Is administration the only option left if/when the FL refuse to ratify the SS bid?

I'm wondering if the bridges have been burned by this strange decision to sell to chancers.

Down to the wire now.
Could ask for another extension but I'd have thought the Court's patience is wearing a bit thin for that to happen. Never know though.
Deano could pay off HMRC, but if the FL aren't ready to give his consortium the go-ahead he wouldn't risk it would he? He could lose all the money.
The top earners could tear up their contracts and walk which could make Deano's business plan viable - but that won't happen.
Somebody else could step in at the 11th hour, but having made SS the preferred bidder it's likely that the club have alienated the other contenders.
Struggling to see other scenarios that might happen - plenty which are very unlikely to happen though.

Admin looking a serious possibility and possibly the most likely outcome at the moment and if there is a points deduction to come off next season we are really sunk.

Going forward, any club that goes into Administration will suffer an immediate 12 point Sporting Sanction, an increase on the current 10 point penalty.

That would mean to me, that we lose the 12 points this season, which would benefit our chances in League One.

The Football League’s Chief Executive, Shaun Harvey said: “The League has now gone two full seasons without a club suffering an insolvency event which is an encouraging sign.  The use of Financial Fair Play regulations in all three divisions, the requirement for new owners to demonstrate the source and sufficiency of their funding and the ongoing monitoring of club’s tax affairs have helped us bring more stability to club finances.

The question remains that if the Football League is monitoring the club's tax affairs, how did this happen?

observer wrote:Going forward, any club that goes into Administration will suffer an immediate 12 point Sporting Sanction, an increase on the current 10 point penalty.

That would mean to me, that we lose the 12 points this season, which would benefit our chances in League One.

The Football League’s Chief Executive, Shaun Harvey said: “The League has now gone two full seasons without a club suffering an insolvency event which is an encouraging sign.  The use of Financial Fair Play regulations in all three divisions, the requirement for new owners to demonstrate the source and sufficiency of their funding and the ongoing monitoring of club’s tax affairs have helped us bring more stability to club finances.

The question remains that if the Football League is monitoring the club's tax affairs, how did this happen?

Well first of all the deduction this season is a huge relief. If admin comes at least we'll start next year on zero points.

As regards your question I guess it's because they accepted that EDs loan was never going to be called in so the problem wasn't so bad in their eyes.

The numbers just don't add up so liquidation remains a real alternative to administration - unless we are missing a gamechanger hidden away in the business plan.

Now that the details of the bid have started to come out I've faffed about with the numbers and I genuinely can't understand how the registrar can think we are sustainably solvent if we run with Deano's bid.

I mean costs are currently around £12 to £13 million a year. We are stuck with around £7.5 to £8 million players wages next year yet Deano proposes to "lend" the club £7 million and somehow think the rest can be generated from TV, shirt sales, gate receipts? And I can't see a way of significantly cutting costs until summer 2017 anyway.

The only way we'd raise enough to bridge the gap through TV revenues and gate receipts would be to stage the live executions of underperforming players in the centre circle at half time.


There must be something spectacular in the business plan as I can't see where/how the FL and the Court can even see a scenario where BWFC is a solvent upright business. We need to see the details because it must be very, very creative.

As it stands, I don't understand why Deano's bid was given preference or why it is being entertained  by the courts.

the half time executions is a great idea Lusty, Dervite first please 

one way or another we are going to have to shift all the big earners next season, we just can't continue with them still on the wage bill. I'm sure there will be a few who will be quite happy to sit on their wages and let their contract run down but we have to try to get rid of most of them and rebuild with the kids coming through.

Norpig wrote:one way or another we are going to have to shift all the big earners next season, 

But we can't.
They are contracted at least until summer 2017 and nobody will buy them at a matched salary so we are stuck with a £5.85 million wage bill for just 9 players who will be earning 9 x the average L1 salary next year.

If the club is liquidated then everything goes and it's bye-bye BWFC.
If we go into admin then we would have to sell the ground or whatever we have left to buy out their contracts.

And if we stick with Deano we'll go bankrupt in year 3 - unless there's something we are not being told.

pass me the razor blade now Lusty, you've just spoiled my morning after reading that

As I keep saying, none of it makes any sense - on any level.

I'm no accountant, but as you say, the sums simply don't add up.

I can't see what's in it for Sports Shield.

I can't see how Eddie Davies thinks this is a good deal for the club (even if I suspend my firm and resolute belief that he doesn't actually give a shit what happens to the club).

I can't see how the judge (who is supposed to specialise in this sort of case) thinks it's a workable plan which will protect HMRC's interest and ensure payment.

And I can't see how the Football League think it's a sustainable model which warrants approval of the deal.

Or am I missing something obvious?

i think because of what the consequences of liquidating a football team and all the uproar that would happen, football clubs still seem to get special leeway when it comes to finances. Common sense and business acumen doesn't come in to it

Not as much as you'd think norpig. xmiles raised the point about Glasgow Rangers on another thread. Yes they're in Scotland but don't forget what happened to Leeds, Portsmouth, Aldershot, Luton, Chester City and very nearly Chelsea here. Leeds and Portsmouth have been in admin twice each. Aldershot, Luton and Chester all went bust and disappeared completely. Chelsea were literally weeks away from bankruptcy when Roman rolled in to save them. Cardiff were also close as were a number of other 'big' clubs but unlike us they had a big enough fanbase and revenue stream to make them an attractive mid to long term proposition for someone who could stand to lose money at first. 

My understanding is that Sport Shield aren't able to do that. They have to make an immediate profit to survive and that's why I'm so mystified about this takeover to begin with. As others have pointed out our wage bill is way too high for this division and will be catastrophic for any hopes of a profit in League One. I don't see SSI being able to weather that and fear they'll simply asset strip us just to meet operating costs then try to get rid of what's left for whatever profit they can realise.

So what is missing from the equation?

Two weeks ago I'd have put money on us going into admin, but the Court, the FL and ED all seem to think that Deano's plan is workable - but from what we (and HMRC) can see it's an absolute punt which looks grossly under-funded.

Where does the trading profit to fill the funding gap come from? 

Everything points to selling off the assets but what assets are left that can be readily turned into cash?

Breadman wrote:As I keep saying, none of it makes any sense - on any level.

I'm no accountant, but as you say, the sums simply don't add up.

I can't see what's in it for Sports Shield.

I can't see how Eddie Davies thinks this is a good deal for the club (even if I suspend my firm and resolute belief that he doesn't actually give a shit what happens to the club).

I can't see how the judge (who is supposed to specialise in this sort of case) thinks it's a workable plan which will protect HMRC's interest and ensure payment.

And I can't see how the Football League think it's a sustainable model which warrants approval of the deal.

Or am I missing something obvious?

You are, Sports Shield "make money make money" 

Look out Man City! 

But seriously, everything you've said I totally agree with. I simply don't see how they were able to walk out of court yesterday without being told to produce their revenue streams for the next... I don't know 10 years. 

I don't understand why the judges have been so lenient, no one else would get this kind of treatment, certainly no individual anyway. And certainly no small business or corner shop for EG.

There's something we've not been told - has to be.

WTF is Deano hiding?

Is it simply a matter of valuing the ground at say £50 million and saying to everyone that we've therefore got it covered?

Clutching at straws here now, as I try to work out what's going on but bear with me.

Could it be that there's someone else lurking behind SS who hasn't as yet declared their interest?

Somebody with £50 million to throw at the problem, the plan being, to invest heavily up front, once a deal's done, in the hope that it gets us back to the Prem where you get £120 million just for finishing bottom?

In any normal version of the universe, Sports Shield shouldn't be interested in BWFC at all.

Ever.....

But for some unfathomable reason, they are.

As Lusty says, there's cock all left that they could flip quickly to turn a profit but they're still here.

If there was someone serious behind them, it would sort of make sense that whoever it is isn't making their presence known because, in all likelihood, that would result in further ridiculous demands from ED once he got wind of the fact that they had some proper cash - The Edwin Davies Memorial Water Feature on the stadium concourse which punters are charged a fiver to look at and which goes directly into his bank account, for example.

There must be some solid reason why SS aren't walking away from this.

But I can't think of one which sounds plausible, apart from the one I've just mentioned.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:
I don't understand why the judges have been so lenient, no one else would get this kind of treatment

Er, yes they would. Aldershot were in court 14 times before they were wound up. Maidstone 9 times. Portsmouth 6 times before they sorted their shit out.

Courts don't want to put businesses out of business. Simple as that. Especially one that impacts on thousands of people.

Can you actually prove that Aldershot were in court 14 times or are you just making shit up again like you did with your ad hoc bus stop survey which "proved" that 73% of Bolton fans travel to home games from the environs of Chorley Borough?

Breadman wrote:Can you actually prove that Aldershot were in court 14 times or are you just making shit up again like you did with your ad hoc bus stop survey which "proved" that 73% of Bolton fans travel to home games from the environs of Chorley Borough?

I am hurt that you are suggesting I make shit up.

I'm going home to my penthouse for a lie down.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:
I don't understand why the judges have been so lenient, no one else would get this kind of treatment

Er, yes they would. Aldershot were in court 14 times before they were wound up. Maidstone 9 times. Portsmouth 6 times before they sorted their shit out.

Courts don't want to put businesses out of business. Simple as that. Especially one that impacts on thousands of people.

It's true courts will try to find a way forward for failing businesses in the first instance which is why the administration option came into being rather than just the straightforward liquidation/sell everything to pay off the creditors. 

However in order for the the admin option not to be taken, the Court must believe that there is a scenario in which the club can trade solvently and pay off the debts - and THAT's what's under question because the figures we do know clearly show that the business is not viable.

Hence we are asking what it is that they aren't telling us. Because there must be something that the court has been told about that would make a difference to our prospects.

That could be the mystery buyer as Breadman theorises although I'd have thought that the stalking horse cover would have been blown long ago if that was the case.