Bolton Troubles (2 Viewers)

[Nick]

Imagine if ACL had bought Wasps and then the Haskell dream worked.

PWKH would nearly have as many clubs as he would aliases.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Yep agree, no doubt we have gone backwards, and they haven't invested as many would have liked, but in reality if we had not had the Ricoh issues (something they were landed with), something that was caused by many sides, then we would probably not have so much angst towards them.

they werent landed with it, they chose to accept it at a time they had the most leverage. It was a fundamental error on their part, something every other potential investors saw and walked away from.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Imagine if ACL had bought Wasps and then the Haskell dream worked.

no thanks Nick .... think that would have been a nightmare not a dream

 

[Nick]

they werent landed with it, they chose to accept it at a time they had the most leverage. It was a fundamental error on their part, something every other potential investor saw and walked away from.

Strange that you say others walked away because of it rather than trying to negotiate it?

 

[Liquid Gold]

Unless the kids strike as well.

Get some blokes from down the park and pay them £100. Or raffle off places on the team, make fans pay.

 

[oldskyblue58]

In terms of running the business SISU have put the finances of day to day operation in to better order. But the club is not self sustaining, the chosen model is to rely on player sales to fund it , but even so it still requires working capital from the shareholders to keep going. It is also loaded with debt and very few assets

SISU have not asset stripped as such, more utilised the the assets to keep going without major funds from them or outside investment. I dont have a problem with that personally, but you have to bear in mind that effectively limits the level to which the club can go whilst everyone else doesn't operate in that manner and owners are prepared to lose millions in pitching for the Premier League

 

[oldskyblue58]

Strange that you say others walked away because of it rather than trying to negotiate it?

not really had everyone done the same what do you think the outcome would have been..... the SISU interest gave CCC and other parties an out. For a business that prides itself on playing hard ball then it just looks like another weak position to take .... the first of many. It was their choice to do the deal they did

 

[skybluegod]

No they haven't asset stripped but it has all been about trying to get things in the best interests of their investors not necessarily the club. It very nearly worked but equally it very nearly caused complete disaster for CCFC. Football is high risk enough without that additional endangerment, the alienation of fans and income because of their tactics, that is why SISU have not been good owners. Have they taken monies out of CCFC yes - over the years around £1.5m. Have they put large loans in and claimed high interest yes (but not as much loans as they claim)

No ACL tried to buy Wasps before the rent strike, up to that point the only people involved in stadium sale talks was SISU. Highly likely that neither side knew what the other was doing outside the sale talks. The plan to go on rent strike had its origins in the formation of Otium in April 2011. The email from Gidney was March 2012 but talks were started before that. At that same time in 2012 ARVO registered their charge which would prove crucial in the administration that followed, that of course didnt happen by accident or unplanned.

The rent strike would have happened whether or not there had been a Gidney email, the details of which would not have been available to SISU until they commenced JR1.

What that Gidney email points to is that ACL could have owned Wasps which means if SISU could have done the stadium deal SISU could have owned Wasps how ironic would that have been.

It wasnt "underhand" for assets to move company then and not make anyone aware of it or to lose the golden share? The litigation in the main has been instigated by SISU or companies under their control, certainly in the years 2012 - 2014, with the objective of breaking the lease which it did and to distress ACL, which it nearly did.

Neither side in this comes out well, and the above is not a defence of either party but it frustrates me that things are claimed as fact when it is not.

I haven't said Sisu haven't acted poorly, I simply stated it was a one sided view.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

not really had everyone done the same what do you think the outcome would have been..... the SISU interest gave CCC and other parties an out. For a business that prides itself on playing hard ball then it just looks like another weak position to take .... the first of many

Yeah... the overall plan at the start still not clear. Was hardball over obtaining control, claiming shares. Also hardball over players' contracts in not renewing them until last possible moment.

But the ground...? The logic of course was that was irrelevant when it was a punt at the top flight for big rewards. High risk, high return.

We're now on plan... E?

 

[Liquid Gold]

Yeah... the overall plan at the start still not clear. Was hardball over obtaining control, claiming shares. Also hardball over players' contracts in not renewing them until last possible moment.

But the ground...? The logic of course was that was irrelevant when it was a punt at the top flight for big rewards. High risk, high return.

We're now on plan... E?

Sisu were very much hands off until Ranson threw his toys out though. Blame not purchasing the ground on him as he wanted to play Football Manager with Coleman instead.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Sisu fit and proper? They have to a certain extent asset stripped us tried to bully the council into selling them the Ricoh on the cheap and failed but have now seemed to realise that they have to try and run it a little less dictatorial and appear to have turned the corner in terms of success for the club ie checkatrade win and promotion plus highest league finishes for a few years so i guess the efl look at them and think they are fit and proper no matter what shite we have to put up with

I recommend that you learn the definition of "asset stripping" because there is no suggestion that our Club has been on the receiving, of that practice from SISU.

 

[oucho]

Troubles at Bolton

 

[SBAndy]

In terms of running the business SISU have put the finances of day to day operation in to better order. But the club is not self sustaining, the chosen model is to rely on player sales to fund it , but even so it still requires working capital from the shareholders to keep going. It is also loaded with debt and very few assets

SISU have not asset stripped as such, more utilised the the assets to keep going without major funds from them or outside investment. I dont have a problem with that personally, but you have to bear in mind that effectively limits the level to which the club can go whilst everyone else doesn't operate in that manner and owners are prepared to lose millions in pitching for the Premier League

I’m quite happy with the business model we use and having had the turbulent 15-20 years we’ve had I’ve no problem with there being a theoretical ceiling to our progression as long as I still have a (relatively) successful club to support.

 

[oucho]

I’m quite happy with the business model we use and having had the turbulent 15-20 years we’ve had I’ve no problem with there being a theoretical ceiling to our progression as long as I still have a (relatively) successful club to support.

Cool....which club do you support??

 

[fernandopartridge]

I think the Fit & Proper test would probably have to be within the realms of what is permitted under European law and / or Company law

 

[oldskyblue58]

the details of the Directors & Owners Test (Fit & Proper) can be found here

EFL Official Website - Appendix 3 - Owners' and Directors' Test

What it doesnt seem to do is to test whether the person has the ability to own and run a football club in good times or in bad. Or whether they understand football finances, or the running of a business

 

[oucho]

the details of the Directors & Owners Test (Fit & Proper) can be found here

EFL Official Website - Appendix 3 - Owners' and Directors' Test

What it doesnt seem to do is to test whether the person has the ability to own and run a football club in good times or in bad. Or whether they understand football finances, or the running of a business

If that was the essence of the test there wouldn't be enough owners to go around all the clubs!

 

[MusicDating]

I think the Fit & Proper test would probably have to be within the realms of what is permitted under European law and / or Company law

As far as I can tell, the EFL still haven't implemented the recommendations of the Owners' Conduct Review that they agreed to at their AGM in June 2018.
I suspect due to the reasons you list. Or they're just useless.

 

[skybluesam66]

so their last match will now be deferred until after the season
If they still dont complete and their results get wiped , this could help Derby

They could still get pipped for 6, but because they have a defeat v Bolton, that would put them back in the top 6
As mentioned earlier,even if they survive this-expect them to start on -20 or more next season,and heading straight for league 2

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Is it at all possible to prevent loans to football clubs? That would weed out potential owners who plough in loans to be repaid with high interest?

 

[skybluesam66]

Is it at all possible to prevent loans to football clubs? That would weed out potential owners who plough in loans to be repaid with high interest?

all businesses run on debt-impossible

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

all businesses run on debt-impossible

Would encourage self sustaining. Although not sure that practice of banning loans would be legally allowed.

Didn’t say gifts wouldn’t be allowed.

 

[oldskyblue58]

all businesses do not run on debt, all football clubs do seem to

Instead of loans the EFL could insist that, say from the start of next season, all future investment is done by gift or the issue of shares. Of course it would need the clubs to agree to it at a general meeting, so unlikely to happen. The trouble is it would be impossible to deal with existing debts and the security charges that exist. It wont happen

Individual clubs do this unilaterally at times. Sunderland for example converted £150m of debt to equity shares in their 2018 accounts.

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

The Bolton situation i always assumed that the last games had to start at the same time after our situation in 1977. How are Bolton allowed to play their last game after the season ends?I know it won't affect their postion in the table but it sets a president.IF Bolton went bust would it mean an extra place in our league and only 1 club would be chucked out of division 2.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The Bolton situation i always assumed that the last games had to start at the same time after our situation in 1977. How are Bolton allowed to play their last game after the season ends?I know it won't affect their postion in the table but it sets a president.IF Bolton went bust would it mean an extra place in our league and only 1 club would be chucked out of division 2.

It's happened plenty of times before

 

[skybluetony176]

The Bolton situation i always assumed that the last games had to start at the same time after our situation in 1977. How are Bolton allowed to play their last game after the season ends?I know it won't affect their postion in the table but it sets a president.IF Bolton went bust would it mean an extra place in our league and only 1 club would be chucked out of division 2.

The interesting question is if Bolton do go tits up and start again (like Rangers) at what league would they have to start again in? If Rangers is anything to go by league two could be calling for them which begs the question how would the extra place be filled in the championship? I have a fantasy where an extra team gets automatic promotion from league one meaning 7th is a playoff place and we beat Sunderland in the playoff final at Wembley.

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

"skybluetony176"there is no extra place in the championship Bolton are on there way down already. The extra place would be in our league.Sorry to piss on your fantasy.

 

[skybluetony176]

"skybluetony176"there is no extra place in the championship Bolton are on there way down already. The extra place would be in our league.Sorry to piss on your fantasy.

Shush! It’s my fantasy, it can work anyway I want it

 

[Liquid Gold]

I'd like to think they let Notts County off after everything Doyle's done to them.

 

[better days]

all businesses do not run on debt, all football clubs do seem to

Instead of loans the EFL could insist that, say from the start of next season, all future investment is done by gift or the issue of shares. Of course it would need the clubs to agree to it at a general meeting, so unlikely to happen. The trouble is it would be impossible to deal with existing debts and the security charges that exist. It wont happen

Individual clubs do this unilaterally at times. Sunderland for example converted £150m of debt to equity shares in their 2018 accounts.

I always value your assessment OSB
You're right, businesses generally don't run on debt, they may invest in capital expenditure but generally it's more predictable than the gamble on signing players
Sisu probably kidded themselves that they were clever enough to avoid the mistakes of so many other owners
I can't defend Sisu but there are other guilty parties in this mess
And at least the wages get paid

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

I'd like to think they let Notts County off after everything Doyle's done to them.

to or for them if it's to has he been a b------d over there.

 

[Liquid Gold]

to or for them if it's to has he been a b------d over there.

He just helped eliminate them from the playoffs and helped them to the brink of relegation. He's not popular there, legs definitely gone.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

all businesses do not run on debt, all football clubs do seem to

Instead of loans the EFL could insist that, say from the start of next season, all future investment is done by gift or the issue of shares. Of course it would need the clubs to agree to it at a general meeting, so unlikely to happen. The trouble is it would be impossible to deal with existing debts and the security charges that exist. It wont happen

Individual clubs do this unilaterally at times. Sunderland for example converted £150m of debt to equity shares in their 2018 accounts.

Also seems that there is a white knight who eventually takes over from the bad guy at all these clubs except ours. The Oystons aside I can't think of another club that hasn't been able to shake off the bogeymen for this long. Even they got their club a season in the top flight...

 

[Liquid Gold]

Also seems that there is a white knight who eventually takes over from the bad guy at all these clubs except ours. The Oystons aside I can't think of another club that hasn't been able to shake off the bogeymen for this long. Even they got their club a season in the top flight...

Stadium ownership innit...

 

[win9nut]

Yeah... the overall plan at the start still not clear. Was hardball over obtaining control, claiming shares. Also hardball over players' contracts in not renewing them until last possible moment.

But the ground...? The logic of course was that was irrelevant when it was a punt at the top flight for big rewards. High risk, high return.

We're now on plan... E?

I thought this was all still part of Operation Premiership