Panic Fannies vs Men of Steel

[BWFC_Insane]

But then again, statements like this don't help my panic attacks
"Registrar Michael Briggs was told by the tax authority that the 'proposed route' for rescuing the club was 'speculative to say the least', and Bolton Wanderers FC Ltd appeared 'to be very clearly insolvent'."

Well I'm not panicking about that. The plan relies on the club selling physical assets, players and ultimately the whole club. Of course it is speculative as none of that has been agreed yet.

[Worthy4England]

None so blind as them as cannot see..it'll be reet.

[Enoch]

I note, in passing, that thus far 77% of votes cast in this ballot have passed their sell by date.

Reet, indeed.

[Lord Kangana]

If we are, as he says 'very clearly insolvent' (and I need to be clear here that 'very clearly' is important ie provably so) then we are breaking the law as it stands.

However, and its a massive one, it would have to be incontrovertibly so for anyone to pursue us, as its very difficult to prove.

[BWFC_Insane]

If we are, as he says 'very clearly insolvent' (and I need to be clear here that 'very clearly' is important ie provably so) then we are breaking the law as it stands.

However, and its a massive one, it would have to be incontrovertibly so for anyone to pursue us, as its very difficult to prove.

It would be the Directors who would be liable though in this case as I understand it. On that basis I am sure they have taken every step to ensure they aren't personally liable.

I think you can continue to trade so long as you have a "reasonable plan" to pay the debt owing and have made the correct acknowledgements. Which for now in the courts eyes it seems we do. However, if by the next court date we haven't raised the money I think then things get very sticky.

[Lord Kangana]

The Law is clear in the respect that if creditors are still owed then it is a criminal offence. The only way to avoid it is to satisfy all our creditors - therefore, as it stands (and lets be clear, its if what he says has some truth to it) it would be unlikely we'd be going into administration.

A further however, is that (with all due respect to Worthy) having seen company's accounts on the other side of an administration, they can be seen to have been an absolute tissue of lies once the shit hits the fan - accounts are filed by accountants on the basis of the information they're given. So I reserve judgement as to what the f*ck is going on at our club.

It'll probably be reet. I suspect ED would rather not have his collar felt.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Law is clear in the respect that if creditors are still owed then it is a criminal offence. The only way to avoid it is to satisfy all our creditors - therefore, as it stands (and lets be clear, its if what he says has some truth to it) it would be unlikely we'd be going into administration.

A further however, is that (with all due respect to Worthy) having seen company's accounts on the other side of an administration, they can be seen to have been an absolute tissue of lies once the shit hits the fan - accounts are filed by accountants on the basis of the information they're given. So I reserve judgement as to what the f*ck is going on at our club.

It'll probably be reet. I suspect ED would rather not have his collar felt.

My understanding was that as Director of a company, if you were insolvent (especially where you had assets) you had to show you were making an attempt to satisfy creditors. And the court yesterday were at least satisfied than an attempt was being made to do that. HMRC were not, but we now have a month to pay the outstanding bills.

We are by my understanding insolvent as the business cannot pay outstanding creditors. I don't think there can be any doubt about that status. Is the argument not, whether we are taking reasonable attempts to satisfy creditors at this stage?

That was my understanding of the situation, but very happy to be corrected.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

But then again, statements like this don't help my panic attacks
"Registrar Michael Briggs was told by the tax authority that the 'proposed route' for rescuing the club was 'speculative to say the least', and Bolton Wanderers FC Ltd appeared 'to be very clearly insolvent'."

Exactly what you'd expect the tax authority to say when they're trying to win a court case. Obviously the registrar didn't believe them.

[Lord Kangana]

The Law is clear in the respect that if creditors are still owed then it is a criminal offence. The only way to avoid it is to satisfy all our creditors - therefore, as it stands (and lets be clear, its if what he says has some truth to it) it would be unlikely we'd be going into administration.

A further however, is that (with all due respect to Worthy) having seen company's accounts on the other side of an administration, they can be seen to have been an absolute tissue of lies once the shit hits the fan - accounts are filed by accountants on the basis of the information they're given. So I reserve judgement as to what the f*ck is going on at our club.

It'll probably be reet. I suspect ED would rather not have his collar felt.

My understanding was that as Director of a company, if you were insolvent (especially where you had assets) you had to show you were making an attempt to satisfy creditors. And the court yesterday were at least satisfied than an attempt was being made to do that. HMRC were not, but we now have a month to pay the outstanding bills.

We are by my understanding insolvent as the business cannot pay outstanding creditors. I don't think there can be any doubt about that status. Is the argument not, whether we are taking reasonable attempts to satisfy creditors at this stage?

That was my understanding of the situation, but very happy to be corrected.

If we enter administration now, and it is easily provable that we are trading whilst insolvent, then yes, they're in a lot of trouble. Simply trying to make things right isn't a defence. However (again!) its really hard to prove, and frankly, having seen the other side of the coin on this personally, it is both expensive and time consuming for the authorities and/or creditors to pursue this, so there's not usually the willingness to do so.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Law is clear in the respect that if creditors are still owed then it is a criminal offence. The only way to avoid it is to satisfy all our creditors - therefore, as it stands (and lets be clear, its if what he says has some truth to it) it would be unlikely we'd be going into administration.

A further however, is that (with all due respect to Worthy) having seen company's accounts on the other side of an administration, they can be seen to have been an absolute tissue of lies once the shit hits the fan - accounts are filed by accountants on the basis of the information they're given. So I reserve judgement as to what the f*ck is going on at our club.

It'll probably be reet. I suspect ED would rather not have his collar felt.

My understanding was that as Director of a company, if you were insolvent (especially where you had assets) you had to show you were making an attempt to satisfy creditors. And the court yesterday were at least satisfied than an attempt was being made to do that. HMRC were not, but we now have a month to pay the outstanding bills.

We are by my understanding insolvent as the business cannot pay outstanding creditors. I don't think there can be any doubt about that status. Is the argument not, whether we are taking reasonable attempts to satisfy creditors at this stage?

That was my understanding of the situation, but very happy to be corrected.

If we enter administration now, and it is easily provable that we are trading whilst insolvent, then yes, they're in a lot of trouble. Simply trying to make things right isn't a defence. However (again!) its really hard to prove, and frankly, having seen the other side of the coin on this personally, it is both expensive and time consuming for the authorities and/or creditors to pursue this, so there's not usually the willingness to do so.

Looked on a few insolvency advice sites and they all seemed to suggest that it was possible to trade under some circumstances if a reasonable plan was in place and accepted by creditors or demonstrable to a court that it was reasonable and in the best interests of creditors.

My understanding from reading those is that we are insolvent because we have already said there isn't the money within the business to pay the tax bill. That makes the business insolvent and there isn't anything to prove, surely?

[Lord Kangana]

You'd need a forensic accountant to go through the books and find out. Its a lot harder than it sounds, because a trading company doesn't stand still, it has masses of outgoings and incomings.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

My understanding from reading those is that we are insolvent because we have already said there isn't the money within the business to pay the tax bill. That makes the business insolvent and there isn't anything to prove, surely?

...whereas the court's finding from Monday is that we're not and should carry on for 35 days.

[BWFC_Insane]

My understanding from reading those is that we are insolvent because we have already said there isn't the money within the business to pay the tax bill. That makes the business insolvent and there isn't anything to prove, surely?

...whereas the court's finding from Monday is that we're not and should carry on for 35 days.

Did it say we are not, or did it accept or plan to pay what we owe by selling assets and working on a takeover and give us a month to show reasonable progress in doing so?

My view from all I've read is that the court did the latter. Again happy to be shown I'm wrong.

[Lord Kangana]

A court wouldn't knowingly allow us to trade whilst insolvent. It also wouldn't order our liquidation merely on the premise we were. It would have to be proven. See above for how difficult that can be. It can take months, if not years to go through a businesses books with the sort of detail they'd need.

[BWFC_Insane]

You'd need a forensic accountant to go through the books and find out. Its a lot harder than it sounds, because a trading company doesn't stand still, it has masses of outgoings and incomings.

That makes sense. Though as we've been unable to pay our debts as they 'fall due' would that not make is insolvent by the legal definition?

Insolvency is legally defined as follows: A company is insolvent (unable to pay its debts) if it either does not have enough assets to cover its debts (ie value of assets is less than amount of liabilities), or if it is unable to pay its debts as they fall due

I get that it is more complex if you are assessing value of assets and I guess there are situations where companies choose not to pay stuff that is due. I'm assuming in our case the business isn't paying HMRC on time because it isn't able to. By that definition I'd have thought we are insolvent?

[Lord Kangana]

No. We probably have the money somewhere, be they assets or whatever. But its all hypothetical, because, and I can't repeat myself enough here, its really difficult to prove.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

My understanding from reading those is that we are insolvent because we have already said there isn't the money within the business to pay the tax bill. That makes the business insolvent and there isn't anything to prove, surely?

...whereas the court's finding from Monday is that we're not and should carry on for 35 days.

Did it say we are not, or did it accept or plan to pay what we owe by selling assets and working on a takeover and give us a month to show reasonable progress in doing so?

My view from all I've read is that the court did the latter. Again happy to be shown I'm wrong.

I appreciate you may have read much finer print than I have, but the headlines seem to say that the court didn't liquidate us or declare us insolvent. Indeed, despite the HMRC's aggressive stance, the court gave us a hefty five weeks to go away and sort stuff out.

I mean, take from that what you want, but with respect I think you may be over-analysing it a little. We've got five weeks to see through a deal, and it's quite possible that even if it's not quite agreed by then we could get yet another buffer if we can prove we're close to it.

[BWFC_Insane]

No. We probably have the money somewhere, be they assets or whatever. But its all hypothetical, because, and I can't repeat myself enough here, its really difficult to prove.

You are still insolvent though even if you have assets that cover your liabilities if you don't have the cash flow within the business necessary to pay what is due.

Clearly our assets will be more than our liabilities assuming, and it may be a big assumption, that ED does indeed wipe off what he is owed.

[BWFC_Insane]

My understanding from reading those is that we are insolvent because we have already said there isn't the money within the business to pay the tax bill. That makes the business insolvent and there isn't anything to prove, surely?

...whereas the court's finding from Monday is that we're not and should carry on for 35 days.

Did it say we are not, or did it accept or plan to pay what we owe by selling assets and working on a takeover and give us a month to show reasonable progress in doing so?

My view from all I've read is that the court did the latter. Again happy to be shown I'm wrong.

I appreciate you may have read much finer print than I have, but the headlines seem to say that the court didn't liquidate us or declare us insolvent. Indeed, despite the HMRC's aggressive stance, the court gave us a hefty five weeks to go away and sort stuff out.

I mean, take from that what you want, but with respect I think you may be over-analysing it a little. We've got five weeks to see through a deal, and it's quite possible that even if it's not quite agreed by then we could get yet another buffer if we can prove we're close to it.

Agreed. Though you could argue that they've given us 5 weeks to sell assets to improve the cash flow and allow HMRC payment etc...

I agree it doesn't really matter in terms of the definitions, I was just quite interested is all. I will stop boring everyone now!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yep, it could be that they think there's more chance of raising the money this way than admin/liquidation.

But either way, we've got five weeks to sort shit out.