Jump to content

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

There's no point rowing about accounting semantics really and definitions of balance sheet and cash-flow insolvency.  If you think the accounts look rosy then fair enough - it's your opinion, and these things are generally judgement calls. During my days as an insolvency accountant we took over companies with better P&L records and balance sheets than Wednesday. However, virtually all of the debt is owed to Chansiri which is hopefully better than owing it to a bank. But it completely depends on how deep his pockets are and his willingness and ability to continue to fund us. That's not necessarily a good place to be.  

 

Is our debt owed to Chansiri though. Is he definitely going to ask for it all back or will they get converted into shares (may have already happened) or what ever they do so that they dont shackle the club with debt.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

Really, you got pulled up for your initial post, flagrant misuse, not semantics. 

Am done now. 

I got pulled up erroneously by someone who later admitted I knew more than them about the subject. But believe what you want. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Veredisquo said:

The chairman claimed to sell Hillsborough to a company that didn’t exist at the time. Seems pretty clear cut to me. 

That's not clear cut at all.

 

Section 21 of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides for an exception to the rule that a person cannot bind a non-existent principal, which determines that a person may act as an agent for a company to be formed. The Act states in section 21(1) that a person may enter into a written agreement in the name of, or purport to act in the name of, or on behalf of, an entity that is contemplated to be incorporated in terms of this Act, but does not yet exist at the time.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rickygoo said:

Have you seen the balance sheet? Have you seen that liabilities exceed assets? Have you seen that the audited accounts are qualified re the company's ability to operate as a going concern?

 

 

Using that formula , how many clubs in the Championship are technically Insolvent ?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hugeowl said:

 

Using that formula , how many clubs in the Championship are technically Insolvent ?

I haven't dug out the accounts of the other clubs. I'm only interested in Wednesday.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Veredisquo said:

21 points is worse than 9- it’s all hypothetical at this stage anyway

 

It is indeed, and bearing in mind the punishment Birmingham got it looks like we’re already looking at much more than 9. Rolling over and just accepting the charge as you suggest will likely get the thing you’re hoping we avoid. Plus, you know, why should we if we feel we aren’t guilty of misconduct.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sonny said:

 

It is indeed, and bearing in mind the punishment Birmingham got it looks like we’re already looking at much more than 9. Rolling over and just accepting the charge as you suggest will likely get the thing you’re hoping we avoid. Plus, you know, why should we if we feel we aren’t guilty of misconduct.

 

You have to accept the EFL rules, Guilty until proven Guilty.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hugeowl said:

 

Using that formula , how many clubs in the Championship are technically Insolvent ?

Randomly I quickly looked at Bristol City and Barnsley - net assets of 6 and 9 million respectively. A position that could disintegrate with losses. But like I said I am interested in Wednesday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hugeowl said:

 

Using that formula , how many clubs in the Championship are technically Insolvent ?

Virtually every club in the entire league if there chairman walked away and demanded there money back would be in trouble I would imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everythings fine! Just logged on to check if everythings still fine and we the club is being run sustainably and to the letter of the law. 

 

Turns out everythings still fine. 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

That's not clear cut at all.

 

Section 21 of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides for an exception to the rule that a person cannot bind a non-existent principal, which determines that a person may act as an agent for a company to be formed. The Act states in section 21(1) that a person may enter into a written agreement in the name of, or purport to act in the name of, or on behalf of, an entity that is contemplated to be incorporated in terms of this Act, but does not yet exist at the time.

 

I remember when football was fun...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hugeowl said:

 

Using that formula , how many clubs in the Championship are technically Insolvent ?

Blackburn had net liabilities of £94m!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proud of our chairman?

 

Aye, everything is just wonderful.:duntmatter:

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bulgaria said:

Proud of our chairman?

 

Aye, everything is just wonderful.:duntmatter:

I'm proud he's a very successful businessman..

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF DC can afford a top lawyer and he has evidence from the EFL that is misleading in their advice.

 

One thing we do know is that the clubs soft embargo was lifted and that there was a dialogue going on between both parties.

 

We will soon see if DC lodges a legal case and whether this ends up in court, if the evidence is strong against the EFL then I would  expect 

 

them to back of.We can only wait and see.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hookowl said:

That's not clear cut at all.

 

Section 21 of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides for an exception to the rule that a person cannot bind a non-existent principal, which determines that a person may act as an agent for a company to be formed. The Act states in section 21(1) that a person may enter into a written agreement in the name of, or purport to act in the name of, or on behalf of, an entity that is contemplated to be incorporated in terms of this Act, but does not yet exist at the time.

 

 

You tell him Hookowl and you could explain for his benefit the concept of deals done on a Handshake or gentleman's  agreement for the paperwork to be completed at a later date. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

 

You tell him Hookowl and you could explain for his benefit the concept of deals done on a Handshake or gentleman's  agreement for the paperwork to be completed at a later date. 

Who did he shake hands with?

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Who did he shake hands with?

it was the seed of an idea that was threaded through a tiny loop hole lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rickygoo said:

Like I said no point rowing about accounting semantics  -we'll just go round in circles. It wasn't flagrant misuse. It was an interpretation of the balance sheet as reflected in the accounts. So if your reply wasn't about the accounts it wasn't about the specifics of my comment - it was about how you chose to interpret it.  


Creative interpretation

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Big Jack said:

IF DC can afford a top lawyer and he has evidence from the EFL that is misleading in their advice.

 

One thing we do know is that the clubs soft embargo was lifted and that there was a dialogue going on between both parties.

 

We will soon see if DC lodges a legal case and whether this ends up in court, if the evidence is strong against the EFL then I would  expect 

 

them to back of.We can only wait and see.

At the rate I'm buying John West tuna at $6 a can I could pay for one myself.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...