Council to decide in days

[robf]

If they bail us out for the tax bill and possible staff wages, wont we just find ourselves in the same position next month or the month after?

 

I think the bail-out would be dependent on the club being put into administration so I wouldn't think so.

 

The administrators would be tasked with trying to reduce costs, sort out how much creditors are paid and getting in new owners ASAP.

[For Us All]

The council's dilemma,protect the public purse or subside the Vale?

[Ben]

I think the bail-out would be dependent on the club being put into administration so I wouldn't think so.

 

The administrators would be tasked with trying to reduce costs, sort out how much creditors are paid and getting in new owners ASAP.

 

How long did it take last time we went into Admin to get the For Us All mob in?

[robf]

How long did it take last time we went into Admin to get the For Us All mob in?

 

It's not always a quick process.

 

For the last administration...

 

1. The club went into administration with debts of £2.4m in early December 2002

2. In the next few weeks a lot of staff were made redundant as the Administrator cut costs

3. V2001 made a bid for the club in mid-December 2002

4. By January 2003, the Administrators confirmed several other bids had been received.

5. By 5th Feb, there had been five bids for the club which would then be put to the club's creditors.

6. At a creditors meeting on March 13, Valiant 2001's bid was accepted by creditors and made the preferred bid

7. On 7th April 2003, V2001 took control.

 

It's worth pointing out that the first administration period was over Christmas and New Year and involved several bids for the club. Those two factors may have slowed the process down somewhat.

[Ted]

That's my view too. It's in the council's interests to do it I think as it serves them well on both sides of the fence - in that:

 

1. Helping the Vale to survive makes them appear compassionate and able to help a community asset.

2. And for those non-football tax payers, they can also argue that it is protecting their loan/investment by making sure they get as much of it back as possible by controlling the administration process and not leaving it to another body (e.g. HMRC) to appoint administrators who may not be so sympathetic to the council.

 

But until they say so for sure, we won't know...

 

spot on. Its a complicated minefield for them. Do they spend the money for admin thus protecting their money as stated above or liquidation. And we will not know til they say. However i imagine the board will be nowhere near the place if the former is taken. The latter option would have major consequences on the surrounding community socially and economically. It would bring more costs to support and tackle these in the long term. Anyway- i remember an ex supporters club chairman saying its a win win situation at a meeting before christmas. So we must be ok.

[Valiant1981]

Someone on another forum said they heard Radio Stoke mention it was only "a 4 figure sum"?! Surely not?

 

That surely cant be right. There is no way they would wind a £3.5m turnover company for £9,999 or less.

 

When you think they probably pay £50k in PAYE/NIC per month and VAT of £35000 per month. What exactly would they be winding up on, 10 days VAT being unpaid.

 

More like a 6 figure sum, but nearer to a 7 figure sum.

[Sandyford_Lion]

That's my view too. It's in the council's interests to do it I think as it serves them well on both sides of the fence - in that:

 

1. Helping the Vale to survive makes them appear compassionate and able to help a community asset.

2. And for those non-football tax payers, they can also argue that it is protecting their loan/investment by making sure they get as much of it back as possible by controlling the administration process and not leaving it to another body (e.g. HMRC) to appoint administrators who may not be so sympathetic to the council.

 

But until they say so for sure, we won't know...

 

Dont you think also that current discussions will also involve possible buyers once we have entered admin.

There is no point the council throwing more money at the Vale without feeling confident that a buyer will look after the councils interests.

 

The loan to the council may well be ' re-negotiated ', as we heard several months ago ?

[robf]

Dont you think also that current discussions will also involve possible buyers once we have entered admin.

There is no point the council throwing more money at the Vale without feeling confident that a buyer will look after the councils interests.

 

The loan to the council may well be ' re-negotiated ', as we heard several months ago ?

 

I don't think it has to.

 

For the council the number one aim would be to protect their money and get as much of it back as possible.

 

They are likely to get more of it back through managed Administration than by standing aside and letting the club potentially be liquidated. Not only that but it's good PR for them to say they have helped a community asset.

 

I think as Administration is by its nature something that is put into place quickly to protect the club's remaining assets from legal actions from creditors.

 

In other words, once Admin is in place, the club is effectively protected for a while against legal threats from creditors which will give breathing space for potential new owners to express an interest in the club.

 

So, I think searching out potential new owners would drag out the Admin process too much and leave the club vulnerable to getting more legal claims from creditors (Harlequin, AGS and so on) so it's in the council's interests to get Admin sorted quickly to protect their loan.

[windsorvale4ever]

maybe we should email the council saying please dont give us the 300k as it will only mean this board staying on longer, yes it would mean admin and -10 points but at least the theifing gits would be gone for good. you cant keep running a club on loan after loan.

[Bede]

That's my view too. It's in the council's interests to do it I think as it serves them well on both sides of the fence - in that:

 

1. Helping the Vale to survive makes them appear compassionate and able to help a community asset.

2. And for those non-football tax payers, they can also argue that it is protecting their loan/investment by making sure they get as much of it back as possible by controlling the administration process and not leaving it to another body (e.g. HMRC) to appoint administrators who may not be so sympathetic to the council.

 

But until they say so for sure, we won't know...

 

I've been listening to Radio Stoke solid for the last three days and news that the council may hand us another loan has the taxpayers absolutely raging. If they do then there will be a serious backlash from taxpayers, in my opinion.

[Heatwave]

Is the £300k purely to keep MOLD in power till the end of the season?

 

Or is it, more likely, to allow an administrator to be put in place with cash up front?

[robf]

I've been listening to Radio Stoke solid for the last three days and news that the council may hand us another loan has the taxpayers absolutely raging. If they do then there will be a serious backlash from taxpayers, in my opinion.

 

I'm not surprised to be honest.

 

I guess we have to hope the council explain it as as saying - it's either putting in £300k more and saving a proportion of the £1.8m or not putting any in and potentially losing all the £1.8m already sunk into the club...

[robf]

Is the £300k purely to keep MOLD in power till the end of the season?

 

Or is it, more likely, to allow an administrator to be put in place with cash up front?

 

The second option, I think. It's £300,000 to pay the costs of taking the club into administration. Once in administration the board will be out and it will be in control of professionals.

[robf]

maybe we should email the council saying please dont give us the 300k as it will only mean this board staying on longer, yes it would mean admin and -10 points but at least the theifing gits would be gone for good. you cant keep running a club on loan after loan.

 

I think the 300k is the amount needed to be able to put the club into administration and therefore out of the board's control. Once in admin, the board are no longer in control...

[butt lane vale fan]

maybe we should email the council saying please dont give us the 300k as it will only mean this board staying on longer, yes it would mean admin and -10 points but at least the theifing gits would be gone for good. you cant keep running a club on loan after loan.

 

No you got it the wrong way b y the sounds of it. The £300k is to get rid of Mold and put the club in Admin, without the loan, there is a chance we could be liquidated.