TheBoyBeevers Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 So basically they'd turn their 20m into 4m, at best. Adminstration is the last thing the Co-op wants. So how do they get the board to do anything they want, bearing any mind the don't own any shares and have more to lose than everyone out of admin...? They don't actually put us into administration- just threaten us with it. The board would lose a lot more (in relative terms) than the bank would if we entered admin with the current regime still in place. Let's face it, we're never paying them back their £20million-the board and the bank both know that. It's not as if by putting us into admin they are risking losing out on a lot of money, because they're never getting it back. They will lose out on millions of pounds, but that will happen at some point in the future ayway- it's a question of when and not if it happens. Co-Op are a huge company that can easily absorb the loss of about £15 million off their accounts in the debters list. However from the board's perspective, they also stand to lose out millions- They all have shares, some of them millions of shares IIRC, and most if not all of them aside from Nick Parker have loans tied to in the club which they would lose out on. They aren't big time businessmen remember- in relative terms it would be a disaster for them to receieve only 10p in the pound back on their loans, whereas for the Co-Op it would be more of an inconvenience. Add to that the stigma of being on the board of a club which rips off it's creditors (I'm not sure that an FD or a CEO who have been involved with a club which has gone into admin will find jobs to easy to come by) and the board just can't afford to let that happen. Our future, as things stand, therefore lies in the hands of the bank and not the board IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fulham Fox Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I refer to my earlier post. Are the bank, publicly at least, obliged to support the board as a legal obligation? I hope that makes my question easier to understand. I'd like to know the answer if anyone has it? There is no legal obligation whatsoever. Moral maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handball_!! Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Phew - caught up with all this eventually. Well done to the board, good statement - putting the medium to long term future of the club first again, with the full support of the major creditor. Face it, they most likely don't want to be there and many people don't want them there, however, they are SWFC supporters at heart and will always put the best interests of the club and it's shareholders first which in this case means the 'deal' has to be right for SWFC and if it isn't they ain't shifting. Enjoy your football folks :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ogsowl Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 They don't actually put us into administration- just threaten us with it. The board would lose a lot more (in relative terms) than the bank would if we entered admin with the current regime still in place. Let's face it, we're never paying them back their £20million-the board and the bank both know that. It's not as if by putting us into admin they are risking losing out on a lot of money, because they're never getting it back. They will lose out on millions of pounds, but that will happen at some point in the future ayway- it's a question of when and not if it happens. Co-Op are a huge company that can easily absorb the loss of about £15 million off their accounts in the debters list. However from the board's perspective, they also stand to lose out millions- They all have shares, some of them millions of shares IIRC, and most if not all of them aside from Nick Parker have loans tied to in the club which they would lose out on. They aren't big time businessmen remember- in relative terms it would be a disaster for them to receieve only 10p in the pound back on their loans, whereas for the Co-Op it would be more of an inconvenience. Add to that the stigma of being on the board of a club which rips off it's creditors (I'm not sure that an FD or a CEO who have been involved with a club which has gone into admin will find jobs to easy to come by) and the board just can't afford to let that happen. Our future, as things stand, therefore lies in the hands of the bank and not the board IMO. Well put! However, as we all know, the Board contains 3 stubborn old farts who are not going to roll over easily, even if it's in their best interests! How long can this run, tho'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 There is no legal obligation whatsoever. Moral maybe. Thank you Mark FG - Where I was coming from was that if there is a customer / provider relationship involved, and the club insisted the bank had to show public support, would the bank be obliged to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handball_!! Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I refer to my earlier post. Are the bank, publicly at least, obliged to support the board as a legal obligation? I hope that makes my question easier to understand. I'd like to know the answer if anyone has it? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ogsowl Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Thank you Mark FG - Where I was coming from was that if there is a customer / provider relationship involved, and the club insisted the bank had to show public support, would the bank be obliged to do so? Wouldn't the Bank, as a Business with it's own Shareholders, be obliged to act in what it considered to be it's own best interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 This is what I am trying to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ogsowl Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 This is what I am trying to understand. Don't be afraid! You are not alone in that!............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Thanks peeps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handball_!! Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Wouldn't the Bank, as a Business with it's own Shareholders, be obliged to act in what it considered to be it's own best interests? Obliged to act in its shareholders best interests, but is also governed by the FSA and Company Law. They can't just please themselves what they do. Same as SWFC as a PLC can't issue false statements regarding investment/takeovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious George Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 They don't actually put us into administration- just threaten us with it. The board would lose a lot more (in relative terms) than the bank would if we entered admin with the current regime still in place. Let's face it, we're never paying them back their £20million-the board and the bank both know that. It's not as if by putting us into admin they are risking losing out on a lot of money, because they're never getting it back. They will lose out on millions of pounds, but that will happen at some point in the future ayway- it's a question of when and not if it happens. Co-Op are a huge company that can easily absorb the loss of about £15 million off their accounts in the debters list. However from the board's perspective, they also stand to lose out millions- They all have shares, some of them millions of shares IIRC, and most if not all of them aside from Nick Parker have loans tied to in the club which they would lose out on. They aren't big time businessmen remember- in relative terms it would be a disaster for them to receieve only 10p in the pound back on their loans, whereas for the Co-Op it would be more of an inconvenience. Add to that the stigma of being on the board of a club which rips off it's creditors (I'm not sure that an FD or a CEO who have been involved with a club which has gone into admin will find jobs to easy to come by) and the board just can't afford to let that happen. Our future, as things stand, therefore lies in the hands of the bank and not the board IMO. Sorry - but that is completely wrong. I don't understand what you mean in "relative terms". The bank is owed 20m. The board about 1m. If we went into admin - simple terms, who loses most? Maybe you would argue their shares would be worth less (or worthless), but remember there is only 10% of shares on the board anyway. We might never pay the 20m back. So you have to ask yourself why the bank is backing people who might get them a percentage of that amount back. Is this what we have become? A club that will never grace the door of the Premiership for that one big 50m payout? The bank might think so, I rumbleing dream so, but with the people in charge now we are slipping down so far it will take a rumbleing Australian coal-mining mole to fish out our dregs. "However from the board's perspective, they also stand to lose out millions" - hahaha! They stand to lose 500k at the most. At the very most. We've had Deejayone come on here and say that one of the directors jobs is to represent Wednesday at away matches. What in the holy entire of flip is that? Millions? They don't know they are rumbleing born sat in their cushioned seats whilst us real fans lay down and watch OUR team get rumbleing trampled on by the likes of Barnsley and Sflaphorpe. Disaster? For people who have dropped this club to the very depths of my imagination. From a Premiership title contender into a League 1 club that can't rustle up 500k to pay the tax? Are you serious?! You are defending people, who in your own words, are not "big time businessmen". 10p in the pound is 12p more then that bunch of degenerates are worth. People on here slate C9S before they know anything they can do. We know what that shower of wankstains have done, yet still people say "better the devil you know". Asset stripping? Sell your best player to pay a fraction of the tax bill you cannot afford. Don't forget your court appointment in August. I don't even know what I'm arguing against on here now, just completley rumbleing gutted about our team, a laughing stock not only in Sheffield, but seeing us on the Sky Sports News banner as it slips across my eyes that we have received a winding up order is the lowest point as a Wednesday fan I've ever had, and there's a lot to choose from. I will still be there however next Saturday, like a midge attracted to an electric light. It's not good for me, or any of us, but one thing I do know is that if it carries on as we are, we'll be lucky to have a club to support next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadingOwl Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Sorry - but that is completely wrong. I don't understand what you mean in "relative terms". The bank is owed 20m. The board about 1m. If we went into admin - simple terms, who loses most? Maybe you would argue their shares would be worth less (or worthless), but remember there is only 10% of shares on the board anyway. We might never pay the 20m back. So you have to ask yourself why the bank is backing people who might get them a percentage of that amount back. Is this what we have become? A club that will never grace the door of the Premiership for that one big 50m payout? The bank might think so, I rumbleing dream so, but with the people in charge now we are slipping down so far it will take a rumbleing Australian coal-mining mole to fish out our dregs. "However from the board's perspective, they also stand to lose out millions" - hahaha! They stand to lose 500k at the most. At the very most. We've had Deejayone come on here and say that one of the directors jobs is to represent Wednesday at away matches. What in the holy entire of flip is that? Millions? They don't know they are rumbleing born sat in their cushioned seats whilst us real fans lay down and watch OUR team get rumbleing trampled on by the likes of Barnsley and Sflaphorpe. Disaster? For people who have dropped this club to the very depths of my imagination. From a Premiership title contender into a League 1 club that can't rustle up 500k to pay the tax? Are you serious?! You are defending people, who in your own words, are not "big time businessmen". 10p in the pound is 12p more then that bunch of degenerates are worth. People on here slate C9S before they know anything they can do. We know what that shower of wankstains have done, yet still people say "better the devil you know". Asset stripping? Sell your best player to pay a fraction of the tax bill you cannot afford. Don't forget your court appointment in August. I don't even know what I'm arguing against on here now, just completley rumbleing gutted about our team, a laughing stock not only in Sheffield, but seeing us on the Sky Sports News banner as it slips across my eyes that we have received a winding up order is the lowest point as a Wednesday fan I've ever had, and there's a lot to choose from. I will still be there however next Saturday, like a midge attracted to an electric light. It's not good for me, or any of us, but one thing I do know is that if it carries on as we are, we'll be lucky to have a club to support next season. Heartfelt. Well put FG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Obliged to act in its shareholders best interests, but is also governed by the FSA and Company Law. They can't just please themselves what they do. Same as SWFC as a PLC can't issue false statements regarding investment/takeovers. Yet they clearly do. Unless we believe they really have been speaking to several potential investors for months? What are they talking about? The board has made it clear, the deal is £5m in and used as they say, and that deal is non negotiable. Unless they're all different investors that just keep saying, "no thanks" and it's been a revolving door for months but there has always been someone there in talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Heartfelt. Well put FG Welcome back Paul, did we enjoy our holiday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadingOwl Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Welcome back Paul, did we enjoy our holiday? Very enjoyable, Rich, thanks. No internet - even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Very enjoyable, Rich, thanks. No internet - even better. Any withdrawal symptoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadingOwl Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Any withdrawal symptoms? Not really. Same old, same old, I see. Nothings changed. But I have. at least, paid my tax bill whilst away. The wonders of 'pre-progammable' internet banking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Not really. Same old, same old, I see. Nothings changed. But I have. at least, paid my tax bill whilst away. The wonders of 'pre-progammable' internet banking. In all seriousness, glad you had a good break Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handball_!! Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Yet they clearly do. Unless we believe they really have been speaking to several potential investors for months? What are they talking about? The board has made it clear, the deal is £5m in and used as they say, and that deal is non negotiable. Unless they're all different investors that just keep saying, "no thanks" and it's been a revolving door for months but there has always been someone there in talks. Show me one, that you can prove is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now