The Debt.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Bollocks. If you're to [sic] thick to understand any of what he's writ there ↑ then that's your problem!

When you say "bollocks" ↑↑↑ (you're welcome, by the way).... you're saying that I DO understand and my claim not to is bollocks ? Coz I'd suggest that's for me to say, not you.

Because not understanding may be because I'm to (sic right back at ya) dim ... but that doesn't make it bollocks, now does it ?

You've been a contrary bastard today. Personally I think it's the fags.

Notwithstanding your last point, which may have the glimmer of a grain of truth in it, yes what I am saying is precisely that you do understand!

Discounting your occasional foray into Welsh, it's clear that you speak English.

That post above, text speak quotes to make a point aside, was written in English. The odd typo and missed capital letter aside

So yeah, I think you're joining in on the shit running joke of let's pretend not to know what a1 is saying!

Look Pru, not everything is black and white, there's areas of transcendent translucence and areas of the deepest pit of ebony darkness. Blackness so black that it can suck your eyes out. a1 is quite often balanced on the event horizon of language, with one stray comma, full stop or streetwise acronym away from being sucked into the black hole of incomprehension.
When that happens, and it does happen, I 'put it to him' nicely (something along the lines of "what the feck did that mean a1?") and he usually replies with an equally polite answer that lies nearer my side of the galactic translation zone.
It's not a shit running joke, it's some of us genuinely wondering what it is that he says, sometimes.

[Prufrock]

Aye that's fair enough sometimes, but I'm not having that lots of the time, including this time, its not people flogging a bad joke to death.

[bobo the clown]

I'm not going to put the rest of the forum through another day of unedifying arguments on semantics between we two. They deserve better. Even I got bored with it yesterday.

To be precise, I do, very often, fail to comprehend what a1 goes on about, so by now maybe I come at all his posts from that viewpoint. He has a use of language which confuses me, writes in a bizarre format and uses terms and phrases, interspersed with symbols which do little to illuminate. It's not a cheap shot at a misspelling ... who would I be too do that ?

The specific post in question I did not understand. Let me be clearer ... when I first read it I had, honestly, no idea what he meant. When I re-read it, I still didn't. Following some comment on here I reapproached it for a third read and think, this time, I got it. However, may I stress, that was the third reading and I only THINK I understood it.

I fear I'm not right-on enouh for his, maybe your World. I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it's not a bad one either.

[a1]

mun(ch)kins was bad. but even google autocorrects it.

i spelt 'carnt' like that coz of how its pronounced, dont use the diacritic mainly because of searches and typing speed on a phone , and that "cant" means something else (i think it's to do with how folk speak, ironically) .
i suppose "head it proper" might seem wrong, but i don't think it is. and i miss out words like 'the' or 'to' sometimes , sometimes on purpose cause thats how i'd say it, and, sometimes just coz of typing omittion mistakes.

i rarely use capital letters , but i like the uniform look.

--

NGotty could head it too.

dunno if i'm over thinking that the height of the team is one of its problems. Spearing seems like he's 4' 10" , but he's probably not.

[edited for miss-spelling of the word 'pronouced' and lack of the word 'do' in 'to do' ... it's like irony or summat.. :/ ]

[bobo the clown]

i spelt 'carnt' like that coz of how its pronunced, dont use the diacritic mainly because of searches and typing speed on a phone , and that "cant" means something else (i think it's to with how folk speak, ironically) .

Thanks a1.

Not to prolong the matter, simply to illustrate that maybe communications between we two are never going to be smooth ... I had to read that bit 3 times also.

Oh, & coz I'm dim, had to Google "diacritic".

[jonnycooper]

Anyway!! About that debt?

[a1]

(i) still don't think folk should worry.

if we kept having to go bankrupt like leeds or portsmouth , then yeah, maybe.

but even then, it wouldnt be due to the debt, but more that they can't find an owner that knows what theyre doing or isn't a dickhead.

[Lord Kangana]

I just skip about 60% of them on the grounds its a forum and meant to be fun, I don't want to have to concentrate as if I was translating Alcaic Stanza.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Maybe Eddie could check to see if we (BWFC) are owed any PPI repayments...

[bobo the clown]

Maybe Eddie could check to see if we (BWFC) are owed any PPI repayments...

Only if he charged us insurance on the loans he lent, to himself.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Maybe Eddie could check to see if we (BWFC) are owed any PPI repayments...

Only if he charged us insurance on the loans he lent, to himself.

If he did, would that mean we owe ourselves more in debt, or would we shave some of the debt off?
It's complex this finance malarkey, that's a fact.

[Bijou Bob]

There seem to be growing rumours doing the rounds about us going into administration on a voluntary basis. Can't see what the advantage would be as the debt is owed to one man, but then I have no understanding of global finance.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

There seem to be growing rumours doing the rounds about us going into administration on a voluntary basis. Can't see what the advantage would be as the debt is owed to one man, but then I have no understanding of global finance.

That says a lot about rumours, Bob. As those with financial knowledge (Worthy, Bobo etc) have pointed out, it would make very very little sense indeed. Barring the loan to Eddie, we're about £10m in debt. Administration would only really wipe out the loan to Eddie, which would presumably not be what he wants, considering he could wipe it off without us getting a points penalty which would relegate us to the third division.

[Lord Kangana]

However, Eddie being the major creditor to himself, it may be an exit strategy.

Cutting out the morals, and the financial heartache (it appears that's in the post anyway) I can see why he would do it. It would be unscrupulous on many levels, but if Davies just wants out, he can walk away without the club "technically" owing him great wads of cash (presumably an amount that he knows the club can pay) and have done with the ballache.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

However, Eddie being the major creditor to himself, it may be an exit strategy.

Cutting out the morals, and the financial heartache (it appears that's in the post anyway) I can see why he would do it. It would be unscrupulous on many levels, but if Davies just wants out, he can walk away without the club "technically" owing him great wads of cash (presumably an amount that he knows the club can pay) and have done with the ballache.

At journalism school, you're taught about libel to ask yourself two questions: "Can they sue?" and "Would they sue?" Often, the second is more important than the first. I mention this because we have no real way of knowing whether Eddie would take the only parachute and jump out of the plane, although his previous record rather mitigates against it.

Could he? Possibly. But how much do creditors typically get in administration? 10%? A penny in the pound? I'm afraid I haven't time to look it up but I'd be surprised if such a nasty little exit plan (which would relegate the club and turn him overnight from heroic to vilified) would get him much more than £10m back unless we sell the Reebok and all the possessions. And then he'd truly be a hate figure.

I really, really doubt he would. I don't even know whether he could. Anyone?

[BWFC_Insane]

However, Eddie being the major creditor to himself, it may be an exit strategy.

Cutting out the morals, and the financial heartache (it appears that's in the post anyway) I can see why he would do it. It would be unscrupulous on many levels, but if Davies just wants out, he can walk away without the club "technically" owing him great wads of cash (presumably an amount that he knows the club can pay) and have done with the ballache.

Putting the club into administration makes absolutely zero sense from Eddie's perspective. Zero. There is no way he gains a thing from doing that and loses a substantial amount.

[Lord Kangana]

Most of his debts are paper debts for accounting and tax purposes anyway. In that scenario, he can take around £15m from the club and simultaneously wipe the clubs debt off. Unfair to us? Sounds f*cking brilliant to me.

And DSB, what are the rules re:administration? Is it an automatic points deduction? And when? Now? Next year? They may be looking at short term pain for long term gain. We may have no chance of ever complying with FFP, or of ever stopping the debt from spiralling. I don't know. Its worth discussing rather than dismissing.

One thing I do know though, companies do not exist for any other reason than to serve their shareholders. ED is the majority shareholder of both. We need to be careful not to confuse moral arguments with financial ones.

[BWFC_Insane]

Most of his debts are paper debts for accounting and tax purposes anyway. In that scenario, he can take around £15m from the club and simultaneously wipe the clubs debt off. Unfair to us? Sounds f*cking brilliant to me.

And DSB, what are the rules re:administration? Is it an automatic points deduction? And when? Now? Next year? They may be looking at short term pain for long term gain. We may have no chance of ever complying with FFP, or of ever stopping the debt from spiralling. I don't know. Its worth discussing rather than dismissing.

One thing I do know though, companies do not exist for any other reason than to serve their shareholders. ED is the majority shareholder of both. We need to be careful not to confuse moral arguments with financial ones.

Can you explain the mechanism by which he takes £15M from the club? I don't see it.

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

Ibid, ad nauseum.

There will be huge genius' around who can always find a way to do anything .... I guess.

However, he would have to fold in on his creditors (largely himself) AFTER a fire-sale of our valuables which would fetch only a %'age in the £.

I simply don't see the benefit of that to himself. It really would be the turkey voting for Christmas.

His only real "out" is to find a buyer. That's not exactly going to be easy either, is it !

[Lord Kangana]

I fear the wearisome inevitability that my posit that "he could" is going to be interpreted as "he will"*.

"He could" do what the f*ck he likes. One of those possibilities is that he accepts, as the principle officer and shareholder of Moonshift investments, an offer of 10p/£ from Burnden Leisure (is that the name we operate under? I forget, those with a modicum of imagination will see what I mean).

I appreciate there could be a lot of heartache, much f*cking about, yes, yes, yes! (I've had to deal with a large administration, and yes I understand explicitly how much of a f*ck up it is). I'll add that I've also seen the flip side, and whilst the law may seem explicit on what and what can't be done, you'd be amazed at what people "can get away with" under its auspices. The principle being an attempt to keep a potentially viable business viable.




*A gentle irony in itself