Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14145 Location: At the Gates of Delirium
Cibaman wrote:I appreciate we'll never know what opportunities have been missed during the saga. I just thought some basic financial information (the size of the debt, how much is cancelled, the pence in the pound paid out to creditors etc) would be made public? Enough information to form an opinion whether Administration was necessary.
At the very least, as a taxpayer, I would feel entitled to know how much HMRC ends up writing off (if we do go into Administration)!
All that much will be visibl;e - at least to the creditors who receive the reports from the Administrator.
But its all after the event. For example, there are lots of examples of liabilities that crystalise only on insolvency (just one example - the liability to repay the council up to 2019). And assets get written down to realisable value - usually far less than book value. That means that the financial position you see in the Statement of Affairs is always far worse than it appeared on a going concern basis.
And the uninformed can so often be mislead by the disingenuous, using those numbers, and unwittingly aided by journalists who know little about financials,to believe the financial position was far worse than it really was. Trying to explain the difference between drawing up a set of financials on a "going concern" basis and a "realisation" basis is not that easy, in the face of sensationalist headlines.
My concern - and unfortunately it is also my expectation unless there is genuinely a fair pot of new money out there and/or some of the new grouping have consciences regarding the fans who raised the £1/2m (are you listening, Mr Agar?) - is that we'll see O'Haras or whoever Mr Caisley brings in to "audit" the numbers "concluding" that administration is the only option. And then the Statement of Affairs, prepared on a realisation basis, will of course show significant net liabilities, much higher than the last accounts (which disclosed net assets) mainly because of the different basis of preparation (as is always the case in an insolvency!!!). And then some of the statement of affairs figures will be made public, and used to "prove" what a mess the last board left the comapny in and how they did not level with the fans - when the SoA may well show no such thing! But probably only the accountants, and then probably only those who have experience in insolvency (like me) will realise that.
I really hope I am wrong, and that - maybe since there are other shareholders involved (remember, despite how it might come across Mr Coulby has very few shares now, having sold most of his to Bennett) - they conclude - for whatever reasons - that declaring insolvency and going for administration is not the way forward. The whole reason I backed the pledge, and have been seriously concerned about the return of Mr Caisley, was because of a desperate wish to see administration avoided.
I also would very much love to know, definitively, whether Mr Caisley's intervention on the Thursday before the pledge deadline - coming as it did the day after a sudden major pick-up in pledges the previous day - was a deliberate attempt to derail the pledge, and the fundraising efforts of the previous board (which I believe were real and genuine, although I have no idea how realistic) just a co-incidence of timing. But I suspect only Mr Caisley could answer that.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14145 Location: At the Gates of Delirium
BeechwoodBull wrote:The worry that I have is in the wording of the auditor being present. Are we being lined up for the old change of a government line. Quote "Now we have seen the books, its far worse than we thought" From there on - Administration.
Hope I am not seeing shadows in every corner, but you do worry.
That is my fear too.
Meeting maybe at Caisley's office? Or that of the "auditor"? And wonder who the "auditor" is? Or are we really talking insolvency practitioner?
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14145 Location: At the Gates of Delirium
paulwalker71 wrote:I wonder why the meeting isn't taking place at Odsal.
You'd have thought the Coral Stand would be the obvious venue?
I can think of any number of reasons, tbh. I'd guess it was happening at either the offices of whatever insolvency practitioners or accountants are advising Caisley, or maybe at his firm's offices. Or could be at Rot Hall, since the RFL will doubtless play a significant part in what comes next? Holding offsite anyway ensures some degree of confidentiality, for one thing, maybe including the identities of some of the participants? In their situation, I would hold it offsite. But, again, I merely speculate and there could easily be other reasons.
Adeybull wrote:If what Coulby said was true, and the WHOLE truth and not just selective extracts of the truth, then - as well as being quite extraordinary, it goes some way to explaining why the black hole had to be significantly larger than we were told. It HAD to be, because when you do the maths (as I did) we should have been left with ample from the sale of the lease to clear down any non-day to day liabilities. The fact that we clearly were NOT HAS to mean there were more historic liabilities than we had been told about, IMO. I've said that in private almost from the start, as others will attest.
And I have seen references to a couple of clear candidates in previous posts on this forum.
BUT, all that said, to me everything - including specific responses from the BoD - pointed towards the pledge £1/2m being enough to clear down those liabilities, which was the previous BoD's line and which was why I supported the pledge as being the only game in town. And, for me most importantly of all, in discussions I raised the matter of trading whilst insolvent, and I felt it was clear Hood was fully aware of the consequences of that, and had been advised accordingly.
IF they called in the pledges recklessly, without reasonable expectation that by doing so then insolvency should be avoided, then I believe the BoD Could be personally liable for losses people incurred as a result. Which is why I suspect that, on balance of probabilities, there are no big crystalised liabilities still waiting to be discovered. But I can only form a view based on information and explanations made available, and on the assumption that the BoD was at least moderately competent.
I don't think I'm betraying any great secrets by saying that I was told, by highest-placed sources on more than one occasion, that CC's intervention - together with those of Sutcliffe and Preston and some other public statements - made things very much more difficult for the BoD in trying to raise funds. Indeed, Hood as good as said that in public by confirming that new investors were unlikely to want to complete deals with guys whom the owners of the business were in the course of seeking to remove.
My own opinion, FWIW, was and remains that that could have been the intent, and it is also my opinion that the intervention probably contributed to the delay in confirming that the pledge would be called in. But we'll likely never know for sure one way or the other, and I stress I do and can only speculate. I hope that, on the former at least, I am wrong. And we'll almost certainly never know now whether, left to their own devices, the BoD would have pulled it off, so the whole issue has now become hypothetical anyway.
But if Hood & Co were to have called the pledges in if there were still substantial financial skeletons in the closet that called into question the survival of the company, then IMO they would have been reckless crazy fools. And, whatever folk may think of Hood, I really can't see Ryan being party to anything like that, risking major personal liability?
For those reasons, whilst I am quite sure we were never told the whole truth, equally I find it very hard to believe we were told a pack of lies.
But I've got to the stage that little in this whole sad, sorry saga would surprise me any more.
Some fair points in there, and it's rare for me to type as such.
A key factor for any potential investor is quite simply that the injection of funds (and alignment) is both viable and will provide some kind of ROI. Similarly, if the potential investors have a view that an existing administration has been both dysfunctional and negligent then it would be only the brave and narcissistic who would progress. Given that more than explicable scenario awaiting the removal of key members of a misfiring management seems perfect common sense.
I do think Ryan Duckett needs to be given elements of credit for the way he has conducted himself in the media, under quite a bright spotlight. Remaining positive is critical in all elements of successful business and this he has done publically. My concern, rightly or wrongly, is that a CEO is a core part of any financial guidance, structuring (alongside player recruitment) and given the evident parlous situation, which I'm sure may prove to be even more perilous than is currently publically evident, him remaining as CEO may be actually, untenable. Notwithstanding the financial elements, our player recruitment has been abominable over recent years given our relative salary cap spend and that in itself to most fans who care primarily for the on-field production and cast members, is a core facet to be analysed.
Credit must go to Hood for stepping down, and yes as a highly vitriolic critic of his on frequent basis that doesn't come easily, I simply hope he hasnt misled the fans as I may suspect regarding any further chasm and financial black hole. It is also clear that the "review" by CC, SC et al is simply that prior to determining the exact course of action needed. For us to guess what any "intention" may be is futile given that they are not yet in a position to have fully assessed where we are as a club. Sweeping the office of dust won't get rid of the rotten timber.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14145 Location: At the Gates of Delirium
I rather suspect that the key decisions that have most bearing on the current mess, including signings and overall financial control, were handled by Hood.
In my opinion, Ryan has done a superb public job this last few weeks, in pretty dire circumstances and with sod all support from his Chairman.
In fact, I believe Ryan does a pretty outstanding job generally, especially given the serious lack of resources at his disposal. He is also, in my opinion, one of the most genuine and decent blokes you could hope to meet. I very very much hope that he is retained at a senior level in the new structure, and that his role is not handed to Tasker unless it is clear to all parties that that would be a significant improvement.
Joined: Mar 05 2005 Posts: 3998 Location: 2.5 hrs North of Newcastle. 8 hrs South of Brisbane
I get the feeling that the "Cohorts" are struggling for or maybe not even bothering with getting new investment, administration became more a probability than possibility as soon as Peter Hood stepped down.
The phrase politically correct is in itself politcally incorrect so should be rephrased politically stupid!
If you like old type radio comedy/ dramas etc listen to //pumpkinfm.com/
Statistically speaking you have a better chance of getting dead the older you get!
Thank god only when you find a religion that passes the truth test!
Adeybull wrote:I rather suspect that the key decisions that have most bearing on the current mess, including signings and overall financial control, were handled by Hood.
In my opinion, Ryan has done a superb public job this last few weeks, in pretty dire circumstances and with sod all support from his Chairman.
In fact, I believe Ryan does a pretty outstanding job generally, especially given the serious lack of resources at his disposal. He is also, in my opinion, one of the most genuine and decent blokes you could hope to meet. I very very much hope that he is retained at a senior level in the new structure, and that his role is not handed to Tasker unless it is clear to all parties that that would be a significant improvement.
Elements I'd concur with there but I'd prefer a CEO at a sports club who had more strength to personally handle key elements including the playing roster and critically, strategic brand guidance. If that's not the case, then he is simply a CEO by proxy, solely dealing with the bits Hood didn't like, PR for one.
My additional concern is the wind blowing. Loyalty is one thing, flaky wind blowing is another (which people may view it as) to switch from Camp Hood to Team Caisley and accompanying flag waving to mitigate ones position. Ryan is seemingly a very pleasant guy. But being merely a nice guy and a hand shaker doesn't make anybody Donald Trump. It's all about the bottom line.
Adeybull wrote:I rather suspect that the key decisions that have most bearing on the current mess, including signings and overall financial control, were handled by Hood.
In my opinion, Ryan has done a superb public job this last few weeks, in pretty dire circumstances and with sod all support from his Chairman.
In fact, I believe Ryan does a pretty outstanding job generally, especially given the serious lack of resources at his disposal. He is also, in my opinion, one of the most genuine and decent blokes you could hope to meet. I very very much hope that he is retained at a senior level in the new structure, and that his role is not handed to Tasker unless it is clear to all parties that that would be a significant improvement.
absolutely agree 100%. How many CEOs in his situation would be literally on the terraces as he was at the Leeds match. What people dont see or wish to see is that in order to try and make the business work, every bit of economising has been done at this club, especially on the admin staff side of things,whilst attempting to not hit the playing side of things. Bradford City run with lots more permanent staff than we do, and effectively the club has been asking the employees left, to fill various roles!
This could of course have turned out to be a false economy, as more workload often means lower quality, but over the last 6 years that has been the hand the club has been dealt. Your view whether they could have played it better will probably depend on a large portion of hindsight!!
The Likes of Debbie Robinson, Andrea in the shop, Duffy and Raz, (sorry if ive left anyone out) have effectively been left spinning far too many plates than they should have been! perhaps this has contributed to the situation, or perhaps it has delayed the inevitable?? who knows.
Hopefully some positive news will come form the meeting in the next 24 hours, followed in the next week by Coulby, Caisley et al announcing that the club is safe and we are moving onwards and upwards. I can dream cant i?
Oh and by the way. Ryan is genuinely in both Camp Caisley and Camp Hood! remember he's been at the club a lot longer than the years he's been CEO. IIRC, he first came to the club on work placemnet in the 95-96 centenary season! He could and should be the glue that could bring it all back together!
Never liked Kevin Costner, or any other Robbing Hood!!!!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
