Which muppet can we appoint next?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Blackburn's delay in appointing Keith Hill tempting Charlton's hat into the ring, say the South London Press; of our chances with Hill, Marc Iles says "Compensation makes it a virtual non-starter". Iles also says "Browny compo not exactly small. Sheridan had agents at work... not 100 per cent how serious Bolton were" and on Reid: "definitely a contender. Whether two in charge agree on him another matter."

[BWFC_Insane]

Blackburn's delay in appointing Keith Hill tempting Charlton's hat into the ring, say the South London Press; of our chances with Hill, Marc Iles says "Compensation makes it a virtual non-starter". Iles also says "Browny compo not exactly small. Sheridan had agents at work... not 100 per cent how serious Bolton were" and on Reid: "definitely a contender. Whether two in charge agree on him another matter."

One thing I'd say is that I would have thought, that if Reid was really a preference as opposed to a fall back option, he'd have been appointed by now.

Nixon was yesterday speculating rather than providing any real insight, that Reid would be the option if money was not found quickly to bridge the gap that exists. As much as he is just speculating I can't help but think that if we sell Holding for a decent amount they'd use that to get the transfer embargo lifted, attract a decent manager and get on with it. But if they can't do that it could be Reid with the message of "go with what we've got".

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Blackburn's delay in appointing Keith Hill tempting Charlton's hat into the ring, say the South London Press; of our chances with Hill, Marc Iles says "Compensation makes it a virtual non-starter". Iles also says "Browny compo not exactly small. Sheridan had agents at work... not 100 per cent how serious Bolton were" and on Reid: "definitely a contender. Whether two in charge agree on him another matter."

One thing I'd say is that I would have thought, that if Reid was really a preference as opposed to a fall back option, he'd have been appointed by now.

Yeah, I said something similar earlier in the week. I think it may be more about the disconnect between Ken and Dean; who knows, if Ken were a more silent partner, we might already have Reid in situ.

Nixon was yesterday speculating rather than providing any real insight, that Reid would be the option if money was not found quickly to bridge the gap that exists. As much as he is just speculating I can't help but think that if we sell Holding for a decent amount they'd use that to get the transfer embargo lifted, attract a decent manager and get on with it. But if they can't do that it could be Reid with the message of "go with what we've got".

Seems a plausible possibility. Iles tweeted "I don't think embargo hinges on the sale. More they need to file accounts. That is proving tougher than expected" but also "any money club gets goes towards bills for time being. Totally different world now".

I'm sure DH/KA would love to sell/release Pratley etc, file the accounts and have a wider search. But at the moment it seems we can't afford Rochdale's manager. This isn't a sleeping giant, it's a giant on its knees hacking up a lung.

[BWFC_Insane]

Blackburn's delay in appointing Keith Hill tempting Charlton's hat into the ring, say the South London Press; of our chances with Hill, Marc Iles says "Compensation makes it a virtual non-starter". Iles also says "Browny compo not exactly small. Sheridan had agents at work... not 100 per cent how serious Bolton were" and on Reid: "definitely a contender. Whether two in charge agree on him another matter."

One thing I'd say is that I would have thought, that if Reid was really a preference as opposed to a fall back option, he'd have been appointed by now.

Yeah, I said something similar earlier in the week. I think it may be more about the disconnect between Ken and Dean; who knows, if Ken were a more silent partner, we might already have Reid in situ.

Nixon was yesterday speculating rather than providing any real insight, that Reid would be the option if money was not found quickly to bridge the gap that exists. As much as he is just speculating I can't help but think that if we sell Holding for a decent amount they'd use that to get the transfer embargo lifted, attract a decent manager and get on with it. But if they can't do that it could be Reid with the message of "go with what we've got".

Seems a plausible possibility. Iles tweeted "I don't think embargo hinges on the sale. More they need to file accounts. That is proving tougher than expected" but also "any money club gets goes towards bills for time being. Totally different world now".

I'm sure DH/KA would love to sell/release Pratley etc, file the accounts and have a wider search. But at the moment it seems we can't afford Rochdale's manager. This isn't a sleeping giant, it's a giant on its knees hacking up a lung.

Lots of rumours flying round and who knows. But the one that I've heard a few times is that Anderson having had a proper look at the club from the inside doesn't fancy providing the money he initially promised he would. So is trying to raise that in alternative ways. That is behind the delay in the accounts being submitted as once again they can't sign off the directors statement as there is a gap in future funding.

This is rumour but does fit with the stories coming out of the club. If the money was there as promised why would filing accounts be so difficult?

[Worthy4England]

Blackburn's delay in appointing Keith Hill tempting Charlton's hat into the ring, say the South London Press; of our chances with Hill, Marc Iles says "Compensation makes it a virtual non-starter". Iles also says "Browny compo not exactly small. Sheridan had agents at work... not 100 per cent how serious Bolton were" and on Reid: "definitely a contender. Whether two in charge agree on him another matter."

One thing I'd say is that I would have thought, that if Reid was really a preference as opposed to a fall back option, he'd have been appointed by now.

Yeah, I said something similar earlier in the week. I think it may be more about the disconnect between Ken and Dean; who knows, if Ken were a more silent partner, we might already have Reid in situ.

Nixon was yesterday speculating rather than providing any real insight, that Reid would be the option if money was not found quickly to bridge the gap that exists. As much as he is just speculating I can't help but think that if we sell Holding for a decent amount they'd use that to get the transfer embargo lifted, attract a decent manager and get on with it. But if they can't do that it could be Reid with the message of "go with what we've got".

Seems a plausible possibility. Iles tweeted "I don't think embargo hinges on the sale. More they need to file accounts. That is proving tougher than expected" but also "any money club gets goes towards bills for time being. Totally different world now".

I'm sure DH/KA would love to sell/release Pratley etc, file the accounts and have a wider search. But at the moment it seems we can't afford Rochdale's manager. This isn't a sleeping giant, it's a giant on its knees hacking up a lung.

Lots of rumours flying round and who knows. But the one that I've heard a few times is that Anderson having had a proper look at the club from the inside doesn't fancy providing the money he initially promised he would. So is trying to raise that in alternative ways. That is behind the delay in the accounts being submitted as once again they can't sign off the directors statement as there is a gap in future funding.

This is rumour but does fit with the stories coming out of the club. If the money was there as promised why would filing accounts be so difficult?

The Accounts that haven't been submitted (the legal ones, not anything the Football League might need in addition) are for the period up to 30 June 2015. The next ones would be due to 30 June 2016. In the Accounts, Directors have to give a statement of going concern - it typically looks forwards 12 months - which would complete in 42 days time...We surely can't be saying we might not last 42 days?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The Accounts that haven't been submitted (the legal ones, not anything the Football League might need in addition) are for the period up to 30 June 2015. The next ones would be due to 30 June 2016. In the Accounts, Directors have to give a statement of going concern - it typically looks forwards 12 months - which would complete in 42 days time...We surely can't be saying we might not last 42 days?

You know I bow to your fiscal expertise Worthy, but is that still the case with the FL embargo? Aren't they a bit pickier?

[Worthy4England]

The Accounts that haven't been submitted (the legal ones, not anything the Football League might need in addition) are for the period up to 30 June 2015. The next ones would be due to 30 June 2016. In the Accounts, Directors have to give a statement of going concern - it typically looks forwards 12 months - which would complete in 42 days time...We surely can't be saying we might not last 42 days?

You know I bow to your fiscal expertise Worthy, but is that still the case with the FL embargo? Aren't they a bit pickier?

We needed to submit (and some of this is now approaching "history") a FFP return to the Football League for the season 2014/2015. As far as I know, we still do. Until that's done, we're stuffed. The reason given (and it seems to be a fair reason in the scheme of things) was that we couldn't support the FFP submission because we couldn't submit the Accounts that would have supported us passing/failing the Championship FFP test. We had "draft" results on the Accounts by December and our then FD said he believed we would have passed the FFP test.

FFP in the Championship (as opposed to SCMP in League 1 and League 2) is monitored through the Accounts. Maximum permitted loss - £5m (or £13m with owner injected cash) exceeding which would lead to a transfer embargo.

In League 1 and League 2, the tracking is done via monthly projections to the FL and the test is only looking at wages as a % of revenue.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The Accounts that haven't been submitted (the legal ones, not anything the Football League might need in addition) are for the period up to 30 June 2015. The next ones would be due to 30 June 2016. In the Accounts, Directors have to give a statement of going concern - it typically looks forwards 12 months - which would complete in 42 days time...We surely can't be saying we might not last 42 days?

You know I bow to your fiscal expertise Worthy, but is that still the case with the FL embargo? Aren't they a bit pickier?

We needed to submit (and some of this is now approaching "history") a FFP return to the Football League for the season 2014/2015. As far as I know, we still do. Until that's done, we're stuffed. The reason given (and it seems to be a fair reason in the scheme of things) was that we couldn't support the FFP submission because we couldn't submit the Accounts that would have supported us passing/failing the Championship FFP test. We had "draft" results on the Accounts by December and our then FD said he believed we would have passed the FFP test.

FFP in the Championship (as opposed to SCMP in League 1 and League 2) is monitored through the Accounts. Maximum permitted loss - £5m (or £13m with owner injected cash) exceeding which would lead to a transfer embargo.

In League 1 and League 2, the tracking is done via monthly projections to the FL and the test is only looking at wages as a % of revenue.

OK, cheers - is that tracking still the same for a club under embargo, or do they have to prov(id)e a longer-term forecast in order to get off the naughty step?

[Worthy4England]

The Accounts that haven't been submitted (the legal ones, not anything the Football League might need in addition) are for the period up to 30 June 2015. The next ones would be due to 30 June 2016. In the Accounts, Directors have to give a statement of going concern - it typically looks forwards 12 months - which would complete in 42 days time...We surely can't be saying we might not last 42 days?

You know I bow to your fiscal expertise Worthy, but is that still the case with the FL embargo? Aren't they a bit pickier?

We needed to submit (and some of this is now approaching "history") a FFP return to the Football League for the season 2014/2015. As far as I know, we still do. Until that's done, we're stuffed. The reason given (and it seems to be a fair reason in the scheme of things) was that we couldn't support the FFP submission because we couldn't submit the Accounts that would have supported us passing/failing the Championship FFP test. We had "draft" results on the Accounts by December and our then FD said he believed we would have passed the FFP test.

FFP in the Championship (as opposed to SCMP in League 1 and League 2) is monitored through the Accounts. Maximum permitted loss - £5m (or £13m with owner injected cash) exceeding which would lead to a transfer embargo.

In League 1 and League 2, the tracking is done via monthly projections to the FL and the test is only looking at wages as a % of revenue.

OK, cheers - is that tracking still the same for a club under embargo, or do they have to prov(id)e a longer-term forecast in order to get off the naughty step?

That bit's fairly unclear under SCMP, the FL can impose an embargo where a club is on course to exceed the limits of SCMP - so I suspect it's nowhere near as black and white.

[BWFC_Insane]

16.20 The powers referred to in Regulation 16.19 are:

16.20.1 to require the Championship Club to submit, agree and adhere to a budget which shall include, but not be limited to, Transfer Fees, Compensation Fees, Loan Fees or subsequent payments which become due under the terms of any transfer, players’ remuneration and fees payable to any Intermediary;

16.20.2 to require the Championship Club to provide such further information as The League shall determine and for such period as it shall determine;

16.20.3 to refuse any application by that Championship Club to register any Player or any new contract of an existing Player of that Club if The League reasonably deems that this is necessary in order to secure that the Championship Club complies with its obligations listed in Regulations 16.19.8(a) to 16.19.8(c).

16.21 If any Person proposes to acquire Control of a Club:

16.21.1 the Club shall submit to The League up to date Future Financial Information prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position as soon as reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control or, if such submission is not reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control, no later than 10 Normal Working Days thereafter; and

16.21.2 The League shall have the power to require the Person who proposes to acquire or has acquired Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.

16.22 If The League determines, in its reasonable opinion, and having considered any information provided to it pursuant to Regulation 16.21, that the Club will not be able to fulfil its obligations as set out in Regulations 16.19.8(a) to 16.19.8(c), then The League shall have the powers set out in Regulation 16.20.
Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/global ... qyRevYK.99" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think these are the relevant rules...

Think we're currently in breach as at 16.22 and therefore subject to restrictions 16.20...

[Worthy4England]

We were already in breach prior to the Change of Ownership, the two aren't directly linked, although we may now be in breach in multiple areas. I would expect that the FL had whatever view they required in respect of 16.21.1 and 16.21.2 as a result of them spending some weeks "satisfying themselves" that the sale could go through.

We were and still are in breach because we hadn't submitted our FFP return which was

Because we hadn't submitted out Accounts.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/a ... 67176.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BWFC_Insane]

We were already in breach prior to the Change of Ownership, the two aren't directly linked, although we may now be in breach in multiple areas. I would expect that the FL had whatever view they required in respect of 16.21.1 and 16.21.2 as a result of them spending some weeks "satisfying themselves" that the sale could go through.

We were and still are in breach because we hadn't submitted our FFP return which was

Because we hadn't submitted out Accounts.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/a ... 67176.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe. IIRC didn't the league approve the takeover, with some reservations, that resulted in them reportedly requiring future financial info statements for a significant period and potentially some form of transfer embargo during the (lengthy) monitoring period?

I suspect as well as filing accounts and becoming FFP compliant we also have to remove those reservations before the embargo is entirely lifted.

[bobo the clown]

^^ worrying.

[Worthy4England]

We were already in breach prior to the Change of Ownership, the two aren't directly linked, although we may now be in breach in multiple areas. I would expect that the FL had whatever view they required in respect of 16.21.1 and 16.21.2 as a result of them spending some weeks "satisfying themselves" that the sale could go through.

We were and still are in breach because we hadn't submitted our FFP return which was

Because we hadn't submitted out Accounts.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/a ... 67176.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe. IIRC didn't the league approve the takeover, with some reservations, that resulted in them reportedly requiring future financial info statements for a significant period and potentially some form of transfer embargo during the (lengthy) monitoring period?

I suspect as well as filing accounts and becoming FFP compliant we also have to remove those reservations before the embargo is entirely lifted.

I'm not sure where you're getting the maybe from? There isn't a maybe about it. We haven't submitted any Accounts, as a result we can't complete an FFP return, as a result we have an embargo.

The two things are not directly linked. Had no takeover occurred, unless we submitted Accounts, we couldn't comply with FFP and there'd still be an embargo.

[thebish]

We were already in breach prior to the Change of Ownership, the two aren't directly linked, although we may now be in breach in multiple areas. I would expect that the FL had whatever view they required in respect of 16.21.1 and 16.21.2 as a result of them spending some weeks "satisfying themselves" that the sale could go through.

We were and still are in breach because we hadn't submitted our FFP return which was

Because we hadn't submitted out Accounts.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/a ... 67176.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe. IIRC didn't the league approve the takeover, with some reservations, that resulted in them reportedly requiring future financial info statements for a significant period and potentially some form of transfer embargo during the (lengthy) monitoring period?

I suspect as well as filing accounts and becoming FFP compliant we also have to remove those reservations before the embargo is entirely lifted.

I'm not sure where you're getting the maybe from? There isn't a maybe about it. We haven't submitted any Accounts, as a result we can't complete an FFP return, as a result we have an embargo.

The two things are not directly linked. Had no takeover occurred, unless we submitted Accounts, we couldn't comply with FFP and there'd still be an embargo.

maybe....

[Worthy4England]

You can fck right off too!

[BWFC_Insane]

We were already in breach prior to the Change of Ownership, the two aren't directly linked, although we may now be in breach in multiple areas. I would expect that the FL had whatever view they required in respect of 16.21.1 and 16.21.2 as a result of them spending some weeks "satisfying themselves" that the sale could go through.

We were and still are in breach because we hadn't submitted our FFP return which was

Because we hadn't submitted out Accounts.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/news/a ... 67176.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe. IIRC didn't the league approve the takeover, with some reservations, that resulted in them reportedly requiring future financial info statements for a significant period and potentially some form of transfer embargo during the (lengthy) monitoring period?

I suspect as well as filing accounts and becoming FFP compliant we also have to remove those reservations before the embargo is entirely lifted.

I'm not sure where you're getting the maybe from? There isn't a maybe about it. We haven't submitted any Accounts, as a result we can't complete an FFP return, as a result we have an embargo.

The two things are not directly linked. Had no takeover occurred, unless we submitted Accounts, we couldn't comply with FFP and there'd still be an embargo.

Yes, I agree with that. All I'm saying is, if we submit the accounts, and are FFP compliant we STILL could be under embargo as part of the league monitoring following the takeover.

As reported here.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/143 ... y/?ref=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which relates to rule 16.20 as before. Which may mean some form of embargo....if they league aren't satisfied...

[Worthy4England]

Yes, that is correct too, but that's not the reason we were under an embargo - there's lots of ways we could now be under a further embargo, but we don't seem to have removed "Job 1" yet!

Edit: Actually, the other problem is that if we weren't compliant with FFP for the period, the Club could also be fined.

[Peter Thompson]

^^ worrying.

Bobo out of interest - what is worrying...?

Like I've said before to BWFCI give the new owners a chance, in KA's first interview on ITV he said that they will be getting the transfer embargo lifted ahead of the summer transfer window, which I don't think is WC 16th May so perhaps its not currently the No1 priority but perhaps it will be in a week or so.

I really don't know why people are worrying about anything, if the embargo hasn't been lifted by 1st July then yes maybe start to slightly panic, but DH/KA have inherited an absolute mess of a club from Gartside & Davies.

Too many people on the various BWFC forums are listening to any made up bullshit that Iles tweets, and actually believing it !!

It'll be fine - we'll go up next season, believe me (my only caveat is that we will however be relegated again if they appoint the managerial dinosaur that is Peter Reid)

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

It's a hell of a caveat