300k is 100% true, its within the creditor reports.
Unfortunately the act of applying / requesting administration was considered an insolvency event (mainly due to the wording of the EFL rules) and therefore we went down this path.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
We are not Alone
- Thread starter springy-park
- Start date
Unfortunately the act of applying / requesting administration was considered an insolvency event (mainly due to the wording of the EFL rules) and therefore we went down this path.
TRUE BELIEVER
Vital Football Hero
That £300 grand (if true) wasn't enough to pay the wages, the next payments for players we'd bought & the non-football creditors we owed money to
Don't forget as well that at the time we were put into administration unlike previous administrations at Bolton, Bury and many others we had absolutely no money coming in from ticket sales & what people spend on food & drink & other income streams
You would have hoped that the EFL would have taken the fact that we had no income from gate receipts etc into account, however that didn't happen.
I don't think the gate receipts and other sales would have made a great deal of difference to Au Yeung, but it should have had an impact on the hearing result. The appeal was on the basis that covid had impacted our ability to meet our financial commitments, which at the time the appeal board ruled against, and yet that was clearly true. Whether the loss of that income would have seen us through to the end of the season is open to debate, but there clearly has been an impact. We would not have had to sell as many of our youth players to keep the club running for instance.
I think the EFL jumped the gun. I think that they should have approached the members of the board who were opposed to the administration and listened to their views before applying the 12 point deduction.
Having listened to them they would probably have come to the conclusion that the loan that Au Yeung/Choi were forcibly unloading on the club was the problem and as we all now know that loan has been removed from the process. Without that loan hanging over us the club could have been placed into administration and the EFL could have organised an emergency loan to see the club through to the season end avoiding the club becoming insolvent. There were plenty of assets that could have been sold off at the end of the season to repay that loan.
The whole problem was due to the structuring of the loan and the insistence of the majority shareholders to bail out, but I do think the EFL could have been more lenient.
Mighty Bongsmon
Vital Squad Member
You would have hoped that the EFL would have taken the fact that we had no income from gate receipts etc into account, however that didn't happen.
I don't think the gate receipts and other sales would have made a great deal of difference to Au Yeung, but it should have had an impact on the hearing result. The appeal was on the basis that covid had impacted our ability to meet our financial commitments, which at the time the appeal board ruled against, and yet that was clearly true. Whether the loss of that income would have seen us through to the end of the season is open to debate, but there clearly has been an impact. We would not have had to sell as many of our youth players to keep the club running for instance.
I think the EFL jumped the gun. I think that they should have approached the members of the board who were opposed to the administration and listened to their views before applying the 12 point deduction.
Having listened to them they would probably have come to the conclusion that the loan that Au Yeung/Choi were forcibly unloading on the club was the problem and as we all now know that loan has been removed from the process. Without that loan hanging over us the club could have been placed into administration and the EFL could have organised an emergency loan to see the club through to the season end avoiding the club becoming insolvent. There were plenty of assets that could have been sold off at the end of the season to repay that loan.
The whole problem was due to the structuring of the loan and the insistence of the majority shareholders to bail out, but I do think the EFL could have been more lenient.
There's undoubtedly more that the EFL could have done to help out but they'd have had many other clubs crying foul & demanding similar treatment.
If my skim reading & memory of the appeal judgement was right I think it was pretty much acknowledged that the loan & the actions of Au Yeung were solely to blame for what happened but that the membership of the EFL doesn't distinguish between the club's & the owner's actions & so within the rules the points deduction was correctly applied as the owner had deliberately placed us in to administration - although it came with the "this is what can happen when you rely on a rich owner to cover your losses"
The covid argument whilst valid in some regards (I believe some evidence was put forward where somebody at the club relayed a conversation with Au Yeung where he couldn't believe the EFL were forcing the clubs to play on with no income & said something along the lines of "who do they expect to pay for this") fell completely flat when Au Yeung used it as a justification when he purchased the club in the middle of the initial lockdown & had already requested Begbie's be appointed to liquidate the club the week before he'd completed the purchase
Au Yeung, the club & the administrators can't really claim force majeure in those circumstances - unfortunately for us
Last edited:
Nottingham
Vital Squad Member
Your belief is wrong.Jackson and Royle would have had no say in it, they were literally outvoted by the majority shareholder, Au Yeung.
You are right about the administration being unnecessary, and it has been done to death on here, but there is no reason for it to have happened. As you say there was sufficient assets in the group to raise the necessary cash to see the club through to the end of the season and then sell of some of the assets to cover the loan. The trouble was the loan that Au Yeung/ Choi were trying to offload on the club that was completely off the scale in terms of repayment. JJ and DR tried to resist this and were kicked off the board for their pain.
How do you know this TB?
That £300 grand (if true) wasn't enough to pay the wages, the next payments for players we'd bought & the non-football creditors we owed money to
Don't forget as well that at the time we were put into administration unlike previous administrations at Bolton, Bury and many others we had absolutely no money coming in from ticket sales & what people spend on food & drink & other income streams
I get what your saying but what I dont get is that the PFA paid money to both Bolton and Bury towards players wages whereas our admin sold everything off at car boot sale prices and as far as I'm aware we paid it all ourselves. No PFA money for us. Maybe my view is clouded because it's my club but the rules of admin seem to be different for us compared to others that have gone before.
TRUE BELIEVER
Vital Football Hero
How do you know this TB?
It was widely reported at the time.
