Jump to content
IGNORED

Bolton / Bury On The Brink (Merged)


Judda

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, the1stknowle said:

You buy debt based on amount of debt and the chance of it getting repaid. 

As has been reported by David Conn, 7m quid of debt was sold for 70k. So basically an assumption that there is 1 in 100 chance of full repayment. However, it was bought by an undisclosed related party (partner of owner) and owner then negotiated the CVA that suddenly reevaluated chances of repayment from 1 in 100 to 1 in 4. Again, undisclosed that a related party was owner of the debt at stake in the CVA  

Thats about the sum of reporting on this thus far. 

Basically you tell someone that their house is worth 100 quid so they sell it to your son in law and then when your son in law buys it you immediately value it at 2500 quid without telling anyone who buys it that your son in law will make 2400 quid from your maths  

 

 

Thanks T1K, you've explained it far better than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In my very naive world, that’s one team in Lg2 that won’t get relegated this season, no relegation at all if Bolton cold too.

If this means some owners don’t have to gamble their league status and bigger debt this season, it might be a small crumb of comfort.

There are of course other knock-ons to other Lg1 clubs:

  • each team will now only play 22 (21 if Bolton too)home games, that’s 5% (10% if Bolton) lost income (gate receipts, sponsorship etc)
  • would season ticket holders be liable for a reduction as they’ve pre-paid 23 games?  Trivial matter I know, but still something to consider.

A lot of clubs (we definitely have done) advertise as £x per game, would think there could be a case now as that cost per game has increased and therefore not what was advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Sad day for football, but why have Bolton been given another 14 days, thought administrator said Tuesday was last day and they will be liquidated Wednesday.

What has changed for them to get another 14 days.

I thought he said he would start the liquidation process on Wednesday. They are essentially 2 weeks behind the very unfortunate Bury.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hodge said:

A lot of clubs (we definitely have done) advertise as £x per game, would think there could be a case now as that cost per game has increased and therefore not what was advertised.

I’m not sure it’s legally binding if it was accurate at the time of print, and tbh I hope it isn’t.
 

I know fans miss out on their teams playing Bury but something doesn’t sit right about teams paying out because other clubs are badly run.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bury have been finished off by 2 sharks. The first one loaded the debts of his failing business onto the football club. The second one, on the basis of no personal investment at all (£1) is looking to make a quick million or two from the club going bust and selling off its assets to the creditors, which alledgely include a close family member, who apparently bought some of the debt at a knockdown price.

Neither of these 2 “businessmen” should have been let anywhere near a football club, but only in the EFL could you also have one of the Oystons previously act as an advisor for others club owners on behalf of the EFL itself. As long as club owners have control over the EFL, this situation will not improve, and the risk is that more clubs could go to the wall, thanks to poor decisions and dodgy dealings, plus what appears to be a complete lack of appropriate governance from those supposedly running the leagues.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 years ago in August- and on this date in fact having looked it up we played Bury.

Remember it vaguely as it was my first full season but Bristol City 1-1 Bury, 28th August 1999. Pulis v Warnock.

That Bury statement I fear could have been a harbinger- they put out a statement coming up to 5pm about CCTV, not entering the ground without permission- already posted about it but I wonder...

Who owns Gigg Lane?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

They’ve put out a statement tonight saying they’re still in talks with bidders.

Sounds like liquidation was a threat to get buyers to hurry up. Not too encouraging that they didn’t.

But Bury were in talks with bidders today but have been expelled.

I have said this before I think Bolton have been getting preferential treatment from the league. Plus they didn’t have the guts to expel 2 teams at once. 

A club with 5 players who cancel matches for they say there youth team can’t play twice a week can continue getting best 5 0 every week.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst thing is, well it's worst for Bury right now and followed by Bolton of course.

However a significantly bad factor- I think and fear it maybe the tip of the icerberg- got a bad feeling that in the medium term we may see quite a few more in the Lower Leagues on this path- be it poor ownership, lack of cash, whatever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

But Bury were in talks with bidders today but have been expelled.

I have said this before I think Bolton have been getting preferential treatment from the league. Plus they didn’t have the guts to expel 2 teams at once. 

A club with 5 players who cancel matches for they say there youth team can’t play twice a week can continue getting best 5 0 every week.

 

It was a different situation mate. Bolton had their 14-day notice period put on hold, and that was lifted tonight. If they don’t find new owners in 14 days, they’re chucked out.

That’s the deadline that Bury failed to meet on Friday, and again today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, the1stknowle said:

You buy debt based on amount of debt and the chance of it getting repaid. 

As has been reported by David Conn, 7m quid of debt was sold for 70k. So basically an assumption that there is 1 in 100 chance of full repayment. However, it was bought by an undisclosed related party (partner of owners daughter) and owner then negotiated the CVA that suddenly reevaluated chances of repayment from 1 in 100 to 1 in 4. Again, undisclosed that a related party was owner of the debt at stake in the CVA  

Thats about the sum of reporting on this thus far. 

Basically you tell someone that their house is worth 100 quid so they sell it to your son in law and then when your son in law buys it you immediately value it at 2500 quid without telling anyone who buys it that your son in law will make 2400 quid from your maths  

I my have misinterpreted this, but Im sure I also read that with a CVA the various creditors have to agree by majority ( based on size of debt I think) in order that the CVA is passed, and by "selling" the largest debt to the son-in-law it meant that the son in law's  vote would carry the vote and ensure the CVA being agreed, thereby ensuring an immediate "profit" for the family. 

If so, then the owner, through the son in law, was ensuring that he ( the family) profited from the club's misfortune. It also begs the question as to whether by selling the debt in the way they did, they would benefit better and quicker with the club's demise.

As many others have said this sad situation raises many questions, particularly about the EFL's involvement in and handling of the whole situation - from the owner passing the EFL's fit and proper test despite his business track record, through to failing to see the warning signs and how they could/should have stepped in earlier to avoid the loss of a club.

Following on, as this does,  from the recent shambolic run around the EFL were given by Vila, Derby and Wednesday over "stadiumgate", and the admittance that someone cocked up the new rules by failing to transfer across the  rule that prevented sale of a stadium to a related third party, the EFL comes out of the summer looking unprofessional, inept and self-serving.

I'm not holding my breath that there will be any accountability for this catalogue of failure,

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I my have misinterpreted this, but Im sure I also read that with a CVA the various creditors have to agree by majority ( based on size of debt I think) in order that the CVA is passed, and by "selling" the largest debt to the son-in-law it meant that the son in law's  vote would carry the vote and ensure the CVA being agreed, thereby ensuring an immediate "profit" for the family. 

If so, then the owner, through the son in law, was ensuring that he ( the family) profited from the club's misfortune. It also begs the question as to whether by selling the debt in the way they did, they would benefit better and quicker with the club's demise.

As many others have said this sad situation raises many questions, particularly about the EFL's involvement in and handling of the whole situation - from the owner passing the EFL's fit and proper test despite his business track record, through to failing to see the warning signs and how they could/should have stepped in earlier to avoid the loss of a club.

Following on, as this does,  from the recent shambolic run around the EFL were given by Vila, Derby and Wednesday over "stadiumgate", and the admittance that someone cocked up the new rules by failing to transfer across the  rule that prevented sale of a stadium to a related third party, the EFL comes out of the summer looking unprofessional, inept and self-serving.

I'm not holding my breath that there will be any accountability for this catalogue of failure,

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/27/bury-historic-club-football-league-financial-ruins

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/23/bury-company-debt-cva-steve-dale-daughter

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

But Bury were in talks with bidders today but have been expelled.

I have said this before I think Bolton have been getting preferential treatment from the league. Plus they didn’t have the guts to expel 2 teams at once. 

A club with 5 players who cancel matches for they say there youth team can’t play twice a week can continue getting best 5 0 every week.

 

I also feel like Bolton have been getting preferential treatment - but from a business point of view (not saying this is how football should be run) they are marginally the more likely to survive and are a bigger 'brand' at the moment. That is what matters to the EFL.

Shouldn't be forgotten that Bury had already agreed their CVA - this is quite a long way down the liquidation route (if I've got this right). Portsmouth were on the verge (10 years ago) because they couldn't get a CVA agreed, I imagine any attempt to agree one would be the next step for Bolton?

I also believe that Bury do own Gigg Lane but took out loans against the ground (under the Stewart Day) from his companies at extortionate interest rates, so they do own the ground but only until whoever owns that debt calls it in.

Kieron Maguire is right - full disclosure is essential, there are obvious difficulties around how competitive this makes a club but for one owner (Dale) and two prospective investors to not know the extent of the debt the club are in, it shows how big the problems are.

Edited by solihull cider red
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

I would imagine the start of the liquidation process is the countdown to a deadline of 14 days WAT but I'm guessing to be honest.

Sorry.

It's a legal requirement.

I don't think a club has ever survived the start if this process.

Unless Bolton get an amazing stroke of luck - ie someone sticking in 25mil cash to guarantee the season payments to staff - then the expulsion will activate automatically in 13 days.

I'd say they have a 0.1% chance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The day after Bury are expelled from the EFL and the problems at Bolton, the ‘big six’ are reported AGAIN as looking at a breakaway league.

This is what’s completely wrong with the football in this country , Grred, Greed , Greed.

It makes me sick 

Edited by daored
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

What happens to the results that Bury should have played already? (first 6 games).  Do those teams automatically receive 3 points or are they treated as a draw?

Presumably nothing, they'll play 42/44 games depending on Bolton presume Bolton's results will be expunged if they go

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Sad day for football, but why have Bolton been given another 14 days, thought administrator said Tuesday was last day and they will be liquidated Wednesday.

What has changed for them to get another 14 days.

Because the bigger clubs always get treated more leniently by the powers that be. Reminds me of when Swindon were relegated two divisions for financial irregularities and at the same time time Spurs were only fined for the same offence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, daored said:

The day after Bury are expelled from the EFL and the problems at Bolton, the ‘big six’ are reported AGAIN as looking at a breakaway league.

This is what’s completely wrong with the football in this country , Grred, Greed , Greed.

It makes me sick 

Good let them all **** off to play one another week in week out. Leave the rest of us to play in a proper competitive league.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...