The Debt.

[Enoch]

I've no idea how well Iles knows the players earnings but I suspect most took it at face value. I get the impression (& sorry if I've got this wrong) that you see it as some veiled criticism of Freedmans time here.

Though I don't understand why folk vilify Freedman as some do, Harry, he's gone.

What troubles me is when folk state things they probably have no way of knowing, or substantiating, with an air of certainty. Those statements then get quoted and repeated as if they are fact. I don't know what Moxey earns, but if Iles knows I'd doubt he heard it from Moxey and some f*cker wants sacking.

I appreciate folk won't stop posting unfounded bollocks, but I doubt I'll tire of occasionally digging it out.

I'll go out on a bit of a limb here and say if Moxey earned a grand a week less than me, I'd be on more than I am now.

A) Are you already earning more than a grand a week?

B) For this exercise, are we assuming Moxey isn't paying his employer for the privilege of turning into work?

C) Do any of your female relatives boast testicles?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

OK, I'm confused. I've been reading up a bit about petitions for winding up orders and the legal aspects of such (as it is due on Monday) and in the course of reading up on it I have come across this advice from Insolvency Practitioners to Directors more than once > after a notice of petition to wind up has been published (7 days after personal notification) "You CANNOT sell the company or the assets, as this sale may be reversed by the Court"
If this is the case, how come assets are being sold and the company is up for sale?

[BWFC_Insane]

OK, I'm confused. I've been reading up a bit about petitions for winding up orders and the legal aspects of such (as it is due on Monday) and in the course of reading up on it I have come across this advice from Insolvency Practitioners to Directors more than once > after a notice of petition to wind up has been published (7 days after personal notification) "You CANNOT sell the company or the assets, as this sale may be reversed by the Court"
If this is the case, how come assets are being sold and the company is up for sale?

Hmm, perhaps they need a plan in place to pay the tax bill, and then present that to the court. Either new ownership or sale of assets.

Apparently car park being sold. Perhaps it won't go through till after Monday and court approval?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Marc Iles in the BN: “Wanderers will not be going into administration today”… “Buyers had been warned that steps would be taken towards administration if the board felt a sale was unlikely by end of tonight. Administration remains a possibility but Wanderers are seeking to raise some immediate cash with the sale of car parking land.”

Iles also says Clough’s move “remains in discussion”, same with Vela to Cardiff. Mavies to Wednesday is off but he may go to Fulham - themselves under FFP embargo. (Doesn't this mean they're salary-capped at £10k pw, which is said to be half his wage?)

Meanwhile Lennon's seeing his arse over the transfers:

It’s becoming farcical because there is no information. We’ve lost Mark Davies for the last two games. I don’t know if a deal has been done or not. He could have been playing for me and I can’t afford to lose that quality of player. It could be the same with Zach – he’s been down to Bristol for talks and nothing has happened. It’s becoming a pain in the neck, to tell the truth. You don’t know what team you are picking from one game to the next.

[Prufrock]

Dougie would have had a nightmare !

[BWFC_Insane]

My fear is that, by selling the car park, offices, hotel etc, are we devaluing the package on offer to potential buyers to a point that the whole thing becomes less attractive?

We are told offices have been sold, or an agreement in place to sell them and that the rental for these offices bring in 600K a year in revenue.

The car park presumably has a fixed turnover and replatively stable land value too. Hotel the same, in that it will presumably bring in a decent turnover year on year.

As a fan I don't want our players being sold, but from a business point of view, I'd be less bothered the club selling player assets than physical ones if I was planning to invest or takeover. Sure losing Clough fairly cheaply isn't great but he could easily be worth nowt in a month or two if he got injured or lost form or whatever. The player values are transient and probably not a good basis for any investment. Whereas losing physical assets surely is a blow to any potential deal?

[Enoch]

Though I don't understand why folk vilify Freedman as some do, Harry

Try a little bit harder then. It's not fecking rocket science.

I'll book some therapy sessions, see if I can't get the hang of it.

I'm listening.........

I'm wondering if I might feel more comfortable doing this by private message....

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

My fear is that, by selling the car park, offices, hotel etc, are we devaluing the package on offer to potential buyers to a point that the whole thing becomes less attractive?

We are told offices have been sold, or an agreement in place to sell them and that the rental for these offices bring in 600K a year in revenue.

The car park presumably has a fixed turnover and replatively stable land value too. Hotel the same, in that it will presumably bring in a decent turnover year on year.

As a fan I don't want our players being sold, but from a business point of view, I'd be less bothered the club selling player assets than physical ones if I was planning to invest or takeover. Sure losing Clough fairly cheaply isn't great but he could easily be worth nowt in a month or two if he got injured or lost form or whatever. The player values are transient and probably not a good basis for any investment. Whereas losing physical assets surely is a blow to any potential deal?

I hear you. But look at it another way: selling those physical assets makes the club more affordable.

[Beefheart]

My fear is that, by selling the car park, offices, hotel etc, are we devaluing the package on offer to potential buyers to a point that the whole thing becomes less attractive?

We are told offices have been sold, or an agreement in place to sell them and that the rental for these offices bring in 600K a year in revenue.

The car park presumably has a fixed turnover and replatively stable land value too. Hotel the same, in that it will presumably bring in a decent turnover year on year.

As a fan I don't want our players being sold, but from a business point of view, I'd be less bothered the club selling player assets than physical ones if I was planning to invest or takeover. Sure losing Clough fairly cheaply isn't great but he could easily be worth nowt in a month or two if he got injured or lost form or whatever. The player values are transient and probably not a good basis for any investment. Whereas losing physical assets surely is a blow to any potential deal?

I hear you. But look at it another way: selling those physical assets makes the club more affordable.

Aye, you're losing assets but you're losing liabilities too (both in terms of paying off loans and I'm pretty sure the Hotel consistently loses money).

[Enoch]

I've no idea how well Iles knows the players earnings but I suspect most took it at face value. I get the impression (& sorry if I've got this wrong) that you see it as some veiled criticism of Freedmans time here.

Though I don't understand why folk vilify Freedman as some do, Harry, he's gone.

What troubles me is when folk state things they probably have no way of knowing, or substantiating, with an air of certainty. Those statements then get quoted and repeated as if they are fact. I don't know what Moxey earns, but if Iles knows I'd doubt he heard it from Moxey and some f*cker wants sacking.

I appreciate folk won't stop posting unfounded bollocks, but I doubt I'll tire of occasionally digging it out.

http://www.celebritiesmoney.com/wp-cont ... -table.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fill yer boots! Probly utter bollocks!

Indeed, probably as good an example as any.

I did note that that particular load of bollocks had Moxey as our 20th highest earner out of 31, albeit some of those have since departed.

"It's a fuuunny old game!"

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I'm pretty sure the Hotel consistently loses money).

Thought it had tipped into the black in recent years? I may be wrong. (You don't hear that much round here)

[LeverEnd]

I'm pretty sure the Hotel consistently loses money).

Thought it had tipped into the black in recent years? I may be wrong. (You don't hear that much round here)

I think Iles said it was the only part of the business making a profit, and that it could be an important revenue stream in League 1.

[Worthy4England]

I've no idea how well Iles knows the players earnings but I suspect most took it at face value. I get the impression (& sorry if I've got this wrong) that you see it as some veiled criticism of Freedmans time here.

Though I don't understand why folk vilify Freedman as some do, Harry, he's gone.

What troubles me is when folk state things they probably have no way of knowing, or substantiating, with an air of certainty. Those statements then get quoted and repeated as if they are fact. I don't know what Moxey earns, but if Iles knows I'd doubt he heard it from Moxey and some f*cker wants sacking.

I appreciate folk won't stop posting unfounded bollocks, but I doubt I'll tire of occasionally digging it out.

I'll go out on a bit of a limb here and say if Moxey earned a grand a week less than me, I'd be on more than I am now.

A) Are you already earning more than a grand a week?

B) For this exercise, are we assuming Moxey isn't paying his employer for the privilege of turning into work?

C) Do any of your female relatives boast testicles?

A) I'd need to check with my accountancy team

B) Given his devotion to the badge that's a possibility

C) Yes, on the wife's side of the family

[Worthy4England]

I'm pretty sure the Hotel consistently loses money).

Thought it had tipped into the black in recent years? I may be wrong. (You don't hear that much round here)

I think Iles said it was the only part of the business making a profit, and that it could be an important revenue stream in League 1.

I think £7m was reported last accounts..

Edit...in Revenue...not sure we get a breakdown to show profit or not

[Worthy4England]

The level of detail I'm expecting?! The first-team wage-bill(I don't think individually is a stretch, but to make it easy, as a whole); who owns all the shit; how much we're losing. I reckon *I* could have a go at keeping all that information. We haven't only just started losing shit-loads. As I say if I was personally on the hook for £1m a month (something most CEO's are not) I'd be making damn sure I got to the bottom of it.

If from that point my club was still dishing out £16kpw contracts I'd understand it if people thought I was happy to keep sticking money in. If I wasn't happy to sign off on £1m per month I'd be making sure any new big contracts came before me before they happened. That's hardly micro-managing, that's I'm already losing £1m per month I don't want to be committed to a £2m contract without knowing. If they *were* happening and I didn't want them to, I'd be sacking the guy who was handing them out pretty damn quickly.

Let's give the benefit of the doubt for a moment that the ones before this season ED sanctioned in some way either by overall budget approval or some other mechanism. Then we get to this season, we sign Amos on £16k per week allegedly, without the finance in place along with the other 10 players or so I mentioned and you reckon that ED said ok to that? Clearly the signings we made this summer didn't have enough funding, so you're suggesting that they both colluded that this was the right thing to do?

Doesn't fit for me at the moment...by a bloke expecting not to hold more debt?

We haven't had the finance in place for ten years and he's been signing off on it. I'm saying I think he knew and was still ok with it in summer (yes we heard he said there was no more money, but we've also been hearing that for two years). Then, much more recently, something changed.

The alternative, that you seem to be suggesting, is that his instructions to PG were to cut his losses and despite this PG signed Amos on a £2m contract and wonga loaned major assets. That's not just sack PG, that's suing PG personally for the money back bad. That doesn't fit for me.

My own hunch it's the oil crash has mega f*cked ED and he now wants out at any price asap. But yeah, that's blind!

PG may well have had notions as to how much lenders would lend to us, which never materialized. The main oil price crash started last year so would have been known about this summer...

That's George Osbourne economics. If we're minimising our losses, loans are not the way to do it!

But clearly the way we started to go, as opposed say to cutting our cost base to one we could afford...

[Prufrock]

Aye, and I'm not having that ED didn't approve that.

If I told the guy running my £1m-a-month losing business to stop it losing £1m-a-month, and I came back a few weeks later to find that, unknown to me, he'd handed out another £2m contract and mortgaged off the family silver at 20% APR to pay for it, and I was STILL needing to put in £15m just to get to the end of the season, he'd be getting a p45 and a letter before claim. That's not "trying and failing" that's "going off on a whim to do something completely different".

Yet PG was still in his job right until he got ill... Eddie knew.

[Worthy4England]

Either way it doesn't stack. If I was a bloke who wanted to stop losing £1m a month, I wouldn't sanction a £2m Contract...

[Prufrock]

That's what I've been saying! Conclusion: he wasn't that bothered about cutting his losses in the summer (anymore than he has been for several years - continuing the trend of a slow but managed cut back with funds still there for certain signings eg. Spearing, loans for Dawson and Juke, Amos). That's also supported by Lennon seeming to think he could sign players at the end of the summer window, and loans after that. The decision to abort, abort, came later.

[StaffsTrotter]

As we know, there are known knowns; these are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

I can't see ED not knowing. Think a split of the above wrt circumstances of EDs mysterious about turn is 0%; 10%; 90%. Nothing makes much sense. Thing is I suspect we'll never really know either.

[Worthy4England]

That's what I've been saying! Conclusion: he wasn't that bothered about cutting his losses in the summer (anymore than he has been for several years - continuing the trend of a slow but managed cut back with funds still there for certain signings eg. Spearing, loans for Dawson and Juke, Amos). That's also supported by Lennon seeming to think he could sign players at the end of the summer window, and loans after that. The decision to abort, abort, came later.

I know what you're saying. It's not what I'm saying at all...