The Debt.

[Lord Kangana]

Nixon's Twitter feed doesn't make pleasant reading today, probably best not to believe him to be honest.

That's the spirit, knew you'd get there in the end.

[plymouth wanderer]

Decent read, Has a point regarding the football league! How can we let a tax bill of 600k and staff to go unpaid but pay 1mill in agent fees! I hope Garty makes a full recovery but him and Ed ( no matter what way you cut it) have brought the the club to its knees!

[plymouth wanderer]

Can't seem to copy n paste using my phone. Article is of the daily mirror site. Blaming the footy league as well as our hirerachy.

[Lord Kangana]

As it's that time of year I've opened up my mini Advent Calendar of Doooooooooooom. (it's one those with a little battery and tinny music, playing 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 we're leaving together, but still it's farewell...)

Mon 21st December - (6 days away) wage day. If the staff get paid, glimmers of hope. if not...
Wed 30th December - (15 days away) first team wage day. second month in succession?...
Thu 31st December - (16 days away) if no pay yesterday, notices can be handed in...
Thu 14th January - (30 days away) any who handed in notices can walk away...
Mon 18th January - (34 days away) winding up petition goes before the beak...

So in essence we are 34 days and counting from liquidation and BWFC not existing.

No mate, that's not right. You're managing to simultaneously extrapolate the consequences and concertina the timeline.

We're 34 days away from a High Court appearance to receive a winding-up petition. Even if that petition were accepted uncontested, we wouldn't be liquidated that afternoon and wink out of existence.

What almost always happens in these instances is that the club requests time to pay the bill, citing imminence of takeover etc. Accrington got two separate extensions – or "stays of execution" as the hacks would no doubt call it – to pay their tax debt. Northampton got a fortnight. With demonstrable proof that buyers are being sought and options discussed, I would be astonished if we didn't get time.

You're nearer the mark than Insano, DSB, but the law has changed with regard to the way football clubs and insolvency operate since Accrington's day. HMRC are now a renowned agressive creditor when it comes to sporting businesses as a result, and the most likely next move after the petition hearing is a winding up order from the judge with a date set for that between a week to a month from the petition date - that'll be the leeway period and its length will be dependent on how aggressive the HMRC petition is and how lenient the judge is with regard to that. But more than likely the petition date wouldn't arrive because up to a day before BWFC could go into voluntary administration which scuppers HMRCs petition dead in the water. Once in administration the length of time would then depend on how fast we are leaking dosh and the capability of the administrator to keep things going. (of course the timetable stops as soon as a new buyer steps forward.)

I think you missed out the bit where the administrators rinse us dry of every penny, peseta, and button they can find down the back of the Reebok (it will always be to me).

Fear administration. They will come with smiles, but they are smiling assassins. Mark my words.

[BWFC_Insane]

As it's that time of year I've opened up my mini Advent Calendar of Doooooooooooom. (it's one those with a little battery and tinny music, playing 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 we're leaving together, but still it's farewell...)

Mon 21st December - (6 days away) wage day. If the staff get paid, glimmers of hope. if not...
Wed 30th December - (15 days away) first team wage day. second month in succession?...
Thu 31st December - (16 days away) if no pay yesterday, notices can be handed in...
Thu 14th January - (30 days away) any who handed in notices can walk away...
Mon 18th January - (34 days away) winding up petition goes before the beak...

So in essence we are 34 days and counting from liquidation and BWFC not existing.

No mate, that's not right. You're managing to simultaneously extrapolate the consequences and concertina the timeline.

We're 34 days away from a High Court appearance to receive a winding-up petition. Even if that petition were accepted uncontested, we wouldn't be liquidated that afternoon and wink out of existence.

What almost always happens in these instances is that the club requests time to pay the bill, citing imminence of takeover etc. Accrington got two separate extensions – or "stays of execution" as the hacks would no doubt call it – to pay their tax debt. Northampton got a fortnight. With demonstrable proof that buyers are being sought and options discussed, I would be astonished if we didn't get time.

You're nearer the mark than Insano, DSB, but the law has changed with regard to the way football clubs and insolvency operate since Accrington's day. HMRC are now a renowned agressive creditor when it comes to sporting businesses as a result, and the most likely next move after the petition hearing is a winding up order from the judge with a date set for that between a week to a month from the petition date - that'll be the leeway period and its length will be dependent on how aggressive the HMRC petition is and how lenient the judge is with regard to that. But more than likely the petition date wouldn't arrive because up to a day before BWFC could go into voluntary administration which scuppers HMRCs petition dead in the water. Once in administration the length of time would then depend on how fast we are leaking dosh and the capability of the administrator to keep things going. (of course the timetable stops as soon as a new buyer steps forward.)

I think you missed out the bit where the administrators rinse us dry of every penny, peseta, and button they can find down the back of the Reebok (it will always be to me).

Fear administration. They will come with smiles, but they are smiling assassins. Mark my words.

Under voluntary admin, Eddie could appoint the administrators himself unless creditors object, but as he is the major creditor...

Also administration is designed to get the business running again, not rip it apart.

[Lord Kangana]

If we go into administration, please bookmark this page.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

This page? There's nowt on it.

[Lord Kangana]

Yeah yeah.

[Gudnib]

I'm an eternal optimist brought up in the same era and probably with a similar ethos to Eddie Davies.
No matter how many millions Eddie has lost (and I expect in his head he had long ago written off most of it) he will still will want to do some deal that will best preserve BWFC. But its a dilemma because he also has his successors to think about.

[Riviman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another take on our troubles.

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

Another take on our troubles.

From a total cockend (author not you). So I won't be bothering reading that.

[Gudnib]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

Another take on our troubles.

I saw that too. Its unfashionable and there seem to be few trying to get their heads round it but Gartside has always been right about this. The Davies debt isn't the problem. Its the fact that Eddie Davies has pumped in more than enough and cannot or will not pump in any more.
Many of us spend hundreds in supporting BWFC every year. Eddie Davies has been spending tens of millions year after year. He and Phil Gartside are both qualified accountants and more than capable of knowing that there was little chance of Eddie Davies ever getting much of his 'investment' back.

[Worthy4England]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

Another take on our troubles.

From a total cockend (author not you). So I won't be bothering reading that.

You probably should. He is a total cock-end on Talksport, that's part of his job.

The points he makes in the article are pertinent.

[Jugs]

He does make an interesting point.

Though we were also making efforts to cut the wage bill back then; releasing Petrov, for example.

But it is a good point worth raising. The spending didn't stop there either; that summer we blew Derby out of the water to secure Baptiste.

He was really worth it.

[LeverEnd]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

Another take on our troubles.

From a total cockend (author not you). So I won't be bothering reading that.

You probably should. He is a total cock-end on Talksport, that's part of his job.

The points he makes in the article are pertinent.

Exactly this. He is very good at his job. On Talksport he's very convincing as a complete cockend with the insufferable Darren Gough as his stooge. I can't disagree with much from this article though.

[plymouth wanderer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

Another take on our troubles.

This was what I was referring to earlier

[Gudnib]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... paign=1490

Another take on our troubles.

From a total cockend (author not you). So I won't be bothering reading that.

You probably should. He is a total cock-end on Talksport, that's part of his job.

The points he makes in the article are pertinent.

What point is he really making though? Should club owners be barred from putting up money to try to gain promotion, avoid relegation or keep the show on the road? If you follow that argument we would have been relegated the season after Big Sam upped sticks and Phil Gartside and Eddie Davies could have been burned at the stake eight years earlier.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ok I've read it and as I assumed it is a nonsense.

His view is that all clubs should live within their means. But essentially (and this is what he wants) it means that only the largest City based clubs with biggest attendances and worldwide appeal could ever compete. Because you're creating a hierachy purely based on turnover which broadly equates to number of fans.

To say that a rich owner can't back a club is in my view a nonsense. We aren't in trouble because Eddie backed us, but rather because he stopped suddenly. Whilst that may be the logical conclusion of such backing the answer is not to put little clubs in their place. But rather to try and equal the playing field out. The top clubs are where the problems lie because they block any sort of move which may damage their dominance. The ONLY way to tackle this is to create a more even playing field and impose some sort of spending and wage cap.

That way you don't have the filtering down of cost that cripples the smaller clubs overtime unless they essentially give up and stop competing.

But the football model is the problem, many big clubs are built on debt, but get away with it. This means that as you go down the ladder everyone else either gives up, or similarly requires additional investment. We are the latest club in that position. I think it is clear that the last few years have been mismanaged entirely. That once we knew Eddie was close to giving up we had to strip back hugely, simply with no choice. But when he was giving out money for Anelka or Diouf or Jay Jay's wages or any player that ever helped us stay in the top flight what should we have done? Said no thanks, we're best off not trying to compete and accept our place? Perhaps we should have, but that is no way for the best sport in the world to be. The costs shouldn't be driven by a handful of outlier clubs who can dictate to everyone else how things will be. Until that changes, this will happen, again and again and again.

[Worthy4England]

We're sorta/kinda heading down the live within your means route anyhow, with FFP. As for only the largest City clubs being able to compete, that's different than today, how, exactly? I agree with him that there should be a cap on debt, but I'd make it a cap on debt on change of ownership (so owners would have an agreed exit plan).

The issue with salary caps (if such a thing could legally be imposed) is where to pitch them? They won't pitch them at a level that's going to impact one of the big city clubs you mentioned, surely, which means they'd have little impact.

Oh and the penalties for non-compliance with FFP, let's make them financial to fill the FIFA coffers so we can make a few individuals a bit richer...

Like many observers, I think football is totally fooked. There are too many vested interests to allow a change to the status quo.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

My view is that football league clubs are being run on a dangerous premise: which is that the financial models they are following are sustainable. I believe we are approaching a tipping point in football similar to when the Americans suddenly realised they'd been pitched into a subprime mortgage crisis and the Brits realised our banks were also on the verge of disappearing up their own jacksies. The trouble is that unlike the banking crises, when the government stepped in over Northern Rock and RBS, Her Majesty's Government will not be willing to become major shareholders in the next football club to go into meltdown; far from it, arms of the government, such as HMRC, the CPS, and DCMS may well be leading the charge to radically reform the way the 'football business' in this country is run.
I especially don't want Bolton Wanderers to be the first experimental scapegoat in that particular restructuring exercise, I don't think we'd survive it.
I think your man in the Daily Mail there was making a similar related ppoint except expressing it with far more understatement (apart from the 'blood on hands' bit).