Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, darrener said:

Just a feeling, this has been going on forever. Something will have to give this week the club is running on empty. No way we can carry on like this for much longer, people need paying who's going to do that? 

Only reason I’d be inclined to disagree is that it’s been crunch time on several occasions now and it’s not the first time Ken has withheld payment. I think Ken could easily pay what he needs to, to keep the club going but this just doubles the pressure on the prospective buyers to act fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mantra said:

Only reason I’d be inclined to disagree is that it’s been crunch time on several occasions now and it’s not the first time Ken has withheld payment. I think Ken could easily pay what he needs to, to keep the club going but this just doubles the pressure on the prospective buyers to act fast.

Can't see Ken putting another penny in imo, that's why it can't go on much longer. This has a really bad feeling about it. Hope I'm wrong, the missus says I usually am 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Big Johnny said:

I just can't see Ken liquidating us or the EFL letting him

I know it's his club and all the rest but there would be big questions asked 

Does Ken care? 

The EFL cabbie stop him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well however much of a muppet Bassini is, you can't argue with the fact that 8 years after he took control of a Championship club they are now in the Premier League and an FA Cup Final.  Wonder how they got out of his mess and managed that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chrisw99 said:

Well however much of a muppet Bassini is, you can't argue with the fact that 8 years after he took control of a Championship club they are now in the Premier League and an FA Cup Final.  Wonder how they got out of his mess and managed that?

 

They were bought by an extremely wealthy Italian family, and helped no end by loans from other clubs within the Pozzo family... nowt to do with Bassini.... interestingly I believe the Pozzo family did a lot of there negotiating with creditors before Bassini was forced to sell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mantra said:

So if it’s unsecured and he liquidated Ken could lose a lot of money but if, contrary to what Howards said, it’s secured and he liquidated then he is fine.

So a safer option for him could be liquidation if he’s secured but if he’s unsecured he will want a deal.

No it isn't like that.

If the money from Eddie is secured against Ken personally or via ICI he has to pay it back whether he liquidates BWFC or not.

If Ken put it into the club without securing it, he will still need to pay it back if the club is liquidated/put in Admin, or not - hence why it is important on what his future actions may be.

If however Ken secured the money when he put it into the club - say by means of a Directors Loan and securing it as such, then he could presumably on liquidation get it back (together with his secured £5m BM loan money lent by Eddie) and be in a position to clear his debt to Moonshift (or whoever holds the debt against him).

If Eddie didn't secure the £3m then it is unlikely that Moonshift (or whoever has the debt) can enforce it's repayment other than as an unsecured creditor of KA/ICI.

If Eddie put the £3m directly into BWFC without securing it, he would be an unsecured creditor just like HMRC, the Town Hall and all the others and have to take up winder action and/or wait for settlement from Admin/Liquidation - as an unsecured creditor of the club - and as such not a cost to be met out of Ken's personal wealth.

If however Eddie hasn't secured the £3m and Ken has when putting it into the club (if it came via him/ICI) - then on the face of it, if he liquidates the club he stands initially at least to make £3m for himself (subject to the sentence but one above).

Obviously there's going to be a lot more to the decision makings to come than just that.

Probably better just to sit back and see how the cards actually fall then endless speculation based on few known facts and arriving at the wrong conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

No it isn't like that.

If the money from Eddie is secured against Ken personally or via ICI he has to pay it back whether he liquidates BWFC or not.

If Ken put it into the club without securing it, he will still need to pay it back if the club is liquidated/put in Admin, or not - hence why it is important on what his future actions may be.

If however Ken secured the money when he put it into the club - say by means of a Directors Loan and securing it as such, then he could presumably on liquidation get it back (together with his secured £5m BM loan money lent by Eddie) and be in a position to clear his debt to Moonshift (or whoever holds the debt against him).

If Eddie didn't secure the £3m then it is unlikely that Moonshift (or whoever has the debt) can enforce it's repayment other than as an unsecured creditor of KA/ICI.

If Eddie put the £3m directly into BWFC without securing it, he would be an unsecured creditor just like HMRC, the Town Hall and all the others and have to take up winder action and/or wait for settlement from Admin/Liquidation - as an unsecured creditor of the club - and as such not a cost to be met out of Ken's personal wealth.

If however Eddie hasn't secured the £3m and Ken has when putting it into the club (if it came via him/ICI) - then on the face of it, if he liquidates the club he stands initially at least to make £3m for himself (subject to the sentence but one above).

Obviously there's going to be a lot more to the decision makings to come than just that.

Probably better just to sit back and see how the cards actually fall then endless speculation based on few known facts and arriving at the wrong conclusions.

Jesus, I don't know how you get your head round all of that. You're right though, it is pointless to speculate endlessly. Won't stop me doing it, in my own head anyway.

On the topic of speculation though:

Are you of the opinion that this will be sorted sooner rather than later and are you optimistic or not?

Seems that fans can't agree on either of those points, but would be interested to hear your thoughts as you've obviously got your head around this more than most.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Casino said:

Let's all calm down

My understanding is bassini isn't anywhere near buying us

But isn't that what we all wanted

It's wide open for tyre kickers and big H

I'm not sure what I want anymore. I think I'd rather endure more of this madness, if it meant that we got better owners than Bassini, which on paper H's group seem to be.

But that seems unfair on all the staff who aren't getting paid, so I wouldn't be opposed to Bassini  coming in, as I think somehow he would at least pay the staff with his fresh funding (presumably) and could be easier to deal with than Ken when it gets to a point where he wants to sell.

Let's hope some wealthy tyre kickers come along because I've lost a fair amount of faith in H's men completing, hopefully they're still stalking it carefully and planning a killer blow though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone’s hoping Howard’s men do the business on Tuesday and theres an end to all this, aren’t we?

Obviously it will never be just that simple. After all it’s BWFC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mantra said:

Jesus, I don't know how you get your head round all of that. You're right though, it is pointless to speculate endlessly. Won't stop me doing it, in my own head anyway.

On the topic of speculation though:

Are you of the opinion that this will be sorted sooner rather than later and are you optimistic or not?

Seems that fans can't agree on either of those points, but would be interested to hear your thoughts as you've obviously got your head around this more than most.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Casino said:

Bassini is andersons stunt

Peas from the same pod

I thought the same. Wouldn’t be surprised if he was being put up to it by Ken for him to go as public as he has as one last throw of the dice to put pressure on others. Two buffoons working together, wouldn’t be a surprise at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mantra said:

Jesus, I don't know how you get your head round all of that. You're right though, it is pointless to speculate endlessly. Won't stop me doing it, in my own head anyway.

On the topic of speculation though:

Are you of the opinion that this will be sorted sooner rather than later and are you optimistic or not?

Seems that fans can't agree on either of those points, but would be interested to hear your thoughts as you've obviously got your head around this more than most.

 

I refer you to the last sentence of my post above.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, RedBloodzCell said:

Embargo won't happen. The only people it punishes is potential new owners, who would be less likely to buy.

All an embargo would do is increase the chance of liquidation and I don't think the EFL are that incompetent.

Hope you & Casino are right

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JJ10 said:
47 minutes ago, Casino said:

Bassini is andersons stunt

Peas from the same pod

I thought the same. Wouldn’t be surprised if he was being put up to it by Ken for him to go as public as he has as one last throw of the dice to put pressure on others. Two buffoons working together, wouldn’t be a surprise at all. 

Has a ring of truth to it - Bassini certainly feels like a Ken-shaped stunt (not rhyming slang, btw).

But if Bassini is Ken's bluff, Howard's mob have used this forum to call it.

Come to think of it, H's "belief" that. Bassini was going to come through on Friday and assertions that he has financial backers are the only reason anyone's giving Bassini's "interest" any credibility.

Would also explain H's confidence in saying the backers were money launderers - you can't slander someone who doesn't exist.

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.