Today's the big day!

Breadman wrote:Top work, sir.

I'm sure your gift of 40 Roman pounds will be well spent.

(I know 40's XL, just go with it.)

Yes I was hoping they'd recognise the gesture and re-enact the entire series of Up Pompeii! for the nippers

We've got a charity thing going at work. I put 50p in the pot for every goal the Whites score.
Needless to say,I've not been doing much for the chosen recipient.

Have to say that today's events are pretty much representative of what we knew already however it worries me that the club - and probably the potential buyers - were willing to take the risk that the judgement didn't go the other way.

The BWST has been legally registered today.

That is much faster than was predicted  at the meeting a few weeks ago. ( why ?)

If none of the current bidders purchase the club by the 22nd Feb, I wonder what the chances are of the BWST having the backing from unknown local investors to takeover.

Or would that be fantasy football?

Cajunboy wrote:Registrar Michael Briggs was told by the tax authority that the "proposed route" for rescuing the club was "speculative to say the least", and Bolton Wanderers FC Ltd appeared "to be very clearly insolvent".
But Hilary Stonefrost, representing the club, said commercially sensitive negotiations were taking place with prospective purchasers and other moves were being made to raise funds.
Putting the club through the insolvency process now would lead to "financial disaster", added Ms Stonefrost.


 

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

Adjourning the HMRC application, the registrar ruled that the club should have until February 22 to find a solution to its debt problems. If it fails, it is likely to face fresh moves against it by HMRC.

 
An interesting section from the BOLTON NEWS.

Love the name 'Hilary Stonefrost'

y2johnny wrote:

observer wrote:

y2johnny wrote:gutted, where on earth will we get goals now................

We should have sorted it out that we paid him by the goals he scored.  Minimal damage.

maybe we can renegotiate all the contracts to reflect this.  goals for the strikers, crosses reaching a bolton shirt for wingers, tackles made for defenders and clean sheets for Amos etc

PFA wouldn't wear that. Players wouldn't be paid for months on end. When have you seen a cross reach a white shirt this season (lol). Strikers scoring goals? hardly seen that. If Heskey scores this season you won't be down by much. As for clean sheets, forget it Dervite is like playing with a man down before we start

wanderlust wrote:Have to say that today's events are pretty much representative of what we knew already however it worries me that the club - and probably the potential buyers - were willing to take the risk that the judgement didn't go the other way.

But this is where I'm smelling a rat.

Sources "within the club" told Iles on Friday that the chances of us getting hammered today were "1 in 10" and went on to say earlier today that it was "inconceivable" that the club would receive a winding up order at today's hearing.

That's very confident language to use about something which is supposedly in the lap of the gods and dependent on the whim of some Judge you've never met.

Something's not right with all this.

All on the same day the supporters trust comes into fruition

Nothing will ever happen IMO, we'll still be looking for a buyer in 2020.

Twas a bit quick with the ST. Don't they have to have a special licence or thingy in order to take money from bank accounts/credit/debitcards? I think even the call centre bods have to have clearance. Be a bit of a beggar if any tom, dick or Harriet was allowed to invade our accounts.

They won't be getting a penny off me.

They're not going to put a club with all our history out of business, something will get sorted.

Fuck um!

Cajunboy wrote:
But Hilary Stonefrost, representing the club, said...

Apparently Birch has used Hilary's services before -

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

She has appeared in a number of substantial cases, including Saltri III v MD Mezzanine SA Sicar (for the security trustee); Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA (for the administrators); Portsmouth City Football Club (for the administrators, CA); Cheyne Finance (for a creditor); MyTravel Group (for the company); Bank of India v Christopher Morris (for the Bank of India, CA); and Colt Telecom Group Plc (for the company).

She has acted in a number of cases involving football club insolvency: Portsmouth FC; Coventry City FC; Cardiff City FC; Crystal Palace FC; Plymouth Argyle FC; Leeds United AFC (twice); Luton Town FC; Rotherham FC; Huddersfield Town FC; and Bournemouth AFC. She has also acted for three clubs outside insolvency proceedings: Crystal Palace, Swindon Town FC and Southend United FC.

Full details here -

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

Breadman wrote:
That's very confident language to use about something which is supposedly in the lap of the gods and dependent on the whim of some Judge you've never met.

Surely the legal team we've employed are there to make sure the case the club put across as strong enough for them to have a level of confidence in predicting the outcome?

Don't think too much can be read into that to be fair Bman.

Possibly but there's confidence and there's arrogance.

Words like "inconceivable" carry certain connotations, ie there's absolutely no chance of it happening.

My mate's a solicitor and he once told me that you never, ever say anything's nailed on, even if you'd bet your mortgage on it. They teach you that when you do your articles.

It just struck me as odd.

But then again, I am the most cynical Bolton fan in the world. 

We have a month to prove we can trade legally. That's all we'll get, there won't be another adjournment. I'm with breadman, the choice of language was odd but in my opinion the speaker had probably been told a deal had been struck to adjourn until after the transfer window on condition there were no further delays beyond that. 

The reason the date is the 22nd February when the window shuts three weeks before is most likely down to it being the first available date compatible with that proviso. When I was in Family Court getting custody of the boys the judge often said "next hearing to be held on the 1st available date after (eg) 29th January 20xx. It could often be four to six weeks after that date before we were actually there because of the court's schedule. I'm told that a lot of the non-criminal courts including those involving insolvency operate on the same basic principle.

I think the Marc Iles article re "9 questions answered" clears up what's happening and sheds a lot of light on our chances as well as the state of play with the takeover.

Of course everyone is entitled not to believe him but it is written as if it were an official club statement.

Personally I can see why everything he says in the article may well be true.

Breaders, in last few days you have used the phrase "smelling a rat" 3 times....stop it!

Oops, sorry, Mand!

How about: "I smell an Osborne" instead?