I refer you back to who would guarantee to the EFL that Bolton Wanderers could financially complete the season?

If there is no guarantee the EFL shouldn't allow the club to start (unless they bend their own rules)

Remember also that the EFL have already indicated that whoever takes on Bolton Wanderers will be trading at a loss for at least the next two seasons and must be capable of keeping their company solvent whilst covering the trading losses of the club.

TV money/EFL payments alone is clearly insufficient in the EFL's own view to sustain clubs at the third tier level.

The guarantee would have to come from the administrators.

Its easy to run a football clubs finances, you know approximately your income and you know your costs/players wages.

 

 

Edited by pauldeva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, pauldeva said:

I don't see why he can't trade with a positive cash flow, there will be £2 million in gate receipts assuming 10,000 at home gates, £1.5 million in TV money and he may be able to sell a couple of the players. He's got £350k for Connell, Matthews and Oztumer may be saleable.

Non league teams run on next to nothing in wages and overheads less than £1 million.

Obviously he has considered this but may be under pressure from the EDT. 

In theory the bulldozers could go in to flatten the stadium, pay off the secured creditors and the team could play at another ground. 

Maybe that is what will happen

Think it will cost a lot more than that to run the club over a season, and the FL and Admin cant/wont deal in what if's so as Sluffy has explained we are gone if FV walk away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are very much wishful thinking here.

The Administrators first duty is to the creditors based on magnitude of debt.

It is illegal for a company to trade whilst insolvent - so all the creditors such as the players, HMRC, the Town Hall all need paying as they are ongoing charges to the club.

The two or three players we have can't be sold, they can (and will) walk away for free, then can obtain better deals for themselves rather than having their new clubs pay transfer fees for them.

It's not the same situation as running a non league clubs - it's a situation of having an insolvent club to deal with, with over three hundred unsecured creditors wanting their money and HMRC and the Town Hall already being owed millions.

It's not going to happen that way mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I don't think...

 

Let me stop you there. You asked why our situation was different from other clubs who've gone into administration. I said why it was different. War and Peace on why that is doesn't change the fact that it's different. It's also seperate from the actual point I was making, which I explained twice.

 

Anyway, Gordon Taylor has just been on with Jim White. Said, amongst other things, the players have been asked to defer the money they're owed for two years, the PFA are considering reporting us to FIFA and he's generally sceptical of FV and their football knowledge. Also said Ken had been holding up the takeover.

Didn't hear him say a deal won't be done though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

I think you are very much wishful thinking here.

The Administrators first duty is to the creditors based on magnitude of debt.

It is illegal for a company to trade whilst insolvent - so all the creditors such as the players, HMRC, the Town Hall all need paying as they are ongoing charges to the club.

The two or three players we have can't be sold, they can (and will) walk away for free, then can obtain better deals for themselves rather than having their new clubs pay transfer fees for them.

It's not the same situation as running a non league clubs - it's a situation of having an insolvent club to deal with, with over three hundred unsecured creditors wanting their money and HMRC and the Town Hall already being owed millions.

It's not going to happen that way mate.

It's not illegal to trade a company whilst insolvent. It's illegal to take on credit with no prospect of them being paid.

You are getting mixed up with what can be done pre and post an administration, all those debts are frozen.

I can certainly envisage a situation where the ground is sold and the team survives. Chester played at Macclesfield for a long time

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

More importantly 

Has Parky been potted yet? 

He’s too busy talking to the administrators every day and then forgetting to pass on the message to the players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tombwfc said:

Let me stop you there. You asked why our situation was different from other clubs who've gone into administration. I said why it was different. War and Peace on why that is doesn't change the fact that it's different. It's also seperate from the actual point I was making, which I explained twice.

 

Anyway, Gordon Taylor has just been on with Jim White. Said, amongst other things, the players have been asked to defer the money they're owed for two years, the PFA are considering reporting us to FIFA and he's generally sceptical of FV and their football knowledge. Also said Ken had been holding up the takeover.

Didn't hear him say a deal won't be done though.

I didn't ask 'why our situation was different from other clubs who've gone into Administration' I asked something completely different namely 'What is the standard procedure of a club in our position then?' as I don't believe there's been a comparable situation apart from perhaps Rangers.  You've certainly not answered me since.

I'm not even sure of what your point you explained twice was because I certainly don't think what is happening is "standard procedure for a club in our position" nor thought FV was ever flushed with money.

I also never said a deal wouldn't be done either?  Just that FV are the only people left standing to do it with.

Edited by Sluffy
Grammar errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.