When do you think a deal will be done

Breadman wrote:My money (as it's always been and you're probably getting very bored of hearing it now) is on administration.

Rammy,

With your finance head on, is there any potential benefit to ED of doing it voluntarily now or would he just wait until the HMRC hearing on the 18th of Jan?

I'm not going to get into any speculation like everyone else as there's no real evidence of whats happening.
But there is a clear advantage to ED in selling before administration.
I don't want to get too technical- but it depends on what's being sold.
I think it's ED selling his controlling shareholding in the club and that means he would walk away with the money. The figure of £30 mill is being bandied about -so if its that amount paid to ED for his controlling shareholding then he could walk away with that in his pocket.
 That might mean that the new buyers will have to stump up another £15 mill to get some working capital into the club to keep it afloat as a trading entity- a viable football club.
If its an asset sale (in other words the club are selling all the assets - and they belong to BWFC and NOT to ED-he simply owns the controlling shareholding) then all the money will be paid to the club and almost nothing to ED. He would walk away still controlling the BWFC limited company- but it wouldn't have any assets. That's a bit complex-so apologies for that. 
Essentially it is almost certainly ED is selling his shareholding to the highest bidder. 
If they go into administration then his shares are virtually worthless and the business BWFC would then be the subject of a firesale of anything saleable ( that's Euxton, Lostock,a few players,perhaps the hotel - but I suspect not the ground as its useless as an asset to anybody -who wants a sports stadium with sitting tenants at one end). That would raise enough to pay off all the creditors and leave a shell behind. 
Birch (if he was appointed as administrator and there is no reason why he shouldn't be) will then sell the club  to the highest bidder for a knockdown price and ED walks away with virtually nothing.

The net end product is that its by far better in ED's interest to sell now to a consortium. The sticking point to me is that they have to do two things- have a cash injection as working capital and pay ED what he thinks his shares are worth.
It's far better for a consortium to buy it out of Administration after a CVA and all the creditors are satisfied.

One thing about administration is that the process itself incurs often quite substantial costs and doesn't necessarily help the creditors.

My missus was owed a small amount  - just under £4k - by a small Essex construction company that went tits up two years ago and this week she got a cheque for £286 - approximately 7p in the pound. There was some vague mention that there might be some more available for unsecured creditors down the line but nobody's holding their breath seeing as it's taken them 2 years to come up with that pittance already.

However there was a statement accompanying the cheque which made very interesting reading.
The administrators fees and the cost of liquidation was almost double the total amount made available to pay off the creditors.

So one downside of administration is that whatever the size of the cake beforehand, there's going to be even less to go round afterwards.

wanderlust wrote:One thing about administration is that the process itself incurs often quite substantial costs and doesn't necessarily help the creditors.

My missus was owed a small amount  - just under £4k - by a small Essex construction company that went tits up two years ago and this week she got a cheque for £286 - approximately 7p in the pound. There was some vague mention that there might be some more available for unsecured creditors down the line but nobody's holding their breath seeing as it's taken them 2 years to come up with that pittance already.

However there was a statement accompanying the cheque which made very interesting reading.
The administrators fees and the cost of liquidation was almost double the total amount made available to pay off the creditors.

So one downside of administration is that whatever the size of the cake beforehand, there's going to be even less to go round afterwards.

I can support that-I worked in administration and receivership for one of the big 4  for a couple of years after I qualified as a CA,and the first thing you did when appointed was to double the charge out rates as you know you would get the money.
Your wife did well. When Ferranti went into admin- I was owed £1500 for some work that I had done for them. I got nothing back.
So-admin is a bed of roses for some but  a bed of thorns for others

Help me out with this Rammy:

Putting aside what's in EDs best interest financially, what's in the best interest of the club - sale or admin?

Am I right in thinking that admin will lead to a firesale and basically our assets will be stripped faster than an asset-stripper who bought the company could do the job?

In both scenarios we'll end up with no assets and effectively have to start again with nothing.

However if a buyer comes in after we come out of admin, they should theoretically have more money to spend on the club for the rebuilding. But we will have had a 12 point penalty and almost certainly have been relegated.

Alternatively, if we get a buyer who has the club's interest at heart, we could survive and retain the assets but there would be less money available to build the team as they would have had to pay more to buy ED out?

Is that basically correct?

And which is the lesser of the two evils in your opinion?

At the moment I'm hoping for a buyout from an altruist as the value of the business would remain higher.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

Breadman wrote:My money (as it's always been and you're probably getting very bored of hearing it now) is on administration.

Rammy,

With your finance head on, is there any potential benefit to ED of doing it voluntarily now or would he just wait until the HMRC hearing on the 18th of Jan?

A big possible plus is that it would stop all our players from becoming free agents because of being unpaid. They'd be listed as assets as well as football creditors (November wages) while interest on other debts (eg HMRC) would be frozen and thus not make the debt any larger. However, the big downside is that it would result in a fire sale of everyone decent that we have such as Clough because the administrator would be obliged to sell them for as much as he could get as quickly as possible. Admin CAN clean the books when done right but given how things have panned out at Leeds and Portsmouth there's no reason to be confident that will be the case. About the only club I can think of where administration was properly handled and benefited the club in the long term is Southampton.

Administration does not stop players from walking away from their contracts with the club if they choose to do so.

Greg Wylde joined Bolton from Rangers for free (another great signing Owen) AFTER Rangers went into Administration.

An employment contract has to have two parts to it - the employee undertakes work and the employer remunerates them for it. If either side of the contract is not upheld by the respective party then the contract becomes broken and void.

Administration also allows players to be made redundant, the Administrators having different legal powers in this respect than employers in normal circumstances.

is it only me who giggles at the way this thread looks on the home page? "When do you think a deal will be done Today at 4.25 by Sluffy" ...makes me smile

Neil Lennon worries that Bolton will follow Glasgow Rangers' descent into the financial mire

Neil Lennon fears Wanderers could be about to hit the wall - just like his former Glasgow rivals Rangers did three years ago.

The former Celtic boss watched with disbelief as the Ibrox giants were swallowed up in the financial mire, entering into liquidation in October 2012.

But he is now enduring his own nightmare at Bolton, as the takeover process shows no signs of a conclusion.

Facing the prospect of players walking out for free in January if they remain unpaid this month, and with the club staring administration in the face, Lennon admits the situation at Rangers actually looked BETTER from across town at Parkhead compared to the one surrounding him now.

“Rangers were in a lot stronger position than us in a footballing sense, although in the end they went into liquidation,” he told The Bolton News.

“It’s not an easy scenario for a manager and it was certainly difficult for Ally McCoist going through that process at the time. Players did get up and go – they exercised their right to go and play in England, and it was their right at the end of the day.

“It’s a scenario I don’t want to contemplate but it could come to realisation and there’s nothing I can do about it. I have no control of it whatsoever.

“People can’t even offer advice to me other than stick with the football.”

If Wanderers’ playing staff are unpaid on December 30 the club would be in breach of contract, and that means a player could give a written 12-day notice period before walking out for nothing.

Back when Rangers hit the wall Wanderers were one of the clubs to profit from the Scottish club’s downfall as they snapped up young winger Gregg Wylde on a free.

Now it could potentially happen to them – although Lennon has confirmed that no player has yet confirmed they intend to leave.

“It would be within their right to do that,” he said.

“We have talked about it but no-one has yet indicated to me that it’s what they are going to do.

“That might change, I don’t know. It’s not ideal but we try and put it on the back burner – we haven’t got time to think about these things.

“We’re all in the same boat. I’d like to think it can be resolved and that people would stick around to see it through.

“We have important games against Charlton and Fulham. We have to win them to stay in touch.”

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

wanderlust wrote:Help me out with this Rammy:

Putting aside what's in EDs best interest financially, what's in the best interest of the club - sale or admin?

Am I right in thinking that admin will lead to a firesale and basically our assets will be stripped faster than an asset-stripper who bought the company could do the job?

In both scenarios we'll end up with no assets and effectively have to start again with nothing.

However if a buyer comes in after we come out of admin, they should theoretically have more money to spend on the club for the rebuilding. But we will have had a 12 point penalty and almost certainly have been relegated.

Alternatively, if we get a buyer who has the club's interest at heart, we could survive and retain the assets but there would be less money available to build the team as they would have had to pay more to buy ED out?

Is that basically correct?

And which is the lesser of the two evils in your opinion?

At the moment I'm hoping for a buyout from an altruist as the value of the business would remain higher.

Lusty,
There's good and bad in both of them. but on balance from the clubs perspective a sale would be better. But of course it depends on the terms. If the new buyer assumes responsibility for the creditors then that settles them- but that is usually part of  the purchase price and will reduce the actual cash injected into the club. We also avoid the 12 point penalty- and we're not that far behind in the league. We could stay up.
I think it would also avoid the immediate selling of assets (such as Euxton and Lostock) which we will probably have to sell eventually, but in a more ordered way where we're not over  a barrel to sell immediately .
 In Admin the assets will have to go and we'd be in a very weak position to get decent prices for them-  a couple of major building companies will force a quick sale to build on them. That's subject to whoever has a charge on these assets- there could be covenants in the loans that they revert immediately to a lender if the charge crystallises.
There are far too many unknowns in all of this.
From  a sale we will keep the infrastructure in place and any buyer with an ounce of sense will inject cash to keep us afloat and then dispose of assets more slowly.
In Admin assets (any or all) have got to be disposed of quickly to pay creditors. The club will be sold at far less than its fair value in an efficient market and that will make it a heaven sent opportunity for real asset strippers to get their hands on the assets cheaply. It will be a long haul out of Admin, but with a sensible buyer in a Sale now we could turn the corner much more quickly.
I suspect that if Admin comes along the potential suitors will rub their hands as one of them will get us on the cheap which from their perspective its a better deal. Hence the delay!!
A Sale now would be better from everyone's perspective. We keep the club and the asserts together for longer . Admin could be a long term kiss of death

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Help me out with this Rammy:

Putting aside what's in EDs best interest financially, what's in the best interest of the club - sale or admin?

Am I right in thinking that admin will lead to a firesale and basically our assets will be stripped faster than an asset-stripper who bought the company could do the job?

In both scenarios we'll end up with no assets and effectively have to start again with nothing.

However if a buyer comes in after we come out of admin, they should theoretically have more money to spend on the club for the rebuilding. But we will have had a 12 point penalty and almost certainly have been relegated.

Alternatively, if we get a buyer who has the club's interest at heart, we could survive and retain the assets but there would be less money available to build the team as they would have had to pay more to buy ED out?

Is that basically correct?

And which is the lesser of the two evils in your opinion?

At the moment I'm hoping for a buyout from an altruist as the value of the business would remain higher.

Lusty,
There's good and bad in both of them. but on balance from the clubs perspective a sale would be better. But of course it depends on the terms. If the new buyer assumes responsibility for the creditors then that settles them- but that is usually part of  the purchase price and will reduce the actual cash injected into the club. We also avoid the 12 point penalty- and we're not that far behind in the league. We could stay up.
I think it would also avoid the immediate selling of assets (such as Euxton and Lostock) which we will probably have to sell eventually, but in a more ordered way where we're not over  a barrel to sell immediately .
 In Admin the assets will have to go and we'd be in a very weak position to get decent prices for them-  a couple of major building companies will force a quick sale to build on them. That's subject to whoever has a charge on these assets- there could be covenants in the loans that they revert immediately to a lender if the charge crystallises.
There are far too many unknowns in all of this.
From  a sale we will keep the infrastructure in place and any buyer with an ounce of sense will inject cash to keep us afloat and then dispose of assets more slowly.
In Admin assets (any or all) have got to be disposed of quickly to pay creditors. The club will be sold at far less than its fair value in an efficient market and that will make it a heaven sent opportunity for real asset strippers to get their hands on the assets cheaply. It will be a long haul out of Admin, but with a sensible buyer in a Sale now we could turn the corner much more quickly.
I suspect that if Admin comes along the potential suitors will rub their hands as one of them will get us on the cheap which from their perspective its a better deal. Hence the delay!!
A Sale now would be better from everyone's perspective. We keep the club and the asserts together for longer . Admin could be a long term kiss of death

Not sure you'd be allowed to develop Lostock. Designated sports activities by the council and not sure anyone would be able to put houses there. Could be left with a bit of green land that no one could make use of. Also BWFC would still need somewhere to train. Can see Euxton being sold, but not sure about Lostock. I'd ask why not liquidate instead.

If they're not careful it could end up closing for good

Apparantly quite a bit of progress today.

Half a story in what way BTID

Cheers Rammy.

(I think.)

Mr Magoo wrote:Half a story in what way BTID

Tweet from Isle's. (last few minutes)

He's saying new group in talks but he is not getting his hopes up.

It's becoming a right farce this.

Nixon saying things just moved forwards, been alot done today.

Sounds good.

Goalposts just been moved whatever that means.

Sounds like we might strike a deal.

Sounds like the whole club is going for 50p and a sherbert dib dab then?

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:Help me out with this Rammy:

Putting aside what's in EDs best interest financially, what's in the best interest of the club - sale or admin?

Am I right in thinking that admin will lead to a firesale and basically our assets will be stripped faster than an asset-stripper who bought the company could do the job?

In both scenarios we'll end up with no assets and effectively have to start again with nothing.

However if a buyer comes in after we come out of admin, they should theoretically have more money to spend on the club for the rebuilding. But we will have had a 12 point penalty and almost certainly have been relegated.

Alternatively, if we get a buyer who has the club's interest at heart, we could survive and retain the assets but there would be less money available to build the team as they would have had to pay more to buy ED out?

Is that basically correct?

And which is the lesser of the two evils in your opinion?

At the moment I'm hoping for a buyout from an altruist as the value of the business would remain higher.

Lusty,
There's good and bad in both of them. but on balance from the clubs perspective a sale would be better. But of course it depends on the terms. If the new buyer assumes responsibility for the creditors then that settles them- but that is usually part of  the purchase price and will reduce the actual cash injected into the club. We also avoid the 12 point penalty- and we're not that far behind in the league. We could stay up.
I think it would also avoid the immediate selling of assets (such as Euxton and Lostock) which we will probably have to sell eventually, but in a more ordered way where we're not over  a barrel to sell immediately .
 In Admin the assets will have to go and we'd be in a very weak position to get decent prices for them-  a couple of major building companies will force a quick sale to build on them. That's subject to whoever has a charge on these assets- there could be covenants in the loans that they revert immediately to a lender if the charge crystallises.
There are far too many unknowns in all of this.
From  a sale we will keep the infrastructure in place and any buyer with an ounce of sense will inject cash to keep us afloat and then dispose of assets more slowly.
In Admin assets (any or all) have got to be disposed of quickly to pay creditors. The club will be sold at far less than its fair value in an efficient market and that will make it a heaven sent opportunity for real asset strippers to get their hands on the assets cheaply. It will be a long haul out of Admin, but with a sensible buyer in a Sale now we could turn the corner much more quickly.
I suspect that if Admin comes along the potential suitors will rub their hands as one of them will get us on the cheap which from their perspective its a better deal. Hence the delay!!
A Sale now would be better from everyone's perspective. We keep the club and the asserts together for longer . Admin could be a long term kiss of death

Cheers Rammy - pretty much what I was thinking and why I've been rooting for a buyer to come in but thanks for clarifying. Another variable that crossed my mind is that at some point, ED must realise he stands to lose it all anyway if we go into admin and if he really has the club at heart and bidders are holding back/driving a hard bargain in a game of brinkmanship there has to be a tipping point where it's no longer viable for ED to hold out for £30 mill or whatever and soften his stance to the satisfaction of the bidders.
I just wish it gets sorted soon and reading between the lines I expect it to be. That said, I'm a bit bemused by this new player entering the fray today.

I got bored with it all so I've offered 'em forty quid and some Rush CD's.

They're ringing me back in the morning with their answer.

Bolton. Best thing to say. Rival bidders being told others close to a deal. Think that's club playing games. Not sure anyone falling for it ...From Nixon.