Trevor Birch appointed as advisor to the board and owner

Absolutely laughable, and spineless, that the people slagging off Gartside last week are now changing their stance just because he's ill.

It's like when some chav kills himself trying to escape from the police, he's always portrayed as an angel who helped grannies across the road.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Absolutely laughable, and spineless, that the people slagging off Gartside last week are now changing their stance just because he's ill.

It's like when some chav kills himself trying to escape from the police, he's always portrayed as an angel who helped grannies across the road.

You're not very bright are you?
Your analogy is predicated on the false premise that in showing sympathy towards a guy who is very ill, people are somehow changing their view of him as a person and their opinion of his actions.

Most people are at least capable of separating human compassion from personal opinion. Sadly you are not which is presumably why you believe whatever the Tory press tell you to think.

Try growing a brain and forming your own opinions.

Holy shit!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If the bit about him wiping the debt is true, we might just come out of this with a football club after all.

I know it's only a story in a paper but it's the first time I've seen in print a statement which specifically confirms that he's willing to wipe the lot owed to Moonshift and leave us only owing about £7m to other parties.

That Trevor fella doesn't hang about, does he.....?

Sounding very positive now.

Glad the Amir Khan saga has now been cleared up!

wanderlust wrote:
You're not very bright are you?
Your analogy is predicated on the false premise that in showing sympathy towards a guy who is very ill, people are somehow changing their view of him as a person and their opinion of his actions.

Most people are at least capable of separating human compassion from personal opinion. Sadly you are not which is presumably why you believe whatever the Tory press tell you to think.

Try growing a brain and forming your own opinions.

I'm easily the brightest on here. And if you think you can grow a brain you are clearly the thickest.

Breadman wrote:Holy shit!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If the bit about him wiping the debt is true, we might just come out of this with a football club after all.

I know it's only a story in a paper but it's the first time I've seen in print a statement which specifically confirms that he's willing to wipe the lot owed to Moonshift and leave us only owing about £7m to other parties.

That Trevor fella doesn't hang about, does he.....?

Genuinely amazing if true, but, is it his money to write off?

It's ok wiping out the debt but having another poor owner come in doesn't "solve" anything.

stability is nice but nowadays you need money to compete, lots of it.

Personally I'll settle for just a bit of stability at the moment.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:
stability is nice but nowadays you need money to compete, lots of it.

Fook off Hipster. You're already moaning about the new regime before they've even bought the club.

Thinking about this in the bath (as you do), I've just come to the conclusion that this move adds weight to the rumour that he's keeping hold of all the buildings.

Whilst they don't generate any revenue, they are nonetheless tangible assets.

So by keeping them when he sells the club, he's freeing himself from the shackles of being financially responsible for the costs associated with running it but retains a lot of the value which was incorporated in this supposed £170m we owe him.

And whoever buys the club will probably have to pay him to use them, so there's a continued revenue stream for him.

Just me thinking in the bath but it sounds plausible to me.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:It's ok wiping out the debt but having another poor owner come in doesn't "solve" anything.

stability is nice but nowadays you need money to compete, lots of it.

Agreed.

But, it does look as though he is doing his best to leave the club in the best position possible under the current circumstances. If he is prepared to wipe out his loan of 170m, surely he will also strive to leave the club in the best possible hands.

Between them, he and Gartside have made an almighty mess of managing our club in recent years and I'm sure he is trying to put that right as much he possibly can.
I'd take the Hair Bear Bunch over those two at this point. Could they possibly do any worse? They don't even bite!

finlaymcdanger wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:It's ok wiping out the debt but having another poor owner come in doesn't "solve" anything.

stability is nice but nowadays you need money to compete, lots of it.

Agreed.

But, it does look as though he is doing his best to leave the club in the best position possible under the current circumstances. If he is prepared to wipe out his loan of 170m, surely he will also strive to leave the club in the best possible hands.

I'm not sure ED intends to "wipe out the loan" as such. More that the club's assets e.g. the Stadium, hotel etc will be handed over to ED/Moonshift instead of having to continue to make repayments on the loans they got to buy them in the first place.

A bit like having your house repossessed by the Bank for not keeping up the mortgage repayments.

BWFC will then be no longer indebted to ED/Moonshift but will have bugger all assets so if we want to continue playing at the Reebok, training at Euxton etc we'll have to start paying rent to ED/Moonshift.

I'm just speculating here but in my experience of acquisitions and insolvency, that would be the simplest and fairest solution. In effect, it's a repossession rather than "wiping out the loan".

There may be some loss adjustment but it's difficult to say which side would be doing most adjustment as I have no knowledge of the historically blurred lines between ED/Moonshift/Bwfc especially in regard to exactly where the original money to buy the Stadium etc came from. The implication is that it came from ED's pocket but I would be surprised if some of it hadn't originated from BWFC income when we were in the Prem and money was syphoned into Moonshift and later lent back to BWFC. This is where Trevor Birch has his work cut out.

When the dust settles, I imagine ED/Moonshift will walk away with assets instead of creditors and BWFC will limp away with no assets, increased running costs, not much operating capital and an imperative to effectively start again operating on a highly efficient basis. Which may mean relegation and austerity.

If on the other hand, the investors behind Deano are actually loaded and are ambitious, there could be money to spend on the squad, but it's hard to imagine people throwing money at an investment with no tangible assets. I live in hope but think austerity is more likely.

wanderlust wrote:

finlaymcdanger wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:It's ok wiping out the debt but having another poor owner come in doesn't "solve" anything.

stability is nice but nowadays you need money to compete, lots of it.

Agreed.

But, it does look as though he is doing his best to leave the club in the best position possible under the current circumstances. If he is prepared to wipe out his loan of 170m, surely he will also strive to leave the club in the best possible hands.

I'm not sure ED intends to "wipe out the loan" as such. More that the club's assets e.g. the Stadium, hotel etc will be handed over to ED/Moonshift instead of having to continue to make repayments on the loans they got to buy them in the first place.

A bit like having your house repossessed by the Bank for not keeping up the mortgage repayments.

BWFC will then be no longer indebted to ED/Moonshift but will have bugger all assets so if we want to continue playing at the Reebok, training at Euxton etc we'll have to start paying rent to ED/Moonshift.

I'm just speculating here but in my experience of acquisitions and insolvency, that would be the simplest and fairest solution. In effect, it's a repossession rather than "wiping out the loan".

There may be some loss adjustment but it's difficult to say which side would be doing most adjustment as I have no knowledge of the historically blurred lines between ED/Moonshift/Bwfc especially in regard to exactly where the original money to buy the Stadium etc came from. The implication is that it came from ED's pocket but I would be surprised if some of it hadn't originated from BWFC income when we were in the Prem and money was syphoned into Moonshift and later lent back to BWFC. This is where Trevor Birch has his work cut out.

When the dust settles, I imagine ED/Moonshift will walk away with assets instead of creditors and BWFC will limp away with no assets, increased running costs, not much operating capital and an imperative to effectively start again operating on a highly efficient basis. Which may mean relegation and austerity.

If on the other hand, the investors behind Deano are actually loaded and are ambitious, there could be money to spend on the squad, but it's hard to imagine people throwing money at an investment with no tangible assets. I live in hope but think austerity is more likely.

A very plausible look at what may happen!  Remember, the club is bleeding somewhere around one million quid per month.  Then add the cost of a training facility and renting the Macron... unless of course, the deal includes free rent for a number of years.  Unless you have deep pockets, how do you recover your investment in purchasing the club?  The only way is to have money to achieve first tier and the riches that come with it.  Hence, without deep pockets, there cannot be any hope since the club is bleeding money, and will only bleed more after a deal is made.  If we do get relegated, which without money is a distinct possibility, then we also have less fans coming to the grounds, and in turn, less income.  The club has been stripped of assets, so how do we balance the budget (other than selling the top earning players in January)?  Troubling times!

observer wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

finlaymcdanger wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:It's ok wiping out the debt but having another poor owner come in doesn't "solve" anything.

stability is nice but nowadays you need money to compete, lots of it.

Agreed.

But, it does look as though he is doing his best to leave the club in the best position possible under the current circumstances. If he is prepared to wipe out his loan of 170m, surely he will also strive to leave the club in the best possible hands.

I'm not sure ED intends to "wipe out the loan" as such. More that the club's assets e.g. the Stadium, hotel etc will be handed over to ED/Moonshift instead of having to continue to make repayments on the loans they got to buy them in the first place.

A bit like having your house repossessed by the Bank for not keeping up the mortgage repayments.

BWFC will then be no longer indebted to ED/Moonshift but will have bugger all assets so if we want to continue playing at the Reebok, training at Euxton etc we'll have to start paying rent to ED/Moonshift.

I'm just speculating here but in my experience of acquisitions and insolvency, that would be the simplest and fairest solution. In effect, it's a repossession rather than "wiping out the loan".

There may be some loss adjustment but it's difficult to say which side would be doing most adjustment as I have no knowledge of the historically blurred lines between ED/Moonshift/Bwfc especially in regard to exactly where the original money to buy the Stadium etc came from. The implication is that it came from ED's pocket but I would be surprised if some of it hadn't originated from BWFC income when we were in the Prem and money was syphoned into Moonshift and later lent back to BWFC. This is where Trevor Birch has his work cut out.

When the dust settles, I imagine ED/Moonshift will walk away with assets instead of creditors and BWFC will limp away with no assets, increased running costs, not much operating capital and an imperative to effectively start again operating on a highly efficient basis. Which may mean relegation and austerity.

If on the other hand, the investors behind Deano are actually loaded and are ambitious, there could be money to spend on the squad, but it's hard to imagine people throwing money at an investment with no tangible assets. I live in hope but think austerity is more likely.

A very plausible look at what may happen!  Remember, the club is bleeding somewhere around one million quid per month.  Then add the cost of a training facility and renting the Macron... unless of course, the deal includes free rent for a number of years.  Unless you have deep pockets, how do you recover your investment in purchasing the club?  The only way is to have money to achieve first tier and the riches that come with it.  Hence, without deep pockets, there cannot be any hope since the club is bleeding money, and will only bleed more after a deal is made.  If we do get relegated, which without money is a distinct possibility, then we also have less fans coming to the grounds, and in turn, less income.  The club has been stripped of assets, so how do we balance the budget (other than selling the top earning players in January)?  Troubling times!

It all depends on the deal Obs.
There is an implication in the media that ED is taking an altruistic approach to BWFC but there would be no altruism is stripping the assets per ce. He probably wouldn't lose any of his money long term.
That said, owning a stadium like the Reebok does incur some degree of dependency on having a football club to play in it, so he may be lenient in the negotiations.
Hopefully he won't take our trousers as well as the shirt off our backs.

It's a fresh start, but what BWFC walks away with is very much in the air at the moment and that's what I'd really like to know. Ideally asap because the tension's killing me!

PS: The business about the club bleeding £1 million a month. If this scenario pans out, the million would be reduced by not having to make interest payments but would be increased by having to pay new rents so the new cashflow requirements would be largely determined by the negotiated deal.

I'm really really really not a fan of splitting the asset from the playing side. It cuts down massively on money making ventures the club could do, and although the asset obviously has a value, its only a value if it can be released. I'm no expert on Horwich's planning zones...what is the land the Macron zoned as? If pure leisure, that puts an effective cap on its value, if its same as Middlebrook eg mixed leisure and retail, that pushes price up substantially. And if it is being rented by one entity who owns it, to the club which plays on it, what happens first month that rental payment isn't made? Sorry to be negative, but I'm not in the camp of anything is better than we have now...it could be out of frying pan into fire, and once a deal is done, it precludes others. Not saying we aren't in a bad position, but desperation can make poor negotiators of anyone.

Chairmanda wrote:I'm really really really not a fan of splitting the asset from the playing side. It cuts down massively on money making ventures the club could do, and although the asset obviously has a value, its only a value if it can be released. I'm no expert on Horwich's planning zones...what is the land the Macron zoned as? If pure leisure, that puts an effective cap on its value, if its same as Middlebrook eg mixed leisure and retail, that pushes price up substantially. And if it is being rented by one entity who owns it, to the club which plays on it, what happens first month that rental payment isn't made? Sorry to be negative, but I'm not in the camp of anything is better than we have now...it could be out of frying pan into fire, and once a deal is done, it precludes others. Not saying we aren't in a bad position, but desperation can make poor negotiators of anyone.

as someone who has actually ran a football club your insight is great for us who know nothing about these things 

Chairmanda wrote:I'm really really really not a fan of splitting the asset from the playing side. It cuts down massively on money making ventures the club could do, and although the asset obviously has a value, its only a value if it can be released. I'm no expert on Horwich's planning zones...what is the land the Macron zoned as? If pure leisure, that puts an effective cap on its value, if its same as Middlebrook eg mixed leisure and retail, that pushes price up substantially. And if it is being rented by one entity who owns it, to the club which plays on it, what happens first month that rental payment isn't made? Sorry to be negative, but I'm not in the camp of anything is better than we have now...it could be out of frying pan into fire, and once a deal is done, it precludes others. Not saying we aren't in a bad position, but desperation can make poor negotiators of anyone.

That's exactly the problem as I understand it but....if the money to buy the stadium etc was borrowed from ED in the first place, then there is an argument to say that until the debt is paid off, the club doesn't own the ground etc anyway.

Like having a mortgage on a house.

This negotiation will be a true test of EDs altruism towards the club as I don't believe he will lose out and the terms of the deal he strikes will determine to a large extent how viable the club is going forward. 

If ED has any sense and genuinely cares for the club, he will agree a deal that won't hobble the new management team.

Norpig wrote:

Chairmanda wrote:I'm really really really not a fan of splitting the asset from the playing side. It cuts down massively on money making ventures the club could do, and although the asset obviously has a value, its only a value if it can be released. I'm no expert on Horwich's planning zones...what is the land the Macron zoned as? If pure leisure, that puts an effective cap on its value, if its same as Middlebrook eg mixed leisure and retail, that pushes price up substantially. And if it is being rented by one entity who owns it, to the club which plays on it, what happens first month that rental payment isn't made? Sorry to be negative, but I'm not in the camp of anything is better than we have now...it could be out of frying pan into fire, and once a deal is done, it precludes others. Not saying we aren't in a bad position, but desperation can make poor negotiators of anyone.

as someone who has actually ran a football club your insight is great for us who know nothing about these things 

I work in finance and there's a huge amount of speculation here about the corporate structure of Burnden Leisure of which BWFC plc is a group company  and so we don't have anywhere near enough data or detail about any cross company guarantees, about who actually owns any of the assets,  or about what security is held by the commercial lenders. 
Banks don't lend substantial amounts of money on goodwill and a handshake. They need legal charges over the assets of the borrowing  company- and I suspect that any assets which may lie in the clubs balance sheet might already be held as security against the loans.
That severely reduces any future borrowing capacity that the club may have.
Also the banks will not write off any loans - they'll crystallise their charges (i.e. take the assets if there are any) before they'll do that. They will also have a say in any future financing arrangements . The picture is very cloudy-and will remain so as all of this is very sensitive information which won't leak out.
Furthermore I suspect that the club will have securtised future season ticket sales- that means they will already have sold this future income in exchange for cash now. That's a very normal banking arrangement  that businesses enter into. The effect of that is that there is almost no cash flow into the club at the moment ,and thus nothing available to pay ongoing business bills such as staff wages,etc.
At the moment,until some genuine information reaches the public domain all we can do is hope that something good might emerge soon- but it will be spartan and I think we should prepare ourselves to spend a long time  as a poverty stricken club with nothing but financial problems.
Expect wholesale offloading of players quite soon!!

With regard to Lusty's comment about what happens next being a true indicator of just how altruistic ED is / has been concerning all things BWFC..........I know what I'm lumping my bet on.

And it's not on whoever takes over the running of the club having any ownership title on any of the buildings.

I'm already feeling sorry for Trevor Birch. It looked like he was getting close to sorting something out and now there's this Stelios thing and nothing coming out of the club.

So as we head into the weekend, we don't know who is likely to takeover, who has the money to do it, what the deal will be, how viable the club will be going forward and whether or not all of that means we'll be bouncing round the lower divisions for the foreseeable future or have money to push for promotion to the big time.

We are at the crossroads.