Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion
Sign in to follow this  
Kane57

Take Over

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Kane57 said:

He confirmed it to Simon Jordan, or so he said on TalkSport

Yes, so does he really believe this is the best way to go about a takeover or he is having a right good laugh at our expense ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much misinformation out there at the moment it has become intolerable.

The parties involved in the bids need to step out of the shadows NOW otherwise they will lose the support of everyone, staff, players, management and more importantly, us the fans.

The talking has to stop now and put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one thinking my money for the Doncaster game has now evaporated? Is my £32 now on the long list of unsecured creditors, paying for 4.8 minutes of an administrators time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Romiley White said:

Am I the only one thinking my money for the Doncaster game has now evaporated? Is my £32 now on the long list of unsecured creditors, paying for 4.8 minutes of an administrators time?

Club are refunding the money if you request it. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big day today, release of judges decision, be interesting if that prompts FV into action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Big day today, release of judges decision, be interesting if that prompts FV into action. 

FV have an offer in for the football club accepted by the administrators. The issue is not between FV or admins. No action on their part can resolve it. 

Edited by bwfcfan5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

FV have an offer in for the football club accepted by the administrators. The issue is not between FV or admins. No action on their part can resolve it. 

If the judge ruling confirms that the purchase can proceed without any legal challenge then that might start the wheels in motion, obviously the hotel needs to be sorted as well but I’m thinking the judge confirming there can be no legal challenge to buying the club might just be the catalyst to get this done. Could be wishful thinking but we will soon see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today is not the day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

If the judge ruling confirms that the purchase can proceed without any legal challenge then that might start the wheels in motion, obviously the hotel needs to be sorted as well but I’m thinking the judge confirming there can be no legal challenge to buying the club might just be the catalyst to get this done. Could be wishful thinking but we will soon see. 

Can I just refer you to the pertinent part of the article in the BN yesterday...the injunction and all is a sideshow. If the creditors and FV cannot reach agreement....well.....

Quote

What is beyond doubt, however, is that the main players in this saga have yet to give long-time front runners Football Ventures their 100 per cent backing.

Keir Gordon, the solicitor who has looked after the trust of late owner Eddie Davies, Ken Anderson, the club’s outgoing owner, and Football Ventures director, Michael James – flanked by his advisor, and ex-Wanderers director, Richard Gee, have been locked in a Mexican stand-off for too long.

Animosity between those involved pre-dates administration. The back-biting originated when Davies first began moves to sell up and continued all the way through the stormy Anderson era.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Can I just refer you to the pertinent part of the article in the BN yesterday...the injunction and all is a sideshow. If the creditors and FV cannot reach agreement....well.....

 

There going to have to get their act together soon, otherwise they’ll just be liquidation as the only option. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

Good shout, just need  to add the EFL for the full house. 

Your best post by some margin, well done sir. 

I don't think so.

The Bassini gang were only spending £200K up front and that would have cut out a lot of time-consuming effort and cost.

If it was initially Sullivan's money, I'd expect him to have have had a pretty good idea of the position and prospects (darn sight better than the ST) and I'm sure he would have left enough room to wriggle out of it if summat seriously amiss turned up.

£200K would have been better than nowt for KA but could he be sure that it would all get sorted with EDT paid out and him off the hook? With the EFL under mounting presssure over FPP and other regulatory issues, I'd doubt he could take that for granted.

ST have come out with a statement this morning. It says nowt worth mentioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the emails Bassini supposedly released between him and the admin and then with Macron. Will this have any knock on effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant wait the day when all we are discussing is how shit our tactics are and what 38 year old free transfer, 4 goal a season striker were signing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dazl1212 said:

I cant wait the day when all we are discussing is how shit our tactics are and what 38 year old free transfer, 4 goal a season striker were signing. 

4 goals a season striker, now your dreaming. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Can I just refer you to the pertinent part of the article in the BN yesterday...the injunction and all is a sideshow. If the creditors and FV cannot reach agreement....well.....

 

If the creditors and FV can't reach agreement because the secured creditors are being offered a poor deal but that's all FV can afford you are back to who else, whilst Rome burns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Matty said:

What are the emails Bassini supposedly released between him and the admin and then with Macron. Will this have any knock on effect?

I haven't got round to watching the full Bassini video, only the first 30 minutes or so. Bassini went at length to discuss that he made a better offer to creditors, at 100p in the £. What he didn't mention was the date that this offer was made. I assume it was made after the date in which the administrators stated they needed best and final offers, but like I say, the date of his offer was not said. I still don't fully understand why anyone would offer 100p in the £, when its widely known that FV's offer gets nowhere near that level.

Effectively, he was stating that Macron claimed they had never been shown Bassini's offer. Again though, if this offer was after the cut off point, then I would imagine that is why. It does still amaze me that FV's preferred bidders status has not yet been revoked. It must have something to do with the £1m that FV injected. What interested me more was the mention of Keir Gordon, and Bassini's claim that he was also approached to pay this £1m, and that this would be key in securing the club. If we take that on face value, it would appear that whoever paid that, had a one way ticket to acquiring the club. I can understand why someone would not want to pay that outright, given the risk involved.

Could someone clarify what todays judge decision being released is in regards to? It's the first I have seen or heard about it.

 

Edited by Matthew1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

If the creditors and FV can't reach agreement because the secured creditors are being offered a poor deal but that's all FV can afford you are back to who else, whilst Rome burns.

Exactly - the rights and wrongs of it are thus - the admins ran a process and found the best deal. The secured creditors don't like it. But also don't seemingly have another way of saving the business - if they did they'd have offered it up by now. 

So you're in the mess of FV being the only option but the secured creditors not liking said option.

I'd say the more worrying aspect of the comment piece yesterday is that perhaps the issue is not so much about money and more about a long standing dispute between creditors and Mike James. I really hope this isn't a case of egos preventing the football club being saved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Well it's clear that there is two Administrations for a reason, it's just trying to figure out what that reason is.

Must be to protect the position of Anderson and/or James/PBP no doubt.

We've all been assuming it was to protect Anderson's position - but what if it was more about James's/PBP's instead.

Clearly it would have been better for all if there was only one Administrator for everything but next best would if there was a 'friendly' (shall we say) Administrator for the hotel and James/PBP was equally in a position to appoint an Administrator - so why not do so?

Yes he was a Director in FV at the time but they had walked away from a deal for the club pre-Admin and James could always have resigned and had a proxy in his place as a Director/owner, if there were obvious future conflicts of interests arising.

Also what actual position did Anderson actually have to protect?  

On the face of it his secured creditor status did not amount to anything much - James first call with his secured £5.5m seemed to take the entire value of the hotel at market value at the time.  Was he certain he could manipulate some sort of a bidding war to get the price up?

If not then why take on the costs of Administration then?

He did though, so why was that?  He wasn't getting any more from the club Administrator so I guess he was doing it as a spoiler to stop the FV plan of buying the hotel and leverage a potential pay out to go away - which seemed too be exactly what happened at one stage in this sorry saga.

We come back again as to why didn't James/PBP simply prevent this by appointing the Administrator than letting Ken?

Maybe his motive was that if he did and he obtained the hotel for less than the £5.5m secured - then he (PBP) has lost money.

Which would seemed to have been the case under just one Administrator for everything

Maybe the thinking was that Ken's aims of pushing up the value of the hotel beyond the £5.5m were to the advantage of James/PBP as well, and if Anderson took on the Administration costs so much the better.

Perhaps James/PBP wanted from all of this was just simply to get their money back and was on board with FV as one way of doing it with a development of the land and property (being a Director of FV as only cost him £2 so far, plus a few costs I would imagine) and at the same time happy enough for the hotel to be sold to whoever for £5.5m plus (whilst not funding Admin).

Of course just pure speculation on my part but unless someone can shoot it down, then as good as reason as any I suggest?

Thanks I understand your reasoning 

However I do think the reason for 2 administrators is entirely to protect Andersons position 

Am not certain by any means that ED Trustees and MJ saw it coming when KA put the Hotel into a separate arrangement 

Apart from the Hotel itself , it has given leverage to the disputed amounts claimed by Anderson as being due to him - the separate administrators dont even to appear to agree on the Inter Company balances between the two entities 

Anyway the point I wanted to make about the Marc Iles article is this 

Lots of people know of the issues between ED trustees - MJ - Appleton and FV because BWFC leaks like a sieve and If you ask enough people its amazing what confidential texts / emails and the likes are out there and widely shared 

Therefore its easy for Iles to report on issues on this side of the fence 

He does not report on whats going on with the Hotel - Walker Morris KA and Quantuma because in relative terms that is bomb proof and very little Information has leaked into the public domain from that side of the fence - am sure its just as interesting if not more so . 

The situation is probably best summed up when Jason Elliot ( with Appletons blessing ) of Cowgills  announced to the world the deal was done via Twitter - how unprofessional of Rubens was that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

I haven't got round to watching the full Bassini video, only the first 30 minutes or so. Bassini went at length to discuss that he made a better offer to creditors, at 100p in the £. What he didn't mention was the date that this offer was made. I assume it was made after the date in which the administrators stated they needed best and final offers, but like I say, the date of his offer was not said. I still don't fully understand why anyone would offer 100p in the £, when its widely known that FV's offer gets nowhere near that level.

Effectively, he was stating that Macron claimed they had never been shown Bassini's offer. Again though, if this offer was after the cut off point, then I would imagine that is why. It does still amaze me that FV's preferred bidders status has not yet been revoked. It must have something to do with the £1m that FV injected. What interested me more was the mention of Keir Gordon, and Bassini's claim that he was also approached to pay this £1m, and that this would be key in securing the club. If we take that on face value, it would appear that whoever paid that, had a one way ticket to acquiring the club. I can understand why someone would not want to pay that outright, given the risk involved.

Could someone clarify what todays judge decision being released is in regards to? It's the first I have seen or heard about it.

 

In the eyes of the administrators there are two options a) Creditors sort it out and agree to FV proposal or b) liquidation.

There isn't anyone else able to complete a deal that they are aware of. 

Out of interest who does Bassini claim approached who about paying the £1M - non refundable deposit? Its not clear in your post. 

Edited by bwfcfan5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Matthew1234 said:

I haven't got round to watching the full Bassini video, only the first 30 minutes or so. Bassini went at length to discuss that he made a better offer to creditors, at 100p in the £. What he didn't mention was the date that this offer was made. I assume it was made after the date in which the administrators stated they needed best and final offers, but like I say, the date of his offer was not said. I still don't fully understand why anyone would offer 100p in the £, when its widely known that FV's offer gets nowhere near that level.

Effectively, he was stating that Macron claimed they had never been shown Bassini's offer. Again though, if this offer was after the cut off point, then I would imagine that is why. It does still amaze me that FV's preferred bidders status has not yet been revoked. It must have something to do with the £1m that FV injected. What interested me more was the mention of Keir Gordon, and Bassini's claim that he was also approached to pay this £1m, and that this would be key in securing the club. If we take that on face value, it would appear that whoever paid that, had a one way ticket to acquiring the club. I can understand why someone would not want to pay that outright, given the risk involved.

Could someone clarify what the court case today is settling? It's the first I have seen or heard about it.

 

Bassini's statement was rambling, punctuated by paper shuffling and interruptions from the gathering. But the gist of it was that Bassini (backed by Sullivan) was willing to take on the whole of the debt before the administrators were appointed and that he had a binding agreement with Ken Anderson to take over Burnden Leisure (and its subsidiaries).

i.e. administration and 12 point deduction were unnecessary  and he will be challenging them. Good luck with that!

At the time the  offer was made he didn't know about the hotel and was blown away when he saw it. Might make no money but the whole set up would look  impressive to someone who didn't know about it.

Today's court case? Sorry I can't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Exactly - the rights and wrongs of it are thus - the admins ran a process and found the best deal. The secured creditors don't like it. But also don't seemingly have another way of saving the business - if they did they'd have offered it up by now. 

So you're in the mess of FV being the only option but the secured creditors not liking said option.

I'd say the more worrying aspect of the comment piece yesterday is that perhaps the issue is not so much about money and more about a long standing dispute between creditors and Mike James. I really hope this isn't a case of egos preventing the football club being saved!

I thought unsecured creditors had agreed a deal, and the secured creditors were guaranteed 100%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there may have been some truth to what Bassini was saying regards to his bid but its his own fault for being a dodgy bastard at Watford, plus as others have said he's a bit mental. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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