You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Administration - then, now or in the future?

Administration - then, now or in the future?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

wanderlust


Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
When Anderson arrived at the club to "save us" from going into administration Eddie was still alive, the club had assets in excess of 50 million, we had some good young saleable players, and a fanbase that was right behind the club.
Going into administration at that time would have been painful and a few egos would have been damaged in the process, but with the assets we had there was a decent chance of finding a degree of stability and even a wealthy owner when the dust settled.

After almost three years of running the club into the ground we are again faced with the prospect of administration, only this time with less assets, more debts, less saleable young players and a fanbase that is doing their best to stay loyal to a club that is giving them nothing but misery on and off the pitch. If we are to go into administration now, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that we'll come out of it with far less than we would have done had we faced the music and sorted our house out before Anderson got his hands on our club. 

And yet there's the possibility of someone else taking Anderson's shares, but given our financial situation and the imminent prospect of relegation, I agree with Sluffy that we are no longer an attractive proposition for quality investors. To me that implies that unless Anderson is prepared to give his shares away - or pay someone to take them off his grubby hands - we may get a stay of execution by selling to another unfit owner and/or a chancer who sees our demise as an opportunity to turn a quick buck. Which in turn is likely to lead us further down the same road to administration or even liquidation.

As you know, I believe we'd have been better off biting the bullet back in 2015/16 rather than endure the debacle of Anderson's tenure. 

Anyone disagree? If so, why? Where's the silver lining?

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
This is just a re-hash of old threads.

You really need to find interests outside of posting shite on forums.

wanderlust


Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:This is just a re-hash of old threads.

You really need to find interests outside of posting shite on forums.
I have. I enjoy reading your insightful opinions for one.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
As i said on the training ground thread administration is very near. If it takes that to get rid of Kenocchio then so be it. We are already down anyway.

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:As i said on the training ground thread administration is very near. If it takes that to get rid of Kenocchio then so be it. We are already down anyway.
Problem with that scenario is a 2 year transfer ban plus the 12 point deduction.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
The 12 points would come off this season i presume? A 2 year transfer ban is not good. I just can't believe how Kenocchio is playing with our clubs future in such a way to screw as much cash out of it as he can.
He's already taken over half a million out and any debts have been put back on the club so he's not liable for them either.

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington
If admin comes before 3rd Thursday in March then 12 points deducted this season, anything after that date rolls over to next season, either way I can't see the slimy bastard giving a fuck anyway.

wanderlust


Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
If we go into administration, somebody with real money buys us and we then come out of administration on a sound financial footing, would a transfer ban imposed at the start of the process still be relevant or appropriate?
What are the rules here?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:When Anderson arrived at the club to "save us" from going into administration Eddie was still alive, the club had assets in excess of 50 million, we had some good young saleable players, and a fanbase that was right behind the club.
Going into administration at that time would have been painful and a few egos would have been damaged in the process, but with the assets we had there was a decent chance of finding a degree of stability and even a wealthy owner when the dust settled.

After almost three years of running the club into the ground we are again faced with the prospect of administration, only this time with less assets, more debts, less saleable young players and a fanbase that is doing their best to stay loyal to a club that is giving them nothing but misery on and off the pitch. If we are to go into administration now, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that we'll come out of it with far less than we would have done had we faced the music and sorted our house out before Anderson got his hands on our club. 

And yet there's the possibility of someone else taking Anderson's shares, but given our financial situation and the imminent prospect of relegation, I agree with Sluffy that we are no longer an attractive proposition for quality investors. To me that implies that unless Anderson is prepared to give his shares away - or pay someone to take them off his grubby hands - we may get a stay of execution by selling to another unfit owner and/or a chancer who sees our demise as an opportunity to turn a quick buck. Which in turn is likely to lead us further down the same road to administration or even liquidation.

As you know, I believe we'd have been better off biting the bullet back in 2015/16 rather than endure the debacle of Anderson's tenure. 

Anyone disagree? If so, why? Where's the silver lining?

I'm going over old ground yet again but...

...as far as I'm aware once the club enter Administration, the control of it goes from the owner (KA) to the Administrator - so is Ken willing to give up control even at this late point?

Also it is the largest group of creditors who can 'pick' the Administrator, so I guess that would mean did Moonshift, James and Warburton really want to go down that path?

Next as far as I understand it, Administration needs to be funded during the period of Administration - and it is not cheap - so who is going to pay for it to happen - certainly Anderson won't.

Then you have to think of things that might pre-empt Admin anyway, such as will the ownership shares default to Moonshift anytime soon, or is the club actually insolvent now - which means it ceases all trading and the receipt of money such as this months ST Direct Debits?

Anderson I suppose could even put the club into voluntary liquidation - he clearly isn't loved by the majority of fans, so I guess he might choose to go out in a blaze of glory sticking two fingers up to everybody as we join the ranks of former clubs!

Tbh though I think there is still some hope for our future still.  

If we actually were insolvent (or going into voluntary liquidation) I'm sure that would have happened once all talks to take over the club from Anderson had been exhausted.  The very fact that this hasn't happen suggests to me something is going on (away from the people who feed Nixon and Iles the gossip) still to strike a deal.

If I was a betting man (I'm not) I would think it would more involve Moonshift and a prospective buyer with KA having been removed from the equation somehow.

Just pure guesswork on my part however.

I still however can't understand why anyone would want to buy us though because I simply can't see how they can make a return on us within a three year (FFP) period, whilst potentially pissing away at least £10 million (and probably a whole lot more) to simply keep the club running for the rest of this season and next - let alone improve us.

I guess all will become much clearer soon enough and fingers crossed things don't work out too bad for us.

Dunkels King

Dunkels King
Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:If we go into administration, somebody with real money buys us and we then come out of administration on a sound financial footing, would a transfer ban imposed at the start of the process still be relevant or appropriate?
What are the rules here?

Having a quick look at other Clubs who went in to administration, like Port Vale a while ago,once they had paid off all their Creditors and showed they had a good financial footing the Embargo was lifted. I hope this would apply to us, although with our previous history it might need to be a larger wedge of money that needs to be shown than last time.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I don't share your optimism Sluffy but i pray you are right. I can't imagine a world without BWFC  Sad

wanderlust


Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:When Anderson arrived at the club to "save us" from going into administration Eddie was still alive, the club had assets in excess of 50 million, we had some good young saleable players, and a fanbase that was right behind the club.
Going into administration at that time would have been painful and a few egos would have been damaged in the process, but with the assets we had there was a decent chance of finding a degree of stability and even a wealthy owner when the dust settled.

After almost three years of running the club into the ground we are again faced with the prospect of administration, only this time with less assets, more debts, less saleable young players and a fanbase that is doing their best to stay loyal to a club that is giving them nothing but misery on and off the pitch. If we are to go into administration now, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that we'll come out of it with far less than we would have done had we faced the music and sorted our house out before Anderson got his hands on our club. 

And yet there's the possibility of someone else taking Anderson's shares, but given our financial situation and the imminent prospect of relegation, I agree with Sluffy that we are no longer an attractive proposition for quality investors. To me that implies that unless Anderson is prepared to give his shares away - or pay someone to take them off his grubby hands - we may get a stay of execution by selling to another unfit owner and/or a chancer who sees our demise as an opportunity to turn a quick buck. Which in turn is likely to lead us further down the same road to administration or even liquidation.

As you know, I believe we'd have been better off biting the bullet back in 2015/16 rather than endure the debacle of Anderson's tenure. 

Anyone disagree? If so, why? Where's the silver lining?

I'm going over old ground yet again but...

...as far as I'm aware once the club enter Administration, the control of it goes from the owner (KA) to the Administrator - so is Ken willing to give up control even at this late point?

Also it is the largest group of creditors who can 'pick' the Administrator, so I guess that would mean did Moonshift, James and Warburton really want to go down that path?

Next as far as I understand it, Administration needs to be funded during the period of Administration - and it is not cheap - so who is going to pay for it to happen - certainly Anderson won't.

Then you have to think of things that might pre-empt Admin anyway, such as will the ownership shares default to Moonshift anytime soon, or is the club actually insolvent now - which means it ceases all trading and the receipt of money such as this months ST Direct Debits?

Anderson I suppose could even put the club into voluntary liquidation - he clearly isn't loved by the majority of fans, so I guess he might choose to go out in a blaze of glory sticking two fingers up to everybody as we join the ranks of former clubs!

Tbh though I think there is still some hope for our future still.  

If we actually were insolvent (or going into voluntary liquidation) I'm sure that would have happened once all talks to take over the club from Anderson had been exhausted.  The very fact that this hasn't happen suggests to me something is going on (away from the people who feed Nixon and Iles the gossip) still to strike a deal.

If I was a betting man (I'm not) I would think it would more involve Moonshift and a prospective buyer with KA having been removed from the equation somehow.

Just pure guesswork on my part however.

I still however can't understand why anyone would want to buy us though because I simply can't see how they can make a return on us within a three year (FFP) period, whilst potentially pissing away at least £10 million (and probably a whole lot more) to simply keep the club running for the rest of this season and next - let alone improve us.

I guess all will become much clearer soon enough and fingers crossed things don't work out too bad for us.
All points we've discussed at length elsewhere so why bother going over them again? 

And I still don't know from that diatribe whether or not you agree with me that we'd have been better off going into administration in 2016 than sliding towards it now - if it goes that way, nor do you seem prepared to talk about the silver lining of Anderson's ownership if there is one.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:All points we've discussed at length elsewhere so why bother going over them again? 

And I still don't know from that diatribe whether or not you agree with me that we'd have been better off going into administration in 2016 than sliding towards it now - if it goes that way, nor do you seem prepared to talk about the silver lining of Anderson's ownership if there is one.

Ok then...

...why even bother talking about something that DIDN'T happen three years ago???

The reason it DIDN'T happen being because the person who held all the cards at the time DIDN'T want it to happen.

The alternative to the sale to Holdsworth (and by connection Anderson who joined him at the last moment) was (depending on who you believe) not Administration but LIQUIDATION!  It was I believe the third and final court appearance of HMRC WINDING UP PETITION and the judge at the previous court appearance had warned the club that he would accept no further delays on resolving this petition.

So do you think LIQUIDATION of the club would have been better than having Holdsworth and Anderson for the last three years rather than LIQUIDATION because I do and every single other Bolton fan would do too!

So there's your silver lining.

Happy now?

bryan458

bryan458
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
So whats all this freezing direct debits about ?? very strange !!

wanderlust


Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:All points we've discussed at length elsewhere so why bother going over them again? 

And I still don't know from that diatribe whether or not you agree with me that we'd have been better off going into administration in 2016 than sliding towards it now - if it goes that way, nor do you seem prepared to talk about the silver lining of Anderson's ownership if there is one.

Ok then...

...why even bother talking about something that DIDN'T happen three years ago???

The reason it DIDN'T happen being because the person who held all the cards at the time DIDN'T want it to happen.

The alternative to the sale to Holdsworth (and by connection Anderson who joined him at the last moment) was (depending on who you believe) not Administration but LIQUIDATION!  It was I believe the third and final court appearance of HMRC WINDING UP PETITION and the judge at the previous court appearance had warned the club that he would accept no further delays on resolving this petition.

So do you think LIQUIDATION of the club would have been better than having Holdsworth and Anderson for the last three years rather than LIQUIDATION because I do and every single other Bolton fan would do too!

So there's your silver lining.

Happy now?
No because you don't understand the difference between solvent and insolvent liquidation.

Nigelbwfc


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:If we go into administration, somebody with real money buys us and we then come out of administration on a sound financial footing, would a transfer ban imposed at the start of the process still be relevant or appropriate?
What are the rules here?

Having a quick look at other Clubs who went in to administration, like Port Vale a while ago,once they had paid off all their Creditors and showed they had a good financial footing the Embargo was lifted. I hope this would apply to us, although with our previous history it might need to be a larger wedge of money that needs to be shown than last time.
It's not debt that is necessarily the problem, it's cashflow. So going into administration isnt necessarily going to help the problem. 

£11 million wages on less than 15000 gates majority paying an average of £15 tells you a story in itself.

Yes the £5 million has to be paid and also the £15 million. I think warbies and the other guy will probably wait.

Time is running out. The Inland Revenue and the Council need their money too.

However, Ken has been the master at brinkmanship, so maybe he'll pull it off - you never know.

Nigelbwfc


David Lee
David Lee
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:When Anderson arrived at the club to "save us" from going into administration Eddie was still alive, the club had assets in excess of 50 million, we had some good young saleable players, and a fanbase that was right behind the club.
Going into administration at that time would have been painful and a few egos would have been damaged in the process, but with the assets we had there was a decent chance of finding a degree of stability and even a wealthy owner when the dust settled.

After almost three years of running the club into the ground we are again faced with the prospect of administration, only this time with less assets, more debts, less saleable young players and a fanbase that is doing their best to stay loyal to a club that is giving them nothing but misery on and off the pitch. If we are to go into administration now, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that we'll come out of it with far less than we would have done had we faced the music and sorted our house out before Anderson got his hands on our club. 

And yet there's the possibility of someone else taking Anderson's shares, but given our financial situation and the imminent prospect of relegation, I agree with Sluffy that we are no longer an attractive proposition for quality investors. To me that implies that unless Anderson is prepared to give his shares away - or pay someone to take them off his grubby hands - we may get a stay of execution by selling to another unfit owner and/or a chancer who sees our demise as an opportunity to turn a quick buck. Which in turn is likely to lead us further down the same road to administration or even liquidation.

As you know, I believe we'd have been better off biting the bullet back in 2015/16 rather than endure the debacle of Anderson's tenure. 

Anyone disagree? If so, why? Where's the silver lining?
I'd agree with you on this wanderlust, the club should have gone into administration first time round.

Not sure we can afford it so it's liquidation, with Anderson coming out with a £5million profit. I believe he's a priority creditor, as reported when we gave a striker back.

wanderlust


Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:When Anderson arrived at the club to "save us" from going into administration Eddie was still alive, the club had assets in excess of 50 million, we had some good young saleable players, and a fanbase that was right behind the club.
Going into administration at that time would have been painful and a few egos would have been damaged in the process, but with the assets we had there was a decent chance of finding a degree of stability and even a wealthy owner when the dust settled.

After almost three years of running the club into the ground we are again faced with the prospect of administration, only this time with less assets, more debts, less saleable young players and a fanbase that is doing their best to stay loyal to a club that is giving them nothing but misery on and off the pitch. If we are to go into administration now, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that we'll come out of it with far less than we would have done had we faced the music and sorted our house out before Anderson got his hands on our club. 

And yet there's the possibility of someone else taking Anderson's shares, but given our financial situation and the imminent prospect of relegation, I agree with Sluffy that we are no longer an attractive proposition for quality investors. To me that implies that unless Anderson is prepared to give his shares away - or pay someone to take them off his grubby hands - we may get a stay of execution by selling to another unfit owner and/or a chancer who sees our demise as an opportunity to turn a quick buck. Which in turn is likely to lead us further down the same road to administration or even liquidation.

As you know, I believe we'd have been better off biting the bullet back in 2015/16 rather than endure the debacle of Anderson's tenure. 

Anyone disagree? If so, why? Where's the silver lining?
I'd agree with you on this wanderlust, the club should have gone into administration first time round.

Not sure we can afford it so it's liquidation, with Anderson coming out with a £5million profit. I believe he's a priority creditor, as reported when we gave a striker back.
Yup - we had more assets then, but now that's water under the bridge as Anderson happened/is happening and nobody - apart from the buyers who walked away - has had access to the accounts to get an understanding of what he's done to our club and what the current position really is. There's still hope of a takeover, but what kind of takeover we'll have to wait and see although we're all hoping for a knight in shining armour to save the day.

wanderlust


Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
So it didn't happen then, looks like it may not happen now, so I guess everything depends on who the new owners will be as to whether it will happen in the future. Let's hope they're decent.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum