When do you think a deal will be done

Just because it's legal, it doesn't make it right.

He owns 95% of the shares, so he's not a weekend market speculator (despite his running of the business currently suggesting otherwise), so to all intents and purposes, he owns BWFC, however you spin it.

He sets policy and makes the key decisions regarding the business, so to just throw his hands up and say "Not down to me to pay the bills - I don't own the place" doesn't cut it for me.

The top men at Enron were no doubt "just share-holders" too.

rammywhite wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I have the utmost respect for Rammy's knowledge and expertise in this matter but what I simply can't see is how any bidder would have a business plan that could afford to pay £30 million to buy the club and a further £15 million of working capital to keep the club going until the end July 2016 - and still be financially viable as an investment.

Even if Davies sold his stake for just £1, I still can see the return on paying £15 million to end up at best with a bottom half of the table Championship side, or more likely a newly relegated to the third tier club by the end of July next year.

Whoever buys the club at this stage must have very deep pockets and not looking for a quick return on their investment.

I simply can't see that as an attractive investment for anyone.

Therefore I can't see the hold up being on Davies side - more likely the bidders simply can't find anyone to back them with investment they need for working capital to keep the club going until they can turn it around to profitability.

Sluffy,-I was presenting that as a possible scenario. If Davies wants £30 mill for his controlling shareholding in the club then that money would all go to him. The club then needs a further £15 mill injected to keep it afloat. That's a possible interpretation of what could be happening - if ED is digging his heels in.
But you're quite correct- it would be insane for any investors to stump up £45 mill in total for what is effectively a basket case.
In fact any one who does buy a football club needs psychiatric help.
I suspect that it will be more like Eddy wants £15mill with the balance of £15 mill being invested in the club as working capital by the new owners.
But to be honest- I'm as much in the dark as anyone else.
But one thing is for sure-and that no one on this website has any legal right to be told anything . We are interested in the club as supporters- a sort of social contract with the club. But as none of us are employees or shareholders ,then legally they don't have to tell us anything. Some of us are customers( the ones who go to the games and stump up the cash) but that's all we are-external third parties with absolutely no rights whatsoever to be informed of what's happening.

Yes, sorry Rammy, I didn't mean to suggest you were saying Davies actually wanted £30 million - I was just trying to set the scene whereby I could reason that the delay in a potential sale is probably not from the Davies camp but more likely the securing of investment backing from the potential purchaser side.

Forgive me if I failed to make myself clearer about that.

As far as I can reason there has to be something in the purchase for any buyer, so even if Davies wanted any amount for his stake the very most he could ask for would be that remaining saleable assets less £15 million working capital required to keep the club afloat.

I doubt he will realistically get much if anything really so reason the delay would unlikely be on his part.

That's my thinking anyway.

Breadman wrote:Just because it's legal, it doesn't make it right.

He owns 95% of the shares, so he's not a weekend market speculator (despite his running of the business currently suggesting otherwise), so to all intents and purposes, he owns BWFC, however you spin it.

He sets policy and makes the key decisions regarding the business, so to just throw his hands up and say "Not down to me to pay the bills - I don't own the place" doesn't cut it for me.

The top men at Enron were no doubt "just share-holders" too.

Bredders-what I was saying was the legal position. I agree that he bears some responsibility for the plight that the club is in now- but the legal  responsibility for paying the debts lies with the business and not with the shareholders. There's no getting away from the legal position. What you are doing is taking an objective moral stance- and I'm not going to disagree with you. But the legal situation, which is paramount at the minute says something different from the moral situation.

Alf Hooker wrote:

Breadman wrote:Come on now, M.

That takes us back to the argument about Gartside being 100% culpable for this mess and ED having been in the dark for the last ten years.

And, again, I simply don't buy that.

ED and Gartside have worked hand in glove for years - they must have otherwise when the money was getting pissed down the tubes on Gavin McCann and Keet Andrews, ED would surely have said "Enough!" sooner?

Or he's properly a stupid man.

Which I don't think he is.

Ok if he aint a 'really really stupid' man explain then why the fuck he persevered for years with Gartside at the helm when it was obvious to the dogs on the street that he was dragging the club down, refusing to acknowledge his mistakes and alienating his 'customer (fan) base' at the same time- what was his objective? to get to where we are now? It certainly doesn't make me think he's a very bright man

The only explanation is that Gartside was doing exactly what he wanted throughout that time.

That's sort of the whole basis for my belief that ED has done very well out of running Bolton Wanderers.

Doing what I (occasionally) do far a living I have met many ED types (SME owners) over the last twenty years and one thing they all have in common is that they are sharp enough to slice through steel.

I am yet to meet one who has left me thinking: "Blimey, he's a bit thick" and I doubt ED would do either.

Yeah, I know what you were saying, Rammy.

It's just so at odds with all the "ED's a great bloke" guff that I'm getting sick of reading and hearing.

sorry i don't buy all this stuff about ED being just a front man for Moonshift and whichever company runs the club. I've been reading Big Sams book (not the greatest source granted) but it comes across that ED was and is heavily involved with what goes on at the club and that Gartside was just the mouthpiece

Law and morality at odds? Who would have thought it?

More seriously though, ED is definitely culpable in this for allowing Gartside to so thoroughly mismanage the club. Lusty, if I owned 95% of a business you can be damned sure I'd be keeping a close eye on what it was doing day to day whether I was legally responsible for the bills or not because that's my money the Kebab shop owner is playing with. I can't believe that ED bought 95% of BWFC, made Phil chairman and then disappeared and never even looked in to say "How's it going?" over the years. If I'd got that much money invested in a business I'd be damned certain that I would go there and take a close personal look at everything on a regular basis. I certainly wouldn't settle for a quick phone call and a glib assurance that "It's going OK." 

ED is legally able to walk away from all this due to the Limited Liability he enjoys but make no mistake, ultimate responsibility for this mess can and does rest firmly at his feet. He appointed Gartside, he kept Gartside on and whether through sheer neglect or wilful blind ignorance acquiesced in what could end up being the total destruction of Bolton Wanderers Football Club. 

Frankly the day he and Phil are both gone from the club forever cannot come soon enough for me.

Well now we've established that ED isn't legally responsible we can get back to the point under discussion which is why didn't he voluntarily cough up the money - yet.

And the answer is that he is in the middle of a sales negotiation. 

So he could either cough up the money (he still might) and then include that in the price he is asking for his shares or he could ask the bidders to pay it and then knock it off the price he is asking for his shares.

Hence the earlier analogy that it doesn't matter which party pays it as there will be an adjustment in the asking price.

I just hope that all the posturing in the papers isn't an attempt by Birch to pressurise the bidders or we might end up with nothing. At the end of the day the bidders can always walk away, but unless he sells, ED can't.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Law and morality at odds? Who would have thought it?

More seriously though, ED is definitely culpable in this for allowing Gartside to so thoroughly mismanage the club. Lusty, if I owned 95% of a business you can be damned sure I'd be keeping a close eye on what it was doing day to day whether I was legally responsible for the bills or not because that's my money the Kebab shop owner is playing with. I can't believe that ED bought 95% of BWFC, made Phil chairman and then disappeared and never even looked in to say "How's it going?" over the years. If I'd got that much money invested in a business I'd be damned certain that I would go there and take a close personal look at everything on a regular basis. I certainly wouldn't settle for a quick phone call and a glib assurance that "It's going OK." 

ED is legally able to walk away from all this due to the Limited Liability he enjoys but make no mistake, ultimate responsibility for this mess can and does rest firmly at his feet. He appointed Gartside, he kept Gartside on and whether through sheer neglect or wilful blind ignorance acquiesced in what could end up being the total destruction of Bolton Wanderers Football Club. 

Frankly the day he and Phil are both gone from the club forever cannot come soon enough for me.

This element of it - the relationship between ED and PG and whether or not there was any shenanigans or wool-pulling is a mystery to everyone and hopefully we'll find out one day.

For now, it's just incredible and almost possible to imagine how they let things slip so badly. Totally agree with you and Norpig that ED must have been involved. Whether or not he was given false information is another story, but if he had the actual facts he would surely have pulled the plug years ago.

I wonder what Edwin's wife and two children think of the situation?

Cajunboy wrote:I wonder what Edwin's wife and two children think of the situation?

From what I have heard, they have no interest in football whatsoever.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:I wonder what Edwin's wife and two children think of the situation?

From what I have heard, they have no interest in football whatsoever.

Bit like their old man......

Breadman wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:I wonder what Edwin's wife and two children think of the situation?

From what I have heard, they have no interest in football whatsoever.

Bit like their old man......

He had 10% interest for a while though.

Sluffy wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I have the utmost respect for Rammy's knowledge and expertise in this matter but what I simply can't see is how any bidder would have a business plan that could afford to pay £30 million to buy the club and a further £15 million of working capital to keep the club going until the end July 2016 - and still be financially viable as an investment.

Even if Davies sold his stake for just £1, I still can see the return on paying £15 million to end up at best with a bottom half of the table Championship side, or more likely a newly relegated to the third tier club by the end of July next year.

Whoever buys the club at this stage must have very deep pockets and not looking for a quick return on their investment.

I simply can't see that as an attractive investment for anyone.

Therefore I can't see the hold up being on Davies side - more likely the bidders simply can't find anyone to back them with investment they need for working capital to keep the club going until they can turn it around to profitability.

Sluffy,-I was presenting that as a possible scenario. If Davies wants £30 mill for his controlling shareholding in the club then that money would all go to him. The club then needs a further £15 mill injected to keep it afloat. That's a possible interpretation of what could be happening - if ED is digging his heels in.
But you're quite correct- it would be insane for any investors to stump up £45 mill in total for what is effectively a basket case.
In fact any one who does buy a football club needs psychiatric help.
I suspect that it will be more like Eddy wants £15mill with the balance of £15 mill being invested in the club as working capital by the new owners.
But to be honest- I'm as much in the dark as anyone else.
But one thing is for sure-and that no one on this website has any legal right to be told anything . We are interested in the club as supporters- a sort of social contract with the club. But as none of us are employees or shareholders ,then legally they don't have to tell us anything. Some of us are customers( the ones who go to the games and stump up the cash) but that's all we are-external third parties with absolutely no rights whatsoever to be informed of what's happening.

Yes, sorry Rammy, I didn't mean to suggest you were saying Davies actually wanted £30 million - I was just trying to set the scene whereby I could reason that the delay in a potential sale is probably not from the Davies camp but more likely the securing of investment backing from the potential purchaser side.

Forgive me if I failed to make myself clearer about that.

As far as I can reason there has to be something in the purchase for any buyer, so even if Davies wanted any amount for his stake the very most he could ask for would be that remaining saleable assets less £15 million working capital required to keep the club afloat.

I doubt he will realistically get much if anything really so reason the delay would unlikely be on his part.

That's my thinking anyway.

No idea what is going on, but from what I've read none of the parties have yet put forward a credible business plan. There has been asset stripping plans, but no one has said how they would come up with the £15 million to cover the day to day running of the club. ED is painstakingly going through the proposals. Don't think it's about how much money ED gets, but whether they have a coherent business plan and none of them do. Then there's another hurdle "fit and proper persons test", so everyone involved in consortium would need to be known as ED wouldn't want to announce the sale and then realise the parties concerned can't get involved.



The real question is do they have the cash? - answer at the moment seems no

This is what I'm struggling with.

It's been three weeks now since we were told that there were "several credible parties" putting proposals in front of ED & Birch.

How long does it take to read a draft and identify that there's a great big hole in the section headed: "Funding"?

Not three bastard weeks.

It still looks to me that ED has left all this far too late and he's now stuck having to deal with Holdsworth's bunch of chancers because nobody else is interested.

And everybody involved knows that the wolf is well and truly at the door, so it's not in the interest of any potential bidders to try and hurry things along.

"Ok, Eddie....if you don't want to deal with us, we'll wait until after the HMRC hearing on the 18th of January and then buy the club from the Administrator at a knock-down price."

It's a mess and again, it's a mess of ED's making.

He could and should have sorted all this months and months ago before the pressure from HMRC added a new dimension to our woes.

I hate that bastard.

if we did go into administration where does that leave ED? Does it mean he would get nothing at all?

Norpig wrote:if we did go into administration where does that leave ED? Does it mean he would get nothing at all?

Way I understand it is he'd get paid something but he's already indicated he's prepared to give it up.
Basically the administrators responsibility is to the creditors - HMRC, trade creditors, staff & players and people who've lent money to the club like the Warbie's and ED so to pay them off they will sell all the assets they need to e.g. Euxton and possibly the Reebok. They will probably do this for a massively reduced knock down price as they tend to go for a quick sale.
Problem is the Macron isn't worth a sausage if there's no club to use it so who would they sell it to?
Second problem is that the administrators tend to charge a massive fee so they'd pay themselves first.

When they've had the firesale, they'll pay off the creditors including ED. The creditors are not likely to get all their investment back - could be as little as 10p in the pound.

When the dust settles BWFC will have nothing other than a brand name, the staff will have been made redundant, the players will have left and we'll have been relegated.

So rather than that happening, ED is trying to get a deal which allows BWFC to keep the assets - but the problem is that having the stadium, it's difficult to see how the bidders can turn it into a profitable business. So maybe they are just waiting until the administrators have stripped all the assets in the hope they can pick up the BWFC brand for nothing. 

It's complex.

complex and depressing reading Lusty 

Norpig wrote:complex and depressing reading Lusty 

It is, but that's why there's no quick resolution to the problem. What amazes me is that bidders are allegedly still interested because trying to steer a path between one set of asset strippers (admin) and another (potential bidders) whilst simultaneously finding an acceptable business plan that will turn a profit for the bidders is a very, very difficult thing to achieve and I'd have thought they'd have walked ages ago.
If any of the original bidders are genuinely still at the table it's very encouraging, however the news that new bidders have come forward suggests the Board may now be clutching at straws.

A far as I can weigh it up there are 3 possible outcomes (in general terms) and two of them are bad news for BWFC. The one that isn't too bad is if we get new owners who agree to keep asset stripping to a minimum and even throw a few quid at the team - but like Sluffy and others, I'm struggling to see what would be in it for them.

I'm just wondering whether or not ED could walk away if we went into admin. I'm not sure but my understanding is that football creditors have to be paid in full before we're allowed to exit administration and I'm almost sure Eddie would come under the "footballing creditor" banner so even if he was willing to write off every penny would the League itself allow it? 

Where's Manda when I need her? She's got a lot more knowledge of this sort of thing than I do.