Club Future - Administration or bust?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

xmiles wrote:

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.]

Growler wrote:Ken hiding from going on the radio again doesn't bode well.He loved being in the limelight  at the start of the season when the team had a surprisingly good start

karlypants wrote:Just a pointer Martin about tweets...

If you click on the down arrow on the particular tweet, it will give you the option to embed tweet.

Select embed tweet and then copy the text in the box and paste it in the post box here.

The tweet will display correctly in the thread then.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

karlypants wrote:Just a pointer Martin about tweets...

If you click on the down arrow on the particular tweet, it will give you the option to embed tweet.

Select embed tweet and then copy the text in the box and paste it in the post box here.

The tweet will display correctly in the thread then.

Translation: Martin you dipshit.