Administration and recovery

[truewhite15]

But then again, I know nowt. I'm just a fxcking irritating nutter...

Quite possibly the most accurate thing you've said for weeks.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But then again, I know nowt. I'm just a fxcking irritating nutter...

Quite possibly the most accurate thing you've said for weeks.

I was waiting for that one!

So go on, tell me where I'm wrong?

[Prufrock]

^ (Pru) that's how I imagined it would be.

In the event of liquidation any assets would just be gobbled up by HMRC wouldn't they? Will Buckley will have to queue up with Carrs, Bolton council and all the ground staff for whatever's left

It used to be like that but HMRC no longer has preferred status, so the taxman is in the queue with Carr's, the players and everyone else. (Though there are plans to reverse that I think)

Re: the PFA I'm speculating, but can't see why, if they would ultimately be in the hook for all the wages, they wouldn't have lent it to the players by now.

Because it's a fall back position. Why pay it when you don't have to, why lend it when you don't need to?
Especially as the club/administrators/(Insano's insane idea of a £25million bank account already set up stuffed full of cash with not a credit note in sight) should be paying the fxcking wage.

It doesn't make sense to me. I don't think you're saying that the PFA would be legally required to pay the players their wages (in full, or topping up the pennies in the pound they'd get in liquidation). But that a cash rich organisation like the PFA isn't going to let the players end up out of pocket after 6 months of not being paid.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but assuming it's true, why wouldn't they loan it? They don't *have* to pay it at all, but if their priority is looking after their members then 20 weeks without any pay seems like a good time to step in.

Either way, either the takeover goes through with the players paid in full (and so the PFA get their money back), or the club goes bust, the players get ps in the £, and the PFA ends up paying it anyway. They aren't any worse off loaning it, and the players get some cashflow.

That they haven't seems to suggest strongly to me that they won't be picking up the tab if we go bust.

[Prufrock]

It used to be like that but HMRC no longer has preferred status, so the taxman is in the queue with Carr's, the players and everyone else. (Though there are plans to reverse that I think)

April 2020 they're due to reverse it. At the rate we're going, we might not be complete by then.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^ (Pru) that's how I imagined it would be.

In the event of liquidation any assets would just be gobbled up by HMRC wouldn't they? Will Buckley will have to queue up with Carrs, Bolton council and all the ground staff for whatever's left

It used to be like that but HMRC no longer has preferred status, so the taxman is in the queue with Carr's, the players and everyone else. (Though there are plans to reverse that I think)

Re: the PFA I'm speculating, but can't see why, if they would ultimately be in the hook for all the wages, they wouldn't have lent it to the players by now.

Because it's a fall back position. Why pay it when you don't have to, why lend it when you don't need to?
Especially as the club/administrators/(Insano's insane idea of a £25million bank account already set up stuffed full of cash with not a credit note in sight) should be paying the fxcking wage.

It doesn't make sense to me. I don't think you're saying that the PFA would be legally required to pay the players their wages (in full, or topping up the pennies in the pound they'd get in liquidation). But that a cash rich organisation like the PFA isn't going to let the players end up out of pocket after 6 months of not being paid.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but assuming it's true, why wouldn't they loan it? They don't *have* to pay it at all, but if their priority is looking after their members then 20 weeks without any pay seems like a good time to step in.

Either way, either the takeover goes through with the players paid in full (and so the PFA get their money back), or the club goes bust, the players get ps in the £, and the PFA ends up paying it anyway. They aren't any worse off loaning it, and the players get some cashflow.

That they haven't seems to suggest strongly to me that they won't be picking up the tab if we go bust.

You've obviously never lived through an industrial dispute, union style.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Whatever the legals, there is a strong possibility that the PFA don't wish to set up shop as a lender for unsustainable clubs. Because there's a load of them about.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Whatever the legals, there is a strong possibility that the PFA don't wish to set up shop as a lender for unsustainable clubs. Because there's a load of them about.

Wrong.
How many players in the UK who are members of the PFA have not been paid in the last year?
How many players are in the PFA?
What income does the PFA drag in through membership fees alone?

They aren't a lender of last resort, they are a player union, a significant union, and a guarantor of
standards. And one of those guarantees states that they will cover all reasonable wages unpaid due to circumstances outside a player's control.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But as I keep saying... Fxck what the players aren't going to not get. The club is going down the toilet because FV don't have the money to buy the club.

[Prufrock]

Whatever the legals, there is a strong possibility that the PFA don't wish to set up shop as a lender for unsustainable clubs. Because there's a load of them about.

Wrong.
How many players in the UK who are members of the PFA have not been paid in the last year?
How many players are in the PFA?
What income does the PFA drag in through membership fees alone?

They aren't a lender of last resort, they are a player union, a significant union, and a guarantor of
standards. And one of those guarantees states that they will cover all reasonable wages unpaid due to circumstances outside a player's control.

I'm really not sure that's right. At least not without "reasonable wages" being a pretty mega caveat.

And while the PFA might do pretty well relatively from membership fees, Man City's wage bill is about £250m per year! No way the PFA are covering that.

And I'm not really sure about the forget the players FV haven't got the money. It's if FV haven't got the money that the players are going to end up f*cked over. (If they do have the money, they'll get paid in full).

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Whatever the legals, there is a strong possibility that the PFA don't wish to set up shop as a lender for unsustainable clubs. Because there's a load of them about.

Wrong.
How many players in the UK who are members of the PFA have not been paid in the last year?
How many players are in the PFA?
What income does the PFA drag in through membership fees alone?

They aren't a lender of last resort, they are a player union, a significant union, and a guarantor of
standards. And one of those guarantees states that they will cover all reasonable wages unpaid due to circumstances outside a player's control.

Does it? I haven't seen that in the PFA membership small print.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Whatever the legals, there is a strong possibility that the PFA don't wish to set up shop as a lender for unsustainable clubs. Because there's a load of them about.

Wrong.
How many players in the UK who are members of the PFA have not been paid in the last year?
How many players are in the PFA?
What income does the PFA drag in through membership fees alone?

They aren't a lender of last resort, they are a player union, a significant union, and a guarantor of
standards. And one of those guarantees states that they will cover all reasonable wages unpaid due to circumstances outside a player's control.

Does it? I haven't seen that in the PFA membership small print.

I'm not a member. I've been told it's in there.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I’m sure there’s some boilerplate blather about protecting members’ interests, hardship funds etc and so on. But I’d be willing to bet there’s nothing guaranteeing to cover wages when clubs can’t or won’t pay. As noted, that could be an extraordinary amount of money. They certainly didn’t hurtle forward last time, and it seems they’ve refused this time. Which would strike me as relevant.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It's like being Gorbachev: the Soviet Union is cracking up, and suddenly Poland starts getting stroppy. Whatever the ins and outs of Solidarnosc and their guarantees to the dockworkers of Gdansk, the fxcking place is falling apart. It's not falling apart because of Solidarnosc, nor the Gdansk dockworkers, although their shit workmanship did play a part. No, it's falling apart because Yeltsin has promised to take over from Gorbachev. Unfortunately, Yeltsin is as big, if not a bigger dick than Gorbachev.

[Worthy4England]

Regardless of all the above, we are still left with a buyer who at the moment can't complete. Nixon quoted "not a lot of movement today". This is a process that's driven by the Administrators - not FV. They need to start upping the ante to get to a "shit or get off the pot" moment. The only reason I could see that they're not doing this is that they think completion is not far off or they've fecked up their statements about the ability of FV to fund all of this and are hoping it falls through because the hotel went to a different bidder.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Regardless of all the above, we are still left with a buyer who at the moment can't complete. Nixon quoted "not a lot of movement today". This is a process that's driven by the Administrators - not FV. They need to start upping the ante to get to a "shit or get off the pot" moment. The only reason I could see that they're not doing this is that they think completion is not far off or they've fecked up their statements about the ability of FV to fund all of this and are hoping it falls through because the hotel went to a different bidder.

[BWFC_Insane]

Regardless of all the above, we are still left with a buyer who at the moment can't complete. Nixon quoted "not a lot of movement today". This is a process that's driven by the Administrators - not FV. They need to start upping the ante to get to a "shit or get off the pot" moment. The only reason I could see that they're not doing this is that they think completion is not far off or they've fecked up their statements about the ability of FV to fund all of this and are hoping it falls through because the hotel went to a different bidder.

They have two options. Sell to FV or move to liquidation. I’d rather they gave the former every single chance.

[nicholaldo]

The PFA has very substantial reserves, certainly enough to pay any outstanding wages owed to our players in full if they choose to, but nowhere near enough to guarantee the unpaid wages of footballers' as a matter of policy, so they won't.

But anyway, it's looking desperate just now, innit? I still believe a takeover can be completed somehow, but my panic-fanny-o-meter reading is rising on a daily basis.

[BWFC_Insane]

The PFA has very substantial reserves, certainly enough to pay any outstanding wages owed to our players in full if they choose to, but nowhere near enough to guarantee the unpaid wages of footballers' as a matter of policy, so they won't.

But anyway, it's looking desperate just now, innit? I still believe a takeover can be completed somehow, but my panic-fanny-o-meter reading is rising on a daily basis.

The outstanding wages is 5 months worth for our entire squad last season. That’s a lot. If the PFA were to pay that in full on liquidation they’d set a precedent that as you say could become costly. Gordon Taylor today talked about offering the players loans. The PFA will support players but I strongly suspect not underwrite wages of an entire squad if a club goes pop.

[nicholaldo]

The PFA has very substantial reserves, certainly enough to pay any outstanding wages owed to our players in full if they choose to, but nowhere near enough to guarantee the unpaid wages of footballers' as a matter of policy, so they won't.

But anyway, it's looking desperate just now, innit? I still believe a takeover can be completed somehow, but my panic-fanny-o-meter reading is rising on a daily basis.

The outstanding wages is 5 months worth for our entire squad last season. That’s a lot. If the PFA were to pay that in full on liquidation they’d set a precedent that as you say could become costly. Gordon Taylor today talked about offering the players loans. The PFA will support players but I strongly suspect not underwrite wages of an entire squad if a club goes pop.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The PFA won't ever guarantee the salary of any player, not least because it's a policy they can't afford to enact.

[nicholaldo]

I can't envisage the hotel turning a profit without the business the football club generates for it (but obviously, I don't know that). And the players would face a huge amount of opprobrium if their demand for immediate payment of outstanding wages in full sent the club under.

No doubt, we're in for more brinkmanship between now and the beginning of the season, but if these are the two remaining obstacles, then surely, when push comes to shove, the only realistic resolution is FV's proposal?