Wigan in Administration

Sluffy wrote:

Interesting, thank you.

I somehow can't see that happening universally here in the foreseeable future because of the various football bodies have different priorities and even some like the EFL have different priorities at different levels within the tiers they manage.

Without wishing to teach you to suck eggs the PL stands alone from the EFL and broke away from them and it's basically all about earning money.  The EFL, which now is basically the stepping stone to the PL can be split in to two, the Championship where clubs are (or have) spent big to get in the PL and gone into huge debt which is sustained (or not) by the club owner and at the lower level the 'tiny' clubs simply living on gate receipts and now looking to vote in wage caps in order to keep the clubs in some sort of financial sustainability.

Corvid has caused the PL to complete their season (or hand back billions the clubs have received in advanced screening rights for games that hadn't been played, forced the EFL to play out the Championship because of legal threats from clubs seeking to get promoted to the PL but at the same time cancel L1 and L2 to save the clubs from going bust due to no revenue stream due to playing behind closed doors and imposing an artificial points per game average to determine final positions, playoff places and relegation.

You could even consider another level too, higher than the PL of a breakaway European super league as some clubs such as Real Madrid and PSG seem to have suffered huge financial losses and may well seek to form the long dreamed off 12 clubs or so in Europe playing amongst themselves and pocketing all the broadcast rights that would undoubtedly come there way.

I think this latter European Super League would be more in line with the Nationwide sport bodies you have become accustomed to in the USA.

All just my opinion of course but I don't think anybody in their right minds would deposit £25m on escrow to buy a club of Wigan's size with a current trading deficit projected for the next two years, with crowds of less than 10k (that's when crowds are allowed in!) who in all likelihood will have to pay say £10m to buy the club, stadium and assets (and possibly a further £24.5m for this mysterious interest free loan that may or may not be genuine???).

I just can't see such a model working at the moment for the EFL.

Maybe there will be a required rethink following Covid but as it stands the clubs vote on proposals and as we've seen they always vote in the best interests of them rather thanselves the best interest of the sport.

Whitesince63 wrote:I think their situation is dire lusty. I’m struggling to see how they’ll be able to sell players for the millions they need when if they’re not paid this month they can walk in a couple of weeks for nothing. The EFL decision appeal result is scheduled for Friday so no final decision is likely before then so for Wigan fans it’s squeaky bum time. Personally I hope someone decent does take them on, I don’t want them to be another Bury.

wanderlust wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:I think their situation is dire lusty. I’m struggling to see how they’ll be able to sell players for the millions they need when if they’re not paid this month they can walk in a couple of weeks for nothing. The EFL decision appeal result is scheduled for Friday so no final decision is likely before then so for Wigan fans it’s squeaky bum time. Personally I hope someone decent does take them on, I don’t want them to be another Bury.

I know it's too late now but this is exactly why we should support Lisa Nandy's petition for proper owner vetting - which should be taken out of the hands of the EFL who clearly can't do it.

Sluffy wrote:

No one can do it though, it even takes all the powers of the the government years to do something similar...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51387364

...so how do you expect clubs to wait years before they can be given the green light to have a new owner?

They would long since have folded before that could happen.

All you can do - and common law is based on this - is that you take all reasonable precautions - and that's what the EFL attempt to do.

The club was sold by the club owner to himself - who had owned the club for over a year already - and gave proof of funding that his new company had sufficient funds to continue to do so.

How would anyone not say that was proper vetting at the time?

The problem was that the new business was taken over by someone else and put into Administration on that day - how can anyone stop that let alone the EFL???

wanderlust wrote:The Owners and Directors test is clearly not fit for purpose and whilst changes to make it more robust, have annual checks and review the definition of "fit and proper" were discussed in 2018, the EFL decided to do nothing about it despite the ongoing carnage for many clubs.
Loopholes need to be closed and that would require football being made a special case as I suggested earlier in the thread. 
For example, using club funds to pay off debts the owner may have accrued from other business interests could and should be banned. Repayment of Director's loans should be reviewed in the context of the clubs ability to pay rather than being on demand. Potential Owners of Football clubs should be made aware of these and other commitments before diving in. This and other measures to protect the institution of football would require Government intervention hence Lisa Nandy's petition.
The timing issue is tricky to resolve but some of the issues could be ameliorated by introducing a Prospective Owners Register wherein anyone thinking about buying a club should register in advance giving time for rigorous checks to be made and then providing a pre-vetted list. Anyone on the list would have to provide annual updates and notify of any changes in circumstances. Breach of the new regulations could be made a criminal offence to further discourage cowboys. Selling on the club should only be to people already vetted on the register. Not perfect but a step in the right direction.

wanderlust wrote:I thought it was the case so I just checked. Director's Loan repayments are presumed to be on demand unless the loan agreement specifies repayment clauses which can be inserted at the beginning. Making it mandatory that such clauses to protect the club would be brilliant.

Sluffy wrote:

Eh?

Is it me?

Directors would then simply make sure the loan is subject to payment on demand as part of their agreement of making the loan in the first place.

It's as easy (and as obvious) as that.

I thought you claimed to know about these things???

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Eh?

Is it me?

Directors would then simply make sure the loan is subject to payment on demand as part of their agreement of making the loan in the first place.

It's as easy (and as obvious) as that.

I thought you claimed to know about these things???

You really do have a narrow view of business matters and I honestly can't be arsed to write war and peace to explain to you what goes on in the real world.

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha!

You do make me laugh!!!

In the real world if you want to take a loan from the business you can set your own terms for repayment, usually you intend to have it repaid without the company going bust or in Admin so most don't bother because if the company does go bust or the Administrators come in, you have to pay it all back anyway and that's why the 'presumption' is that it is repaid on demand.

You simply don't have to make it 'mandatory' because it already is, in that you are 'personally' liable for it are not covered by 'limited liability', if you've taken more out of the business than you have put in!

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha!

You do make me laugh!!!

In the real world if you want to take a loan from the business you can set your own terms for repayment, usually you intend to have it repaid without the company going bust or in Admin so most don't bother because if the company does go bust or the Administrators come in, you have to pay it all back anyway and that's why the 'presumption' is that it is repaid on demand.

You simply don't have to make it 'mandatory' because it already is, in that you are 'personally' liable for it are not covered by 'limited liability', if you've taken more out of the business than you have put in!

I'm sorry but you do come across as being inacapable of blue sky/thinking out of the box or whatever you want to call it. Reminds me of some of the civil servants and regional government officers I used to advise i.e. "these are the rules/this is the law/we've always done it this way" limited thinking. Laws and rules can and often are changed if there's a need and the will to do so - ergo there is no point in citing the current situation in a discussion about what might be done in the future to resolve the crisis.

Sluffy wrote:

Hahaha!

Now we've got to the petulant child outburst!

"I'm right and everybody else is always wrong"

You say used to advise civil servants and regional government officers and they obviously thought you were spouting utter bollocks too!!!!!

And finally "crisis"?

What 'crisis'????

We are talking about a private members club who regulates a level of football (not even the top level!!!), based in a country that most of the world is no longer much bothered about, where a handful of their members have had some ownership/trading issues in which just one of them 'may' (and I stress the word 'may') have been subject to company fraud and you want to change how the whole world financially regulates itself!!!!

I don't call that 'blue sky/thinking outside the box', I call that the insane  ramblings of an utter nutjob.

Which it is.




Being serious, why can't you just sometimes admit (even if it's only to yourself) you've got it wrong when surely even you realise that you have, rather than keep digging the hole deeper and deeper for yourself?

What are you trying to prove and to whom?

Nobody actually cares on here who is right or wrong but they can all see who is spouting bullshit and who isn't.

And it certainly isn't me.