I smell a rat... and its Eddie Davies.

Anyone seen this?

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

BWFC (or Burnden Leisure PLC) are becoming a limited company.

First of all this means that the 6000-odd shareholders we have will be shafted as these shares will become non-existent, not that they were worth much anyway, if anything, but thats not the point, they still bought shares for a piece of the club they love. I know it will have to go to a vote at the AGM but lets be honest, Eddie Davies will find a way to do what he wants.

What concerns me more is WHY is he doing this? The only real 'advantage' if you can call it that is that the accounts will not be as freely available - they obviously can be purchased from companies house for a fee but the club does not have to report as much about were finance has been obtained etc - why do this, what is he hiding?

It also means that Gartside will lose his shares too.

non of this makes sense to me, the debt will still be there, but the fans will know even less about what goes on at the club now - this has to be the only reason.

Is Eddie up to something?   

I think the clue is in the name - limited liability.

A PLC is still a separate entity with its own credit rating though, from a financial perspective, nothing much is different, except we will have no public shareholders (only directors) and not have to report as much publicly regarding our finances.

I still cant see the point. the debt is still going to be there, and whether Ltd or PLC the only way of getting rid of it is to liquidate all assets and claim bankruptcy, either way, non of this with benefit the 'club' as a whole - only Eddie and his family who can walk away from the lot more or less Scott-free.

Something dodgy is going on here...

Unless...

No...

I cant see it...

Well...

He puts 'Moonshift investments' in liquidation....   


No...

Stupid thought.

Read the small print that is currently in place and all becomes clear. I believe the current chairman is well aware of what it says. He has not divulged it to the masses, you wouldn't want him having to fend off some rather difficult questions now would you !

carrs wrote:Read the small print that is currently in place and all becomes clear. I believe the current chairman is well aware of what it says. He has not divulged it to the masses, you wouldn't want him having to fend off some rather difficult questions now would you !

Can you elaborate?

Could this be the first move towards selling the club off?

I know cock all about this type of thing, so if I'm talking bollocks, please accept my apologies.

As I understand it, a PLC needs majority share-holder support for any major changes to structure / ownership.

A Ltd company (generally) has a far smaller group controlling it, thus making it far easier to get major changes passed.

Why would Eddie want to do this now, unless he's considering flogging the club?

As I say, I don't really understand all this stuff, so I'm probably talking out of my arse, but it's got me thinking......

You mean the shares I bought in BWFC to see me through retirement in Monaco are going to be worthless?

I am seething.

Breadman wrote:Could this be the first move towards selling the club off?

I know cock all about this type of thing, so if I'm talking bollocks, please accept my apologies.

As I understand it, a PLC needs majority share-holder support for any major changes to structure / ownership.

A Ltd company (generally) has a far smaller group controlling it, thus making it far easier to get major changes passed.

Why would Eddie want to do this now, unless he's considering flogging the club?

As I say, I don't really understand all this stuff, so I'm probably talking out of my arse, but it's got me thinking......

Davies already owns over 95% of the shares so he already doesn't need the support of anyone else if he wanted to sell up now.

I guess there must be a reason for doing it though, otherwise why not let things remain the same as they have been for about the last ten years or so.

Carrs seems to be saying the answer is in the small print but I've not got a copy of the accounts so do not know what it is. I'm sure Carrs, Ramy or some one else will be along soon to tell us though.

I hope so anyway!

I hope so too.

I cant be arsed sitting at my desk trawling through BWFC's accounts... again.

It's all a scam to allow Fat Phil to charge the building of a new swimming pool in his back yard to BWFC. Not to mention a few garden gnomes and an open account at the Chinese chippy.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:I hope so too.

I cant be arsed sitting at my desk trawling through BWFC's accounts... again.

You could be the club accountant with an attitude like that, Rebel.

I'm sure that's how the current bloke operates. 

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

Page 15 is rather concerning.

Looks like they need some investment from somewhere and have failed to obtain it.

bear in mind, this was June last year, they state they will look for investment and envisage no issues with finding it, they then go on to advise that they have a strategy to mitigate this, should extra funding not be forthcoming - such as a sale of assets like players and staff. This 'fallback plan' now appears to be in place - hence the lack of spending/signing new players/improving the squad etc.

Going limited will allow BWFC to hide more information from its fans, I have a feeling eddies planning something big, something that may not be very ethical.

i think it's about not having to disclose as much information, keeping the dirty washing in house rather than in public, Didn't Gartside make a big noise over all the speculation on the debt, it probably gives Eddie more room to keep things in house, and hopefully attract more investment etc.?

The Debt puts people off possibly?

Does the club still have to disclose the accounts to the FA the same if it's a limited company?

karlypants wrote:Does the club still have to disclose the accounts to the FA the same if it's a limited company?

Yes karly and to UEFA now as part of the FFP rules. The club has to prove it's balanced its books without 'artificial' investment such as 'gifts' over the last three years. Man City got around it by having the club stadium sponsored by the owner for a massive amount (he happens to have a massive stake in Etihad) and by "selling" advertising to several other companies he has a piece of for vastly inflated sums. The rule is that the books must balance through turnover alone, in other words you can't spend more than you take in via gate, tv, sponsorships, merchandise and so on. I see no way we can do that and I think this change is to hide that fact from the general public and any potential buyers Eddie might have lined up. 

Converting the debt to 'equity' like Chelsea did when Abramovich came in is specifically forbidden so whether Phil admits it or not we're deep in the mire unless Eddie sells the club to someone for more than the 160 million quid plus that we owe him. 

I don't like this a bit, we won't sell the club for anywhere near that much and Eddie is basically absolving himself of any need to put funds in to settle the other accounts. I can see him selling up for whatever he can get and the new 'owners' banging us into administration almost immediately so the real people who want it can pick it up for next to nothing. It happened at Portsmouth and at Leeds, they both went through about five 'owners' in the space of three or four years and that dragged the clubs concerned into admin twice each. Remember how Leeds got ten points docked for admin then Bates did that dodgy buy it for a quid deal and they got docked fifteen more at the start of the next season in league one? look where portsmouth are now. 

This smells, it really does and it isn't roses it's doggy-doo.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

karlypants wrote:Does the club still have to disclose the accounts to the FA the same if it's a limited company?

Yes karly and to UEFA now as part of the FFP rules. The club has to prove it's balanced its books without 'artificial' investment such as 'gifts' over the last three years. Man City got around it by having the club stadium sponsored by the owner for a massive amount (he happens to have a massive stake in Etihad) and by "selling" advertising to several other companies he has a piece of for vastly inflated sums. The rule is that the books must balance through turnover alone, in other words you can't spend more than you take in via gate, tv, sponsorships, merchandise and so on. I see no way we can do that and I think this change is to hide that fact from the general public and any potential buyers Eddie might have lined up. 

Converting the debt to 'equity' like Chelsea did when Abramovich came in is specifically forbidden so whether Phil admits it or not we're deep in the mire unless Eddie sells the club to someone for more than the 160 million quid plus that we owe him. 

I don't like this a bit, we won't sell the club for anywhere near that much and Eddie is basically absolving himself of any need to put funds in to settle the other accounts. I can see him selling up for whatever he can get and the new 'owners' banging us into administration almost immediately so the real people who want it can pick it up for next to nothing. It happened at Portsmouth and at Leeds, they both went through about five 'owners' in the space of three or four years and that dragged the clubs concerned into admin twice each. Remember how Leeds got ten points docked for admin then Bates did that dodgy buy it for a quid deal and they got docked fifteen more at the start of the next season in league one? look where portsmouth are now. 

This smells, it really does and it isn't roses it's doggy-doo.

Thanks LPP   

That has scuppered my thought then with increasing the debt a little more to spend some money to try and get out of this mess that we are in.

Maybe all this has something to do with the College Eddie is now building as it looks like he now has planning permission etc?

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

Regardless what is going on behind the scenes, this is going to put the wind up a lot of fans.

I can see the appeal in not having to publish the accounts.

This news breaks on the same day we hear about this school Eddie D is opening in Bolton...

Something don't smell right here.

As one of the shareholders they are talking about, (not that I can find my shares certificates), I stepped forward and spent over £1000 to help bail the club out of its financial mess. (actually, I'm  not sure if its 1000 shares for £300). Anyway, I remember asking Gartsde a few years ago, at one of the end-of-season do's, what had happened to my shares. Always remember, he looked at me, smiled, and walked away. he's been a twat ever since. I don't want my money back, I want to remain as a part owner in MY club.  

gloswhite wrote:As one of the shareholders they are talking about, (not that I can find my shares certificates), I stepped forward and spent over £1000 to help bail the club out of its financial mess. (actually, I'm  not sure if its 1000 shares for £300). Anyway, I remember asking Gartsde a few years ago, at one of the end-of-season do's, what had happened to my shares. Always remember, he looked at me, smiled, and walked away. he's been a twat ever since. I don't want my money back, I want to remain as a part owner in MY club.  

gloswhite I hate to break this to you but if Eddie had more than ninety five percent of the shares yours ceased to exist at that point whether he held them in his own name or in a company name like Burnden Leisure or Moonshift. It happened at Chelsea the same way, Abramovich got ninety five percent of the shares and gave everyone left a few days grace to sell to him and those that didn't lost out entirely because by law he was able to take the whole company private and delete the few shares he didn't own. CFC was taken off the stock market listings and its accounts were submitted to Company House and the FA but no longer open to anyone else without paying a fee. 

So I'm sorry buddy but even if you find the certificates you own nothing now in law. I know it sucks but that's how it is. Chelsea gave their 'shareholders' a deal on season tickets for a few years after the takeover but the shares themselves were either in Roman's hands or no longer valid or worth anything.