|
Post by gainsparkshrew on Jun 29, 2019 18:18:52 GMT 1
Another 4 players rumoured to have left.............with no manager or squad the start of pre-season training on Monday could be interesting there.
Take your boots you WILL get a game.
Who is left? I've said before, but it's going to be a massive advantage for those sides playing them at the start of the season, if they survive Sure that more players leaving/left will be revealed once the window opens on Monday. Nicky Maynard has already announced, via social media, that he has left but has not said where he's going. His family are settled somewhere in Cheshire and don't want to move. May be worth a look? As we are still without a signed up keeper how about Joe Murphy? OK he's 36 but was the L2 keeper of the year and obviously worked with Brian Jensen at Bury
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jun 29, 2019 18:28:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by gainsparkshrew on Jun 29, 2019 18:46:50 GMT 1
Well that's the obvious destiantion, although Maynards wife was recently quoted as stating that they have just settled in Cheshire and that she and their children want to stay put. Plymouth may as well take over a hotel for the football season, out of season for the hotel business, and a coach and then ship down as many Bury players as they can get to sign for them and hey presto...a Promotion winning side !
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jun 29, 2019 19:50:22 GMT 1
Who is left? I've said before, but it's going to be a massive advantage for those sides playing them at the start of the season, if they survive Sure that more players leaving/left will be revealed once the window opens on Monday. Nicky Maynard has already announced, via social media, that he has left but has not said where he's going. His family are settled somewhere in Cheshire and don't want to move. May be worth a look? As we are still without a signed up keeper how about Joe Murphy? OK he's 36 but was the L2 keeper of the year and obviously worked with Brian Jensen at Bury I had heard via artell, that Crewe wanted him last summer but they couldn't afford to match the wages bury offered.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 1, 2019 10:52:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2019 11:01:42 GMT 1
Apologies if this has already been pointed out (haven't read the complete thread) but just looking to the reports from David Conn in the Guardian; if I recall right, a section of his book "The Beautiful Game" focused on Bury. Just having a look and that was released in 2005. Understandable that some have difficult in having have sympathy for Bury and their current plight, it's been going on years this...and here they are again.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 1, 2019 11:05:06 GMT 1
Looks a complete mess.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 1, 2019 19:12:55 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 1, 2019 19:29:28 GMT 1
Just over a month to the start of the season, only 6 players reporting for training, about to lose training ground, players and staff not paid, another court hearing on 29th July. Staying at Truro would seem a far better bet for Wilkinson.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 1, 2019 19:37:54 GMT 1
Oh, and Danny Mayor has been signed by Ryan Lowe at Plymouth.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 1, 2019 19:55:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by theriverside on Jul 1, 2019 21:20:40 GMT 1
Just over a month to the start of the season, only 6 players reporting for training, about to lose training ground, players and staff not paid, another court hearing on 29th July. Staying at Truro would seem a far better bet for Wilkinson. Latest word - Truro have no idea where this story has come from, no contact from bury to date 😂
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 2, 2019 12:39:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 2, 2019 15:29:03 GMT 1
With Dave Jones as his assistant. What rabbit has Dale pulled out of the hat to persuade these 2 to sign up? 4 more of their players (Mayor, Maynard, Stokes, Aimson) have left in the last couple of days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 15:42:04 GMT 1
Will it be the High Court who decide on whether or not to accept the CVA proposal?
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 2, 2019 17:31:10 GMT 1
Will it be the High Court who decide on whether or not to accept the CVA proposal? The Court has the final say I'd imagine, but to get a CVA, it has to be approved by creditors who are owed at least 75% of the debt. www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/25/bury-owner-steve-dale-debts-winding-up-petition-points-penaltyThe CVA is a proposed plan between creditors and the company (Bury FC) to deal with debts, with an alternative situation whereby the company is liquidated. The case is made that creditors are better off accepting a CVA. The proposed CVA articulates how non-secured debts will be handled by paying 25p for every pound of debt, with the exception of Dale's £3.6m loan where he will forego the payment due. (£900k) The proposed CVA articulates how secured creditors, Football related (players, agents etc) debts will be paid in full. Dale will pay all of these debts. The proposed CVA also states that a £3.7 million legal charge against the ground, arranged between Bury and CBF, is outside the CVA. The proposed CVA also states there is a legal charge against the Social Club which is excluded from the CVA. The proposed CVA states there is a Fixed Charge against future EFL payments to Broadoak of £150,000. Dale has said he will pay this in full as part of the CVA. The mystery is Dale's £3.6 million so-called 'loan' to the Club. He bought the Club for £1 and within a week these shares were put in place. No way will Dale have put that amount into the Club, so I can only assume that this is a capitalisation of a debt that Bury owed to Day's Mederco Company. Whether the administrators of Day's Companies pursue this further on behalf of Day's creditors we shall have to wait and see. Meanwhile, Dale can happily write off 25% of this debt, as he wasn't owed it anyway. But having those shares, which are effectively worthless to him anyway in monetary terms, does allow him to have a substantial say in whether a CVA is set up. www.gov.uk/company-voluntary-arrangements
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 2, 2019 19:08:49 GMT 1
Well, that's one way of announcing that Bury's Maynard has signed for Mansfield!
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 4, 2019 9:18:56 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 9:29:50 GMT 1
HMRC were owed £645k...now estimated to be around the million mark.
They shouldn't be allowed to get away without paying their taxes in full. The rest of us don't have a choice, why should they?
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 4, 2019 9:47:04 GMT 1
HMRC were owed £645k...now estimated to be around the million mark. They shouldn't be allowed to get away without paying their taxes in full. The rest of us don't have a choice, why should they? Look at the end of the report at the extremely lengthy list of unsecured creditors. Not fair on them either. Also note on P.27 of that report that Dale has shifted all the Club's trophies, memorabilia, furniture and computer equipment to 2 other Companies of which Dale is a shareholder and a director. Dale has form for this sort of thing. "On 4th November 2011, Steven Dale was appointed as a Director of Building Hire and Leasing Ltd. On 25th November 2011 the Company's Assets such as plant and machinery, stock, hire fleet and client rental contracts were transferred to Dale Acquisitions Ltd. On 11th January 2012 Dale resigned from Building Hire and Leasing Ltd. On 28th July 2015, Building Hire and Leasing Ltd was dissolved. Unsecured creditors who put in claims were owed £2,385,498. Those who failed to claim were owed £724,496. They didn't receive a penny." And a comment from the administrator appointed to deal with the winding up of Building Hire and Leasing Ltd:- "My investigations revealed the following issues, namely transfer of assets at undervalue, preference payments and trading whilst insolvent."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 9:53:44 GMT 1
They not only owe £1 million to HMRC, there's also £100k due to Bury MBC, rates I assume.
Money owed to the public purse that should be paid in full.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 5, 2019 15:02:24 GMT 1
Bury have announced their pre-season fixtures, starting on 13th July, the trouble is they only have about 5 or 6 players at the moment, maybe they will be 5-a-side games.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 5, 2019 15:14:00 GMT 1
Bury have announced their pre-season fixtures, starting on 13th July, the trouble is they only have about 5 or 6 players at the moment, maybe they will be 5-a-side games. I think some of the Youth Team are still around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2019 15:19:39 GMT 1
The situation down Macclesfield way isn't much better 😕
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 5, 2019 15:26:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 5, 2019 16:39:58 GMT 1
HMRC were owed £645k...now estimated to be around the million mark. They shouldn't be allowed to get away without paying their taxes in full. The rest of us don't have a choice, why should they? Look at the end of the report at the extremely lengthy list of unsecured creditors. Not fair on them either. Also note on P.27 of that report that Dale has shifted all the Club's trophies, memorabilia, furniture and computer equipment to 2 other Companies of which Dale is a shareholder and a director. Dale has form for this sort of thing. "On 4th November 2011, Steven Dale was appointed as a Director of Building Hire and Leasing Ltd. On 25th November 2011 the Company's Assets such as plant and machinery, stock, hire fleet and client rental contracts were transferred to Dale Acquisitions Ltd. On 11th January 2012 Dale resigned from Building Hire and Leasing Ltd. On 28th July 2015, Building Hire and Leasing Ltd was dissolved. Unsecured creditors who put in claims were owed £2,385,498. Those who failed to claim were owed £724,496. They didn't receive a penny." And a comment from the administrator appointed to deal with the winding up of Building Hire and Leasing Ltd:- "My investigations revealed the following issues, namely transfer of assets at undervalue, preference payments and trading whilst insolvent." Some very serious questions to be asked if those facts are correct.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 5, 2019 16:59:01 GMT 1
Oh, they are correct. I've spent hours researching this stuff. Most of the facts have come from records at Companies House.
Here's some further information:-
On another of Mr Dale's companies, Roscoe Industries Ltd, the joint compulsory liquidators' final progress report dated 23 March 2017 also makes interesting reading:
"I was advised on my appointment by the Official Receiver that the company may own or have an interest in two office units at 180 West Regent Street, Glasgow. I wrote to the director and asked if this was correct and to advise the nature of the company's interest, what the properties were used for and whether or not they were currently occupied. The director responded to advise that the company had been unable to secure funding for the proposed purchase of the properties and the sales therefore did not go ahead. I instructed solicitors to undertake Land Registry searches to identify the ownership. The Land Register indicated that Dale Acquisitions Limited, the company's former registered name, was the proprietor of the offices. I wrote to the director to advise him of the same. He failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the units were not owned by the company. I sought legal advice on how to deal with these properties in light of the director's comments. My solicitor advised that as the Land Register showed that the properties were owned by the company I was entitled to proceed on that basis. On my appointment the petitioning creditor advised me that they were aware that the company had a substantial amount of plant and machinery in 2013. I wrote to the director and asked what the current position was in respect of these assets and if the company still owned them to advise where they were located and provide me with an up to date schedule. Alternatively I asked if the assets were no longer owned by the company for copies of any sale documentation to evidence this. The director responded to advise that the company had sold the assets and that the liabilities of the company exceeded the value of these goods. I requested further information and documentation. However, no response was received. The Official Receiver applied for the public examination of the former director of the company on 30 March 2015 as he had failed to co-operate. The former director failed to attend and therefore a warrant for his arrest was issued. The former director attended the Official Receiver's office for an interview however he did not provide any more information in respect of the sale. I determined, based on the limited information and documentation I had and the lack of co-operation from the director that it was not economical to pursue this claim any further."
The unsecured creditors who were owed £51,756.38 were paid 3.84 pence in the pound.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 9, 2019 20:18:51 GMT 1
The meeting today which was to establish as to whether the CVA will be accepted by the creditors has been adjourned for another fortnight!
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 9, 2019 20:20:21 GMT 1
The meeting today which was to establish as to whether the CVA will be accepted by the creditors has been adjourned for another fortnight! Surely they won't be in a position to start the season? They have pre-season games starting next week and only about five senior players still at the club.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 9, 2019 20:44:35 GMT 1
The meeting today which was to establish as to whether the CVA will be accepted by the creditors has been adjourned for another fortnight! Surely they won't be in a position to start the season? They have pre-season games starting next week and only about five senior players still at the club. It's farcical. Why on earth has the CVA meeting been adjourned again? Surely every day that goes by means they are continually adding to their debts without any income?? And how on earth can they be allowed to start the season?
|
|