Club Future - Administration or bust?

terenceanne wrote:As I have said before.....any business person looking at the finances of football would run for the hills. As investments you would be better off buying a chain of chip shops. If it's true that the consortium has backed out then they probably finally realized that millions would need to be pumped in and no profit to be made anytime in the near future if ever.
The answer....we need a billionaire who wants a toy and is prepared to piss away the pocket change needed for us to move forward. In the absence of that person stepping forward.....looks like a pad lock is going on the front door to me.

By the way, what happened to KA's statement that the club would make a profit this year?

T.R.O.Y wrote:What a mess, but no surprise nobody wants to buy a club losing money that owes as much as we do. What possible ROI is there?

I don't know.  I keep asking that question but never seem to get a convincing reply back.

I think the answer probably sits outside our understanding of business and more about corporate investors, hedge funds and the like, buying and selling debt and how to make returns from it.

Clearly though people do want to buy the club - I only hope they want it for the right reasons.

observer wrote:

terenceanne wrote:As I have said before.....any business person looking at the finances of football would run for the hills. As investments you would be better off buying a chain of chip shops. If it's true that the consortium has backed out then they probably finally realized that millions would need to be pumped in and no profit to be made anytime in the near future if ever.
The answer....we need a billionaire who wants a toy and is prepared to piss away the pocket change needed for us to move forward. In the absence of that person stepping forward.....looks like a pad lock is going on the front door to me.

By the way, what happened to KA's statement that the club would make a profit this year?

He's said that the next set of accounts due at the end of the month will show a small profit - is that what you mean Obs?

observer wrote:

terenceanne wrote:As I have said before.....any business person looking at the finances of football would run for the hills. As investments you would be better off buying a chain of chip shops. If it's true that the consortium has backed out then they probably finally realized that millions would need to be pumped in and no profit to be made anytime in the near future if ever.
The answer....we need a billionaire who wants a toy and is prepared to piss away the pocket change needed for us to move forward. In the absence of that person stepping forward.....looks like a pad lock is going on the front door to me.

By the way, what happened to KA's statement that the club would make a profit this year?

I'm not sure they're letting Anderson write the accounts any more so he won't be able to bump a mountain of expenditure into a different time period to try to give the appearance of him doing a decent job.

Still waiting to see what he's personally taken out of the club in his time with us, but I think we already have an indication of his incompetence as a "businessman" and his disregard for BWFC.

Sluffy wrote:

observer wrote:

terenceanne wrote:As I have said before.....any business person looking at the finances of football would run for the hills. As investments you would be better off buying a chain of chip shops. If it's true that the consortium has backed out then they probably finally realized that millions would need to be pumped in and no profit to be made anytime in the near future if ever.
The answer....we need a billionaire who wants a toy and is prepared to piss away the pocket change needed for us to move forward. In the absence of that person stepping forward.....looks like a pad lock is going on the front door to me.

By the way, what happened to KA's statement that the club would make a profit this year?

He's said that the next set of accounts due at the end of the month will show a small profit - is that what you mean Obs?

"I expect to show this year a profit, albeit a small one, whereas most clubs are out there losing millions of pounds," he told BBC Radio Manchester.

If in fact, he has brought the club into profit, then the question is why no one wants to buy a profitable club.  Perhaps KA left out debt service of the loans in the equation? That would certainly skew the statement that might put off a potential purchaser.

observer wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

observer wrote:

terenceanne wrote:As I have said before.....any business person looking at the finances of football would run for the hills. As investments you would be better off buying a chain of chip shops. If it's true that the consortium has backed out then they probably finally realized that millions would need to be pumped in and no profit to be made anytime in the near future if ever.
The answer....we need a billionaire who wants a toy and is prepared to piss away the pocket change needed for us to move forward. In the absence of that person stepping forward.....looks like a pad lock is going on the front door to me.

By the way, what happened to KA's statement that the club would make a profit this year?

He's said that the next set of accounts due at the end of the month will show a small profit - is that what you mean Obs?

"I expect to show this year a profit, albeit a small one, whereas most clubs are out there losing millions of pounds," he told BBC Radio Manchester.


If in fact, he has brought the club into profit, then the question is why no one wants to buy a profitable club.  Perhaps KA left out debt service of the loans in the equation? That would certainly skew the statement that might put off a potential purchaser.

I imagine - in fact I was told last year -  that Anderson has been less than honest with the accounts, suppliers, fans, creditors and potential investors at the time so it would be unsurprising if he's still at it. 

If there is a credible buyer in the wings they could still step in at the last minute buy the debt and could stop the winding up order. If Anderson hands over his shares I'm sure Moonshift would or could have a big hand in the sale process, indeed be a vehicle for it, but unfortunately to some extent the ball is still in Anderson's court. That said there is considerable mounting pressure on him now. 

If not beforehand, the HMRC winding up order will be D Day for us one way or the other.

We seem to be at a  very sad sobering moment for our club.

I feel quite stunned that our future  looks so bleak.

A few people have mentioned that Anderson's debt to the Davies family is £8 million, £5 million of which is secured against club assets. Does anyone know any details of this? - I'm just trying to work out what would be required to save the club.
Does it mean that ED loaned him 8 from the off but Anderson only put 5 of it into the club and kept 3 back? Or did ED give him the 3 on a different occasion?
Did Anderson pay the wages out of the 3?
If a potential saviour buys Anderson's debt does it mean they'd only have to buy the £5 million and the 3 would be Anderson's problem?

The more I find out about the arrangements, the more it seems to me that the decision to be liquidated - or not - is still very much in Anderson's hands i.e. it would be up to him to decide which course of action would have the least impact on his personal finances.

Your guidance appreciated.

wanderlust wrote:A few people have mentioned that Anderson's debt to the Davies family is £8 million, £5 million of which is secured against club assets. Does anyone know any details of this? - I'm just trying to work out what would be required to save the club.
Does it mean that ED loaned him 8 from the off but Anderson only put 5 of it into the club and kept 3 back? Or did ED give him the 3 on a different occasion?
Did Anderson pay the wages out of the 3?
If a potential saviour buys Anderson's debt does it mean they'd only have to buy the £5 million and the 3 would be Anderson's problem?

The more I find out about the arrangements, the more it seems to me that the decision to be liquidated - or not - is still very much in Anderson's hands i.e. it would be up to him to decide which course of action would have the least impact on his personal finances.

Your guidance appreciated.

Why ask Lusty when no-one on here, despite what they claim has a clue what's going on. Its all speculation with all the real facts held confidentially.
Some of the real financial data might emerge eventually, but everything on here seems  to me to be invention, hearsay and rumour

wanderlust wrote:A few people have mentioned that Anderson's debt to the Davies family is £8 million, £5 million of which is secured against club assets. Does anyone know any details of this? - I'm just trying to work out what would be required to save the club.
Does it mean that ED loaned him 8 from the off but Anderson only put 5 of it into the club and kept 3 back? Or did ED give him the 3 on a different occasion?
Did Anderson pay the wages out of the 3?
If a potential saviour buys Anderson's debt does it mean they'd only have to buy the £5 million and the 3 would be Anderson's problem?

The more I find out about the arrangements, the more it seems to me that the decision to be liquidated - or not - is still very much in Anderson's hands i.e. it would be up to him to decide which course of action would have the least impact on his personal finances.

Your guidance appreciated.

Guidance from me would be appreciated would it - considering you've rubbished (often abusively) everything I've posted on Anderson's tenure for the last three years?

As I've posted several times a secured loan understood to be for £5 million is shown as a charge against assets at Companies House.

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

A bloke who randomly turned up on the internet just over a week ago (by the name of Howard) states that another £3 million is owed by KA to Eddie.  He first said it was secured but when challenged changed his narrative to being unsecured.  The bottom line though was that Moonshift would not settle with KA unless they got £8 million from him.

That's not to say Moonshift would not settle for less from someone other than KA and sell the debt on.  It could even be for less than the secured amount of £5 million if they wished to take a discount simply to remove themselves from the position they are currently holding over the lien on the club ownership.

Moonshift however would still have loans (unsecured?) against the clubs assets.  I seemed to have read in the past that they now stand at £10 million after various write offs by Eddie, but don't know how factual that is.  Maybe they amount to just the £3 million that is mentioned above as part of the £8 million - I don't know.

I doubt very much Anderson as much of a say over liquidation.  He can't sell the club until he's cleared the lien on ownership shares with Moonshift and he can't stave off HMRC £1.2m winder petition unless he pays it off.  It's basically out of his hands either way - unless he wants to dip his hand into his own pocket - if so does he have the money to do so?

If I was a betting man I would put my money on someone buying the club share ownership debt at the last minute (as creditors would be more willing to agree deals if they thought there was a growing possibility that they might be worse off if the club was to be liquidated), then give Anderson a 14 day notice off taking ownership due to his default on repayment.

I guess their plan might be to acquire ownership of the club with reduced /or all debts, settled, with assets in excess of cost paid to do so, then sell on (or break up and asset strip?).  Just be speculating though.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:A few people have mentioned that Anderson's debt to the Davies family is £8 million, £5 million of which is secured against club assets. Does anyone know any details of this? - I'm just trying to work out what would be required to save the club.
Does it mean that ED loaned him 8 from the off but Anderson only put 5 of it into the club and kept 3 back? Or did ED give him the 3 on a different occasion?
Did Anderson pay the wages out of the 3?
If a potential saviour buys Anderson's debt does it mean they'd only have to buy the £5 million and the 3 would be Anderson's problem?

The more I find out about the arrangements, the more it seems to me that the decision to be liquidated - or not - is still very much in Anderson's hands i.e. it would be up to him to decide which course of action would have the least impact on his personal finances.

Your guidance appreciated.

Guidance from me would be appreciated would it - considering you've rubbished (often abusively) everything I've posted on Anderson's tenure for the last three years?

As I've posted several times a secured loan understood to be for £5 million is shown as a charge against assets at Companies House.

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

A bloke who randomly turned up on the internet just over a week ago (by the name of Howard) states that another £3 million is owed by KA to Eddie.  He first said it was secured but when challenged changed his narrative to being unsecured.  The bottom line though was that Moonshift would not settle with KA unless they got £8 million from him.

That's not to say Moonshift would not settle for less from someone other than KA and sell the debt on.  It could even be for less than the secured amount of £5 million if they wished to take a discount simply to remove themselves from the position they are currently holding over the lien on the club ownership.

Moonshift however would still have loans (unsecured?) against the clubs assets.  I seemed to have read in the past that they now stand at £10 million after various write offs by Eddie, but don't know how factual that is.  Maybe they amount to just the £3 million that is mentioned above as part of the £8 million - I don't know.

I doubt very much Anderson as much of a say over liquidation.  He can't sell the club until he's cleared the lien on ownership shares with Moonshift and he can't stave off HMRC £1.2m winder petition unless he pays it off.  It's basically out of his hands either way - unless he wants to dip his hand into his own pocket - if so does he have the money to do so?

If I was a betting man I would put my money on someone buying the club share ownership debt at the last minute (as creditors would be more willing to agree deals if they thought there was a growing possibility that they might be worse off if the club was to be liquidated), then give Anderson a 14 day notice off taking ownership due to his default on repayment.

I guess their plan might be to acquire ownership of the club with reduced /or all debts, settled, with assets in excess of cost paid to do so, then sell on (or break up and asset strip?).  Just be speculating though.

Anything new? Anyone?

One or two things might become clearer as the accounts are required legally to be published by the end of the month. I suspect most of the things that are unclear have arisen since the end of June and we can only hope that they are covered in full by the auditors in post balance sheet events.

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:A few people have mentioned that Anderson's debt to the Davies family is £8 million, £5 million of which is secured against club assets. Does anyone know any details of this? - I'm just trying to work out what would be required to save the club.
Does it mean that ED loaned him 8 from the off but Anderson only put 5 of it into the club and kept 3 back? Or did ED give him the 3 on a different occasion?
Did Anderson pay the wages out of the 3?
If a potential saviour buys Anderson's debt does it mean they'd only have to buy the £5 million and the 3 would be Anderson's problem?

The more I find out about the arrangements, the more it seems to me that the decision to be liquidated - or not - is still very much in Anderson's hands i.e. it would be up to him to decide which course of action would have the least impact on his personal finances.

Your guidance appreciated.

Guidance from me would be appreciated would it - considering you've rubbished (often abusively) everything I've posted on Anderson's tenure for the last three years?

As I've posted several times a secured loan understood to be for £5 million is shown as a charge against assets at Companies House.

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

A bloke who randomly turned up on the internet just over a week ago (by the name of Howard) states that another £3 million is owed by KA to Eddie.  He first said it was secured but when challenged changed his narrative to being unsecured.  The bottom line though was that Moonshift would not settle with KA unless they got £8 million from him.

That's not to say Moonshift would not settle for less from someone other than KA and sell the debt on.  It could even be for less than the secured amount of £5 million if they wished to take a discount simply to remove themselves from the position they are currently holding over the lien on the club ownership.

Moonshift however would still have loans (unsecured?) against the clubs assets.  I seemed to have read in the past that they now stand at £10 million after various write offs by Eddie, but don't know how factual that is.  Maybe they amount to just the £3 million that is mentioned above as part of the £8 million - I don't know.

I doubt very much Anderson as much of a say over liquidation.  He can't sell the club until he's cleared the lien on ownership shares with Moonshift and he can't stave off HMRC £1.2m winder petition unless he pays it off.  It's basically out of his hands either way - unless he wants to dip his hand into his own pocket - if so does he have the money to do so?

If I was a betting man I would put my money on someone buying the club share ownership debt at the last minute (as creditors would be more willing to agree deals if they thought there was a growing possibility that they might be worse off if the club was to be liquidated), then give Anderson a 14 day notice off taking ownership due to his default on repayment.

I guess their plan might be to acquire ownership of the club with reduced /or all debts, settled, with assets in excess of cost paid to do so, then sell on (or break up and asset strip?).  Just be speculating though.

Anything new? Anyone?

So obviously my effort - despite all the past history between us - wasn't appreciated, or acknowledged, in the slightest - shows once again what sort of a man you really are.

maconman wrote:One or two things might become clearer as the accounts are required legally to be published by the end of the month. I suspect most of the things that are unclear have arisen since the end of June and we can only hope that they are covered in full by the auditors in post balance sheet events.

Doubt it- the auditors will only comment on what are called 'adjusting events' and negotiations to sell the club will not be there. What to watch for in the auditors report is whether they give a 'going concern' qualification or not. I suspect that they will. Also the directors are legally obliged to say whether, in their opinion, the business is a going concern or not (in the Directors Report) That's down to Anderson- so let's see what he says.
Of course that all depends on the business filing( publishing) its Accounts by the official date and as has happened before they might well default. The fine for doing so is paltry.

rammywhite wrote:

maconman wrote:One or two things might become clearer as the accounts are required legally to be published by the end of the month. I suspect most of the things that are unclear have arisen since the end of June and we can only hope that they are covered in full by the auditors in post balance sheet events.

Doubt it- the auditors will only comment on what are called 'adjusting events' and negotiations to sell the club will not be there. What to watch for in the auditors report is whether they give a 'going concern' qualification or not. I suspect that they will. Also the directors are legally obliged to say whether, in their opinion, the business is a going concern or not (in the Directors Report) That's down to Anderson- so let's see what he says.
Of course that all depends on the business filing( publishing) its Accounts by the official date and as has happened before they might well default. The fine for doing so is paltry.

Yup - late filing of accounts fines are peanuts. The last filed accounts were made up to end June 2017 so although from our perspective we'd love to find out what's really been going on for the last 20 months, I can't see Anderson being in any rush to tell us.
That said, do you think that in the event of a sale being concluded the new owners might file if only to provide a baseline of what they have inherited?
And do you think that the auditors would currently qualify Burden Leisure as a going concern despite as appears to be the case, the business has lost money and value throughout Anderson's tenure because their criteria are so low that the implication is that Burden Lesiure could survive if they sold everything and dropped several divisions?

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

maconman wrote:One or two things might become clearer as the accounts are required legally to be published by the end of the month. I suspect most of the things that are unclear have arisen since the end of June and we can only hope that they are covered in full by the auditors in post balance sheet events.

Doubt it- the auditors will only comment on what are called 'adjusting events' and negotiations to sell the club will not be there. What to watch for in the auditors report is whether they give a 'going concern' qualification or not. I suspect that they will. Also the directors are legally obliged to say whether, in their opinion, the business is a going concern or not (in the Directors Report) That's down to Anderson- so let's see what he says.
Of course that all depends on the business filing( publishing) its Accounts by the official date and as has happened before they might well default. The fine for doing so is paltry.

Yup - late filing of accounts fines are peanuts. The last filed accounts were made up to end June 2017 so although from our perspective we'd love to find out what's really been going on for the last 20 months, I can't see Anderson being in any rush to tell us.
That said, do you think that in the event of a sale being concluded the new owners might file if only to provide a baseline of what they have inherited?
And do you think that the auditors would currently qualify Burden Leisure as a going concern despite as appears to be the case, the business has lost money and value throughout Anderson's tenure because their criteria are so low that the implication is that Burden Lesiure could survive if they sold everything and dropped several divisions?

I think it highly likely that the Accounts will be filed late and I suspect that they will be qualified. The going concern issue is up to the auditors. They are Cowgill Holloway ( a reputable local firm!) and they need to decide if there is sufficient liquidity(or access to additional funds if required) to ensure that the business can continue to trade for the next twelve months, can pay its bills as they fall due. From what's in the public domain that is clearly not the case ,and so I think a qualified report is inevitable. That in itself might trigger the repayment of any commercial loans to the business bankers, as a qualified report is often in the contract(or covenants) which are terms of any loan and is followed by immediate repayment of any loans. Anderson will be fighting like a cat to try and ensure that the audit report is clean. But lets see what emerges.
Any new owners will file very quickly as there is nothing for them to lose by not doing so. Its  a well known ploy for  new managers to produce really poor Accounts to show that the base line from which they start to operate is so low that ,when success follows they can claim the credit. You see this currently when businesses issue a series of profit warnings. So if a takeover is completed ( and that's now a big IF) then I would expect to see the Accounts being filed so the new owners can start a fresh page . But the overall picture at the moment is dire

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

rammywhite wrote:

maconman wrote:One or two things might become clearer as the accounts are required legally to be published by the end of the month. I suspect most of the things that are unclear have arisen since the end of June and we can only hope that they are covered in full by the auditors in post balance sheet events.

Doubt it- the auditors will only comment on what are called 'adjusting events' and negotiations to sell the club will not be there. What to watch for in the auditors report is whether they give a 'going concern' qualification or not. I suspect that they will. Also the directors are legally obliged to say whether, in their opinion, the business is a going concern or not (in the Directors Report) That's down to Anderson- so let's see what he says.
Of course that all depends on the business filing( publishing) its Accounts by the official date and as has happened before they might well default. The fine for doing so is paltry.

Yup - late filing of accounts fines are peanuts. The last filed accounts were made up to end June 2017 so although from our perspective we'd love to find out what's really been going on for the last 20 months, I can't see Anderson being in any rush to tell us.
That said, do you think that in the event of a sale being concluded the new owners might file if only to provide a baseline of what they have inherited?
And do you think that the auditors would currently qualify Burden Leisure as a going concern despite as appears to be the case, the business has lost money and value throughout Anderson's tenure because their criteria are so low that the implication is that Burden Lesiure could survive if they sold everything and dropped several divisions?

I think it highly likely that the Accounts will be filed late and I suspect that they will be qualified. The going concern issue is up to the auditors. They are Cowgill Holloway ( a reputable local firm!) and they need to decide if there is sufficient liquidity(or access to additional funds if required) to ensure that the business can continue to trade for the next twelve months, can pay its bills as they fall due. From what's in the public domain that is clearly not the case ,and so I think a qualified report is inevitable. That in itself might trigger the repayment of any commercial loans to the business bankers, as a qualified report is often in the contract(or covenants) which are terms of any loan and is followed by immediate repayment of any loans. Anderson will be fighting like a cat to try and ensure that the audit report is clean. But lets see what emerges.
Any new owners will file very quickly as there is nothing for them to lose by not doing so. Its  a well known ploy for  new managers to produce really poor Accounts to show that the base line from which they start to operate is so low that ,when success follows they can claim the credit. You see this currently when businesses issue a series of profit warnings. So if a takeover is completed ( and that's now a big IF) then I would expect to see the Accounts being filed so the new owners can start a fresh page . But the overall picture at the moment is dire

So the auditors main criterion is 12 mths survival based on liquidity? 
Does that include leveraging loans against any remaining assets?

Anderson might be "fighting like a cat", however he's looking like a cat in a tank of sharks when it comes to getting a clean audit.

It  usually depends on scrutiny of the business plan for approx. the next 12 months- that would be the normal time to look at a business as a going concern, but that's not a statutory time period, just the usual one.
It could well depend on raising new funds from whatever source- such as operating cash flows, fresh loans or a new share issue. None of these look a likely source of financing to me, so my guess is that there is no way the auditors will see the business as a going concern.

Maybe we should ask Sir Jim Ratcliffe to buy us out. he's got a bob or two spare.

gloswhite wrote:Maybe we should ask Sir Jim Ratcliffe to buy us out. he's got a bob or two spare.

Just as long as we didn't have to relocate to Monaco.

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