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

I'm beginning to think liquidation is more likely than administration.

I don't mean footie clubs Nat I mean the common man.

If I hear one more time that a deal "expects to be done by the end of the week" 

On Football terms:  As it stands today we will have zero investment next season, players we have will be shipped out somehow. Lennon will jump along with the staff.  We will not get back to the Champs next season and more likely finish in the bottom half of league one. Somebody explain to me how this is a successful takeover

Chairmanda wrote:I'm beginning to think liquidation is more likely than administration.

That means you are having equal difficulty in recognising what the B Plan might be AND that if that the existing team doesn't square this off by the deadline the registrar might as well go for liquidation - as the management/bidders have already effectively had the opportunity to do what administrators would do anyway - and failed.


This is why I suspect either brinkmanship (trying to get by in the s-t without selling assets or changing the bid criteria again) or stalking horse (unlikely isn't it?) or no frills amateurism.

It's come to something when nat is the most positive person on here

Don't confuse Whittam's fundamental lack of understanding of what the real issues are with "positivity", Boggers.

Dangerous game that.

That's how poorly conceived Supporters' Trusts get started.....

terenceanne wrote: Somebody explain to me how this is a successful takeover

I'll clutch at straws for this one then.


Success is relative. We still exist for now so that's a bonus. We might not exist in a few weeks time if HMRC don't get paid and the court decides we need to be liquidated.

If - and it's a big "if" - Deano can keep us afloat until the end of next season - and the overpaid ponces we are stuck with manage to get us promoted back into the Championship (as they should do seeing as they'll be on fancy wages) then we might end up back where we are but with a much-reduced wage bill.

wanderlust wrote:

terenceanne wrote: Somebody explain to me how this is a successful takeover

I'll clutch at straws for this one then.


Success is relative. We still exist for now so that's a bonus. We might not exist in a few weeks time if HMRC don't get paid and the court decides we need to be liquidated.

If - and it's a big "if" - Deano can keep us afloat until the end of next season - and the overpaid ponces we are stuck with manage to get us promoted back into the Championship (as they should do seeing as they'll be on fancy wages) then we might end up back where we are but with a much-reduced wage bill.

Still cannot understand the greed of some of the players.  Instead of saying they want to play for Bolton and they will take a salary reduction to keep the franchise from going under, they take the full amount and hope to profit from the inevitable administration/liquidation/relegation that will occur.  It would have made sense for Mark Davies to leave the club... but not only did he refuse, he has not played to anywhere near his potential.  Who paid his salary when he was injured for so many months?  It is hard to fathom these money hungry and short term minds not coming to the realisation that they are putting the club under. 

We need sensible players who want to play the game.  This lot only want to play to receive their checks.  They are probably being advised by greedy agents that they will get the same salary when and if Bolton go under.  I would have liked to see some of the senior players get together and reduce the wage bill and play to their ability.  Unfortunately, we have seen the worst in both avenues...  effectively stealing money by their lack of passion and short sighted behaviour in not taking a group reduction of all the senior players.

Breadman wrote:Don't confuse Whittam's fundamental lack of understanding of what the real issues are with "positivity", Boggers.

Dangerous game that.

That's how poorly conceived Supporters' Trusts get started.....

I understand totally. There will be a club at the end of this saga and that's all that matters.

Me acting like a crazed keyboard warrior won't change anything.

See what I mean, Boggers?

You seem to be suggesting there won't be a club to support after all this is over.

Want to bet there's still a BWFC in the football league next season?

Natasha Whittam wrote:You seem to be suggesting there won't be a club to support after all this is over.

Want to bet there's still a BWFC in the football league next season?

I thought the same for a long time, but now administration isn't even an option and there's still no new owner. Liquidation is the frontrunner

I'm not basing my case on that at all, as you well know.

What I'm saying is that you seem to be (purposely for comic effect, admittedly) missing the point about what the important questions are and why they need answering.

Will we still have a club next season?

Dunno.

Probably.

You keep hanging onto this thing about the courts not winding clubs up and how, if you run a football club, you're seemingly allowed to pick and choose what bills you pay and it's almost impossible to get wound up.

But "almost" is the operative word here.

I don't give a shit how many times Aldershot were up before the beak before they finally got wound up - the point is, they eventually did.

Because they could no longer prove that they had enough coming in to cover their outgoings, or in other words, were insolvent.

And that's where we're headed now.

As we keep saying, the sums don't add up.

And as Lusty says, even if Holdsworth's lot have decided that the stadium's worth £50m and are using it in the "plus" column of the balance sheet, it's cock all use in real terms because (A) they'd have to sell it, (B) they wouldn't get £50m for it, (C) we'd have to rent it back - more outgoings and (D) it's a finite resource and once it's gone, it's gone - so what's the longer term plan to keep trading?

Right, there you go, I bit.

Happy now?

To be fair Nat's figure about Aldershot and 14 court appearances isn't actually miles off. However it should be noted that they and Portsmouth faced multiple actions from multiple creditors simultaneously not just HMRC. Aldershot in particular were pursued in the Courts by various groups including the utilities, suppliers of both catering and football supplies and a few others. Luton only appeared twice, both times to defend themselves from HMRC and at the second appearance simply told the court they could not pay and had no realistic chance of being able to do so in a timely fashion and were thus liquidating themselves anyway. Leeds Utd had four formal appearances in their first admin, largely because they were able to point to their huge fan base and commercial revenue streams plus the fact that at that time football creditors were NOT preferred and you weren't obliged to pay them in full to exit admin.Even so they screwed up and got smacked with a second points deduction as a result of Ken Bates and the dodgy deal. They could be back very soon if the Cellino mess isn't sorted. Portsmouth entered voluntary administration, still the only premier league club to do so but another dodgy deal had them back in it again a couple of years later. 

My worry is that Sports Shield is a third 'Arthur Daley' deal. I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up putting us into admin within two years of a takeover assuming they ever get to take us over to begin with. My other and frankly growing fear is that SS will NOT take over and no one else wants us in which case we're dead in two more weeks. Only two clubs have ever failed to complete a League season due to folding. Accrington Stanley in 1961/62 and Aldershot ten years ago. We could be about to be number three.

Breadman wrote:I'm not basing my case on that at all, as you well know.

What I'm saying is that you seem to be (purposely for comic effect, admittedly) missing the point about what the important questions are and why they need answering.

Will we still have a club next season?

Dunno.

Probably.

You keep hanging onto this thing about the courts not winding clubs up and how, if you run a football club, you're seemingly allowed to pick and choose what bills you pay and it's almost impossible to get wound up.

But "almost" is the operative word here.

I don't give a shit how many times Aldershot were up before the beak before they finally got wound up - the point is, they eventually did.

Because they could no longer prove that they had enough coming in to cover their outgoings, or in other words, were insolvent.

And that's where we're headed now.

As we keep saying, the sums don't add up.

And as Lusty says, even if Holdsworth's lot have decided that the stadium's worth £50m and are using it in the "plus" column of the balance sheet, it's cock all use in real terms because (A) they'd have to sell it, (B) they wouldn't get £50m for it, (C) we'd have to rent it back - more outgoings and (D) it's a finite resource and once it's gone, it's gone - so what's the longer term plan to keep trading?

Right, there you go, I bit.

Happy now?

The club won't go out of business while they own a stadium, a hotel, and Emile Heskey. Aldershot didn't own their ground and neither did Maidstone. And neither had Emile Heskey.

They could sell the ground and hotel for big money, even if it is less than market value. And the ground doesn't have to be rented back - they could take a cheaper option and share with Oldham, Wigan or anyone else.

I'm sure this would be a last resort, but no way are the courts going to wind the club up when there must be millions worth of assets (and I don't just mean Heskey) to be sold.

It would be another Coventry situation if they use the stadium as a bargaining chip down the line.

basically all roads lead to ruin.

observer wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

terenceanne wrote: Somebody explain to me how this is a successful takeover

I'll clutch at straws for this one then.


Success is relative. We still exist for now so that's a bonus. We might not exist in a few weeks time if HMRC don't get paid and the court decides we need to be liquidated.

If - and it's a big "if" - Deano can keep us afloat until the end of next season - and the overpaid ponces we are stuck with manage to get us promoted back into the Championship (as they should do seeing as they'll be on fancy wages) then we might end up back where we are but with a much-reduced wage bill.

Still cannot understand the greed of some of the players.  Instead of saying they want to play for Bolton and they will take a salary reduction to keep the franchise from going under, they take the full amount and hope to profit from the inevitable administration/liquidation/relegation that will occur.  It would have made sense for Mark Davies to leave the club... but not only did he refuse, he has not played to anywhere near his potential.  Who paid his salary when he was injured for so many months?  It is hard to fathom these money hungry and short term minds not coming to the realisation that they are putting the club under. 

We need sensible players who want to play the game.  This lot only want to play to receive their checks.  They are probably being advised by greedy agents that they will get the same salary when and if Bolton go under.  I would have liked to see some of the senior players get together and reduce the wage bill and play to their ability.  Unfortunately, we have seen the worst in both avenues...  effectively stealing money by their lack of passion and short sighted behaviour in not taking a group reduction of all the senior players.

If I was Lennon I would show the same care for them as they show for the Trotters. We can't get rid yet, but put some of the kids in as a sort of apprenticeship and put the wastrels in the reserves so they are out of the shop window because I see them with half a dozen games left suddenly finding their footie skills so they'll be in the shop window hoping for big bucks again. Shut them out and see how they like it.

Bollotom2014 wrote:

observer wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

terenceanne wrote: Somebody explain to me how this is a successful takeover

I'll clutch at straws for this one then.


Success is relative. We still exist for now so that's a bonus. We might not exist in a few weeks time if HMRC don't get paid and the court decides we need to be liquidated.

If - and it's a big "if" - Deano can keep us afloat until the end of next season - and the overpaid ponces we are stuck with manage to get us promoted back into the Championship (as they should do seeing as they'll be on fancy wages) then we might end up back where we are but with a much-reduced wage bill.

Still cannot understand the greed of some of the players.  Instead of saying they want to play for Bolton and they will take a salary reduction to keep the franchise from going under, they take the full amount and hope to profit from the inevitable administration/liquidation/relegation that will occur.  It would have made sense for Mark Davies to leave the club... but not only did he refuse, he has not played to anywhere near his potential.  Who paid his salary when he was injured for so many months?  It is hard to fathom these money hungry and short term minds not coming to the realisation that they are putting the club under. 

We need sensible players who want to play the game.  This lot only want to play to receive their checks.  They are probably being advised by greedy agents that they will get the same salary when and if Bolton go under.  I would have liked to see some of the senior players get together and reduce the wage bill and play to their ability.  Unfortunately, we have seen the worst in both avenues...  effectively stealing money by their lack of passion and short sighted behaviour in not taking a group reduction of all the senior players.

If I was Lennon I would show the same care for them as they show for the Trotters. We can't get rid yet, but put some of the kids in as a sort of apprenticeship and put the wastrels in the reserves so they are out of the shop window because I see them with half a dozen games left suddenly finding their footie skills so they'll be in the shop window hoping for big bucks again. Shut them out and see how they like it.

I think the attitude you are looking for went away in the 1960's.  Or it may exist at the lower levels of football but I doubt it.
Certainly in the Prem most of the players are foreign to start with. They have no history or affiliation to the area where their club is. It's a job .....they get paid to play football....if someone offers more money they go to that town. Loyalty etc is a one off ....Lampard, Gerrard comes to mind ....I can't name too many other at the top level.

You can't blame the players for having contracts Gartside was stupid enough to hand out.
Or their agents - they were just doing their job.