Administration: pros and cons?

[Pops]

My thoughts exactly, we wont see Miller or the 300k again,which imo is why Deakin jacked so as not to be implicated.

 

You might be right there:(

[Aspin's Barmy Army]

Birdy I wrote a few weeks ago that administration is our best option. It would remove the current leeches, hangers on, pseudo law breakers from our beloved club. It would open the way for Mo Chaudry to lead us and I am convinced that Mo is the man with the vision, integrity, and pr skills to lead us back to glory. Our darkest hour was in 1968 when we were kicked out of the league. Two years later we won promotion. Sometimes you have to take a knife to cut out the diseased flesh to allow the healthy flesh below to regenerate. Look at Southampton and the progress they have made since administration. The only alternative that is viable is that all of the current Board go and are replaced by Mark Sims, Mo Chaudry, and others with the vision and leadership. I do not believe that Mo would want to take it on unless he was calling the shots, and you know what, if I was him neither would I.

 

Spot on!

[Fosse69]

I can't see Mo taking over too soon if there is a chance of taking over after administration. Why buy something before Christmas when you can get it so much cheaper in the January sales. There are two advantages to this as I see it. Firstly, the rule book would be torn up and the 24.9 % wouldn't apply and secondly, all money invested would be spent on the club and not on paying off debts. As someone said elsewhere though, this doesn't take account of all those poor sods who are owed money.

 

If it is not worth anyone taking over, why should Mo. If a business cant service the debts it goes bust, hard luck on the debtors. It is the directors who put us in this state, Port Vales name is as good as ever. The only alternative is for the taxpayers to bail us out, but we are not a bank. We will just have to take a chance on Admin.

[Paul6754]

The one aspect of the club going into Admin. that the fans would find unwelcome is the 10 or more point deduction possibly resulting in demotion from the Football League.

 

Anyone know of a club that has successfully appealed against a point duduction for Administration/insolvency. I did a quick skim of the FL website, one phrase that is repeatedly used is 'The FL has the power to deduct', which suggests to me that a points deduction isn't automatic and it also could be appealed if applied. Given the undoubted bizarre and corrupt dealings of PD/PM after such a short time at PVFC there may be reasonable grounds for a successful appeal should a points deduction happen.

[valefan16]

The one aspect of the club going into Admin. that the fans would find unwelcome is the 10 or more point deduction possibly resulting in demotion from the Football League.

 

Anyone know of a club that has successfully appealed against a point duduction for Administration/insolvency. I did a quick skim of the FL website, one phrase that is repeatedly used is 'The FL has the power to deduct', which suggests to me that a points deduction isn't automatic and it also could be appealed if applied. Given the undoubted bizarre and corrupt dealings of PD/PM after such a short time at PVFC there may be reasonable grounds for a successful appeal should a points deduction happen.

 

No chance I doubt, if they overturned it for us it would open a can of worms for so many clubs who would then challenge what has happened to them in previous seasons. Most clubs in administration have had similar experiences to us to end up in that mess too. I dont think the 10 point deduction is fair in the first place as it punishes fans and players who are innocent in the matter.

[JohnJames]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15969818.stm

 

If HMRC win this case administration could & would become a nightmare. Currently all the players and staff get any wages they are due out of the sale of the club. If this goes throgh that won't happen and players and staff would simply stop working and go elsewhere as they won't be guarenteed any money that they were owed.

We could be in very deep sheet and could possibly become the first club to "benefit" from this if the HMRC win their case and we then go into admin:(

[capercat]

Hi everyone, I haven't posted on here in a long time, but reading through the latest news I am as confused as anyone. Every day seems to bring a new shocker as far as the Vale boardroom is concerned.

 

While I know everyone wants to kick the b******s out as quickly as possible and move on, I think LB is realistic when he says we're going to have to see how this plays out. Who knows what the books really look like, who knows where money has gone? It's a tangled mess, and I can't see any buyer wanting to do a deal until the authorities have sorted it out and the previous owners have been removed or the club has been placed into administration.

 

The 10-point deduction would be unfortunate, it can be appealed but is probably inevitable. The major negative to administration to me is the cost of the process, which has already caused problems for us once before. I don't agree with LB that V2001 was 'always intended to be a temporary solution until a long-term investor was found'--if you go back and read through the early V2001 stuff (when Machin was involved) the plan was for V2001 to be the long-term owner. Vale was going to be "owned by the fans", the stand would be completed, funds would be available to improve the club, etc.

 

To my mind looking back the fundamental problem from the start was that V2001 didn't have enough money to run the club properly, and this was partly because it cost far more for V2001 to buy the club than planned due to the cost of the administration process-- the amount of money that was paid out to lawyers to get the club out of administration was amazingly high!

 

Unfortunately the major players kept trying to paper over this problem with temporary fixes (a council loan to finish the stand, RW's investment, etc) in order to stay in power instead of admitting their business model didn't make sense. The Blue Sky "investment" is just the latest in this sorry saga. So, now we are where we are.

 

The only alternative to administration I can see is, since the major debt the club has is to the town council, if the council could agree to more favorable terms on the debt--for a few years anyway--to give new owners time to put the club on a sound footing. However, that only works if the existing lot are willing to sell to an interested investor (such as Mo) and come clean as to the financial position of the club. Not likely, I don't think.

[Paul6754]

The above two posts are even more reason why I would much prefer to see MC take over, if he really is serious, change the Articles of Association, remove the 24.9% rule, take sole control of the club and do whatever it takes to ensure the club is on a solid foundation but at the same time keep the club out of Administration.

[geosname]

The above two posts are even more reason why I would much prefer to see MC take over, if he really is serious, change the Articles of Association, remove the 24.9% rule, take sole control of the club and do whatever it takes to ensure the club is on a solid foundation but at the same time keep the club out of Administration.

 

Mo couldnt do that.... it would take 75% of the share issued vote.... he cant buy that many so would rely on block share holders

[londonvale]

I can't see Mo taking over too soon if there is a chance of taking over after administration. Why buy something before Christmas when you can get it so much cheaper in the January sales. There are two advantages to this as I see it. Firstly, the rule book would be torn up and the 24.9 % wouldn't apply and secondly, all money invested would be spent on the club and not on paying off debts. As someone said elsewhere though, this doesn't take account of all those poor sods who are owed money.

 

 

You do still pay off the debt. Plymouth still have to pay their creditors, this despite the council buying the ground from one of them (mortgage company). When Plymouth got TV money from FA Cup game it all went straight to creditors. You can have debt, even after admin.

But I agree the "poor sods" get a lot less back than they are owed.

[Birdy]

You do still pay off the debt. Plymouth still have to pay their creditors, this despite the council buying the ground from one of them (mortgage company). When Plymouth got TV money from FA Cup game it all went straight to creditors. You can have debt, even after admin.

But I agree the "poor sods" get a lot less back than they are owed.

Don't the creditors set a x pence per pound rate? I think Vales was around 13p/£1 (possibly more?) whilst Leeds was around 1p/£1 in debt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_%28British_football%29

[TheLegalBeagle]

Don't the creditors set a x pence per pound rate? I think Vales was around 13p/£1 (possibly more?) whilst Leeds was around 1p/£1 in debt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_%28British_football%29

 

Hi Birdy,

 

Administration is essentially a collective agreement with the creditors to accept X pence in the £1 to allow the business to continue to trade. It is last chance saloon before insolvency in which the creditors basically lose everything. The administrator is tasked with negotiating with any prospective buyer and the creditors to see of there is a financial compromise as everyone has a vested interest in the business continuing to trade.

 

Regards

[grebovale]

Cannot see any benefit in Vale going into admin,just more pain for the fans,it will happen though am afraid,... JUST MY HUMBLE OPINON ....