Cibaman wrote:
If the club went into Administration, wouldn't any new owner be able to negotiate a good deal on the lease? Who else would rent it from the RFL?
Or would it revert back to the Council? In which case doesn't the same apply?
I doubt it would revert to the council, since the parties to the head lease are now the RFL and the council.
Whether a new entity could negotiate a sub-lease with the RFL on better terms than the present one (which, make of it what you will, I was assured was a good deal for the club...) can at this stage only be a matter for conjecture, I guess.
We had a long long debate at the Bullbuilder board meeting last night about the advantages, disadvantages and consequences of going into administration. It obviously helped that some of us have experience in this field. In short, we concluded that any protracted period of administration would probably (there can never be any certainty, so you have to look at the balance of probabilities) lead to the club in an ything like its present form never rising again. In particular, the administrator would have to start selling off assets pretty well immediately to generate cash to continue operating. You'd have to assume you would lose the very young, upcoming players that the club is depending on for its future.
The only way we could see an administration working would be if there was a 24-hour prepack - i.e. the new vehicle and financing is already in place when the administration order is granted by the High Court. Administrator is appouinted 3pm Monday, 9am Tuesday he announces he has sold the assets etc to NewBulls Ltd. Creditors are presented with a fait acompli, and (as with most prepacks) scream merry hell that they have been shafted (which invariably they have). BUT...such a prepack is invariably fronted by insiders - usually some or all of the management, sometimes a major shareholder. Without detailed inside information, it is very hard to put everything in place before getting your hands on the books and records and staff.
The prospective new owners will already have lined up all the necessary stakeholders (in our case those would have to include the RFL, the Council, the new players' union and maybe the GMB, maybe Sky, maybe Stobarts, maybe existing sponsors, the more important of the various other quangos and bodies the club engages with - as well as any external financing) before the administrator is appointed. And, of course, carried out the necessary due dilligence. We concluded it must be highly unlikely the existing management would be entertaining this option, and there has been no evidence that Caisley (the only other credible "insider") is well-advanced with such a project (although that could change, obviously). So, again on balance of probabilities, we have to assume at this stage that there is no "quick fix" on the horizon.
Speaking personally, as for what caused this disaster, it is obviously easy to point the finger at an inept and untruthful board. That is certainly what probably most people would conclude from how this all came out. And indeed, many many fans have made their views on this subject abundantly clear. For my own part, my immediate reaction was one of incredulity, and of feeling very badly betrayed. Followed shortly afterwards by anger at how we could be assured in January that everything was fine, and in March that we are two weeks away from being fed to the fishes. You could not make it up, could you?
But are things always as they first seem? So far, as we manage to piece together more facts and "information", a picture is starting to emerge that suggests that in January the club WAS confident that the situation was OK; but that events that they could not have anticipated (or have planned for) in the interim period have changed all that. Certainly that is the story coming out of the club, and at this stage, to me it seems to be stacking up. That situation could change, obviously, and whatever happens it seems Hood personally has lost the confidence of many of the fans by the manner of his communication and explanation over recent months. The extent that this is down to the man not the necessity of the circumstances may never be known.
But, as far as I personally can see, OK going into administration could lead to a new ownership and management, and certainly a resolution of the shareholding situation that Maislebugs so rightly points out is an enduring impediment to our future progress. Equally, it could lead to oblivion. But IMO it would very probably lead to the loss of the young talent we have coming through on which the future of the club needs to be built, whatever the outcome. And that is something I really cannot subscribe to. And in any case, even though I know others may not agree, I remain strongly of the view that Hood would stand down if a suitable successor would manifest himself. And it may well be that this will happen, if (as the club are suggesting) the commitment from the fans helps encourage a new investor to come on board. Guess only time will tell!
