Very worrying messages coming from administrators.
A few weeks back they were asking potential buyers to put substantial amount of money up for wages
Yesterday, they stated they wanted a non refundable £100k bond lodging for an exclusivity process and in regard to legal costs.
That's all good enough to put buyers off.
Usually, it's the buyer who request an exclusivity process not the seller. This gives time for the buyer to conduct the process without worry or pressure that someone else is going to sneak in. The seller can ask for a deposit but which would be returnable if say the advertised details didn't match up to site checks etc. Also, we have our friends ELF who have a 'say' which seems to have moved into a 'moveable feast'
Normally, potential buyers make an offer on basic info provided. If both parties are happy, a 'letter of intent' is sought and provided. Details are included providing for time allowance for due diligence to check the advertised details etc are correct and acceptable and a price agreed. The problem for potential buyers now is the clubs 'assets' are fluctuating because of selling players.
This happened with IEC and DW. Close to the completion IEC knocked £2 million of agreed price in May 2019 due to some very 'iffy' excuses
The problem with this set up is that the Administrators priority is protecting their fees.
It took Krasner and co about 4 months 'sorting' Bournemouth's administration in 2007 and there were named buyers in place. Common opinion was that they were dreaming up caveats to extend admin period.
A few weeks back they were asking potential buyers to put substantial amount of money up for wages
Yesterday, they stated they wanted a non refundable £100k bond lodging for an exclusivity process and in regard to legal costs.
That's all good enough to put buyers off.
Usually, it's the buyer who request an exclusivity process not the seller. This gives time for the buyer to conduct the process without worry or pressure that someone else is going to sneak in. The seller can ask for a deposit but which would be returnable if say the advertised details didn't match up to site checks etc. Also, we have our friends ELF who have a 'say' which seems to have moved into a 'moveable feast'
Normally, potential buyers make an offer on basic info provided. If both parties are happy, a 'letter of intent' is sought and provided. Details are included providing for time allowance for due diligence to check the advertised details etc are correct and acceptable and a price agreed. The problem for potential buyers now is the clubs 'assets' are fluctuating because of selling players.
This happened with IEC and DW. Close to the completion IEC knocked £2 million of agreed price in May 2019 due to some very 'iffy' excuses
The problem with this set up is that the Administrators priority is protecting their fees.
It took Krasner and co about 4 months 'sorting' Bournemouth's administration in 2007 and there were named buyers in place. Common opinion was that they were dreaming up caveats to extend admin period.