Frigby Daser
 Offline
Posts: 4013
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:21:50 » |
|
I'm confused. (Often happens.)
Chairman: unavailable for comment.
Ex-Chairman: don't panic!
Is Jeremy Wray still involved then? Or was he speaking in a personal capacity as someone close to Andrew Black?
My understanding has been for some time that the club's debts are 'soft' debts (ie to the owner himself). Under these circumstances, not really sure what Admin would achieve. If Andrew Black wanted to write off some of that debt, he could probably sort it before lunchtime.
So much I don't get here, so I'm sitting tight and will try to give all this a wide berth for the next day or two. In the meantime, Join TrustSTFC!
This is the conundrum. We're only in debt to our owners who have had a change of heart and want out. The purchase price is whatever the buyer will pay, and Black's debts (or a proportion of them) are wiped out that way. Why admin? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #91 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:23:49 » |
|
This is the conundrum. We're only in debt to our owners who have had a change of heart and want out. The purchase price is whatever the buyer will pay, and Black's debts (or a proportion of them) are wiped out that way. Why admin?
Not a clue, which is another thing Patey should have clarified. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 56512
|
|
« Reply #92 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:24:38 » |
|
Really appreciate you posting that......Can't get any coverage "up here" so any info sharing is well received.
Always a danger I missed/missheard something, so its best to listen again when/if its online later. --- FWIW: for me its not clear if Black said "no more money, end of", or "I'll continue to bankroll the agreed budget while investor talks are ongoing". The fist one would mean the panic button because we can't pay the wage bill, the second a wait and see - put the panic button on ice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 33083
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #93 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:25:12 » |
|
I'll assume because someone is more likely to want to buy a business that doesn't come with a -13m on the balance sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ardiles
Offline
Posts: 11550
Stirlingshire Reds
|
|
« Reply #94 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:28:46 » |
|
I'll throw one more thought in to the mix before stepping away from this for the day. Renegotiation of the County Ground leasehold will be well underway. Put a ?? over the club's ownership might just remove some of SBC's bargaining power?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #95 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:29:29 » |
|
Always a danger I missed/missheard something, so its best to listen again when/if its online later.
---
FWIW: for me its not clear if Black said "no more money, end of", or "I'll continue to bankroll the agreed budget while investor talks are ongoing". The fist one would mean the panic button because we can't pay the wage bill, the second a wait and see - put the panic button on ice.
Spot on. Patey probably didn't want to say which, as it will most likely affect Black's bargaining position with potential buyers. With the board meeting Saturday i expect they're pissed that this was reported today. I'll assume because someone is more likely to want to buy a business that doesn't come with a -13m on the balance sheet.
Well yeah but the point was if most of that -£13m is owed to the director's of the holding company then surely a price can be negotiated accordingly without the need for the dreaded administration (and subsequent 10 point deduction). No? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #96 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:31:31 » |
|
I'll throw one more thought in to the mix before stepping away from this for the day. Renegotiation of the County Ground leasehold will be well underway. Put a ?? over the club's ownership might just remove some of SBC's bargaining power?
I'll happily take that as a potential positive. I'm a glass half full man but waking up to this today has severely pissed me off. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
london_red
Offline
Posts: 2142
|
|
« Reply #97 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:32:13 » |
|
Whether or not administration is a realistic possibility - still looks like it'll fuck us for this season if our more valuable/expensive assets get flogged before the end of the transfer window.
Assume the more recent signings will be on bigger money than the likes of Ferry and Ritchie, wouldn't be surprised if they try to offload Navarro, Miller, Williams maybe over the next few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 56512
|
|
« Reply #98 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:37:10 » |
|
Whether or not administration is a realistic possibility - still looks like it'll fuck us for this season if our more valuable/expensive assets get flogged before the end of the transfer window.
Assume the more recent signings will be on bigger money than the likes of Ferry and Ritchie, wouldn't be surprised if they try to offload Navarro, Miller, Williams maybe over the next few weeks.
Unless there is money in the bank from this seasons budget to pay for what we have. This needed to be clarified, but BBC RS copped out ( unless directed to by the club/Patey pre-interview) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #99 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:37:24 » |
|
Whether or not administration is a realistic possibility - still looks like it'll fuck us for this season if our more valuable/expensive assets get flogged before the end of the transfer window.
It's all at wait and see by the looks of it. We don't know we're selling anyone - yet! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Stegenfreud
Offline
Posts: 486
Say what now?
|
|
« Reply #100 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:39:38 » |
|
I don't know why but I get the impression Wray may be involved in a potential takeover.
In any event I'm not sure how publicising all this now helps? It seems destabilising to fans, manager, players. If they are advanced with new investors why discuss administration publicly now?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
simon FERRY cross the avon... do do.
|
|
|
|
nochee
|
|
« Reply #101 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:42:11 » |
|
I don't know why but I get the impression Wray may be involved in a potential takeover.
I don't know why but I disagree |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trashbat?
Offline
Posts: 1631
|
|
« Reply #102 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:42:32 » |
|
I don't know why but I get the impression Wray may be involved in a potential takeover.
Maybe JW and brother Ed Wray?! wishful thinking perhaps  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Stegenfreud
Offline
Posts: 486
Say what now?
|
|
« Reply #103 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:47:02 » |
|
I don't know why but I disagree
Guess we'll wait and see eh... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
simon FERRY cross the avon... do do.
|
|
|
london_red
Offline
Posts: 2142
|
|
« Reply #104 on: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 09:52:01 » |
|
In any event I'm not sure how publicising all this now helps? It seems destabilising to fans, manager, players. If they are advanced with new investors why discuss administration publicly now?
Reading back through what Patey has actually said I'm less concerned than I was. Seems to me that there is a combination of two things going on here. One - 'administrators' being brought in to give a detailed account of the club's finances and prepare the books for due diligence with potential new owners - due to talks being past the initial stages. Two - A degree of brinkmanship on Black's part, to float the idea of Administration (and an almost total loss of investment) in order to get the other creditors of the club to agree to wipe some of the debt off (but presumably protect some of it) as he indicated he wanted to do through Patey after SWP's arrival - again to ease the sale of the club. Whilst not wholly positive, maybe the situation isn't as dire as some on here (myself included) and the press have concluded. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
