|
Post by northwestman on Jul 9, 2019 20:48:13 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. And Bury FC are facing a winding up petition in the High Court again on 31st July after the original case was adjourned for 6 weeks to give them time to sort out a CVA!
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 9, 2019 21:14:27 GMT 1
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? Agreed. I think there are at least a couple of sticking points. 1. Dale claiming to be a creditor is open to question, as the 3,600,000 shares he holds seem merely to be capitalization of debt. The previous Chairman Day's Company Mederco Ltd appears to have lent Bury at least £3.6 million if not more. So none of the shares held by Dale actually represent money paid into the Club by him. 2. As Mederco Ltd along with the majority of Day's Companies is now in administration, the administrator is likely to want to be involved in any decision on a CVA, as the debt is unsecured. The £3.7 million owed to Capital Bridge Finance is however secured on the ground, and is outside the CVA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 21:46:11 GMT 1
What kind of interest do HMRC charge on o/s debts?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 9, 2019 22:20:50 GMT 1
What kind of interest do HMRC charge on o/s debts? It's intended to be commercial restitution only, not punitive - currently 3.25% simple interest, not compound. On VAT it's 3%. Neither is tax deductible - not that Bury are likely to make a profit and have to worry about that! There are penalties for late filing of returns etc, which can be substantial. In this case, if HMRC have only been offered 25% of their debt in the CVA, it's unlikely to be relevant. The further adjournment might be because HMRC aren't yet ready to accept a 75% write off and are considering their options.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Jul 9, 2019 22:25:50 GMT 1
I belief it was Swindon who had the Bay Leafs bursting in and threading to remove goods.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 9, 2019 22:49:51 GMT 1
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? Agreed. I think there are at least a couple of sticking points. 1. Dale claiming to be a creditor is open to question, as the 3,600,000 shares he holds seem merely to be capitalization of debt. The previous Chairman Day's Company Mederco Ltd appears to have lent Bury at least £3.6 million if not more. So none of the shares held by Dale actually represent money paid into the Club by him. 2. As Mederco Ltd along with the majority of Day's Companies is now in administration, the administrator is likely to want to be involved in any decision on a CVA, as the debt is unsecured. The £3.7 million owed to Capital Bridge Finance is however secured on the ground, and is outside the CVA. So if they manage to survive the CVA they still won't own their ground and that will have to be paid for somehow
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 10, 2019 9:57:45 GMT 1
I belief it was Swindon who had the Bay Leafs bursting in and threading to remove goods. No goods of any value for them to remove from Bury FC. Dale has seen to that, just like he stripped that pub in Altrincham of everything including the hand dryers before selling it. 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.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 10, 2019 10:43:04 GMT 1
A Bury fan is reporting that Dale is taking out a loan to fund the CVA.
You couldn't make it up!
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 10, 2019 10:48:16 GMT 1
Dale for PM, he has all the right attributes to out cheat and confound those two chumps vying for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2019 11:09:58 GMT 1
A Bury fan is reporting that Dale is taking out a loan to fund the CVA. You couldn't make it up! A loan, secured against? The EFL seem to be very quiet on this matter. I would love to know what they think of this mess.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 10, 2019 11:17:13 GMT 1
A Bury fan is reporting that Dale is taking out a loan to fund the CVA. You couldn't make it up! A loan, secured against? The EFL seem to be very quiet on this matter. I would love to know what they think of this mess. No idea, but apparently this information has come from the Insolvency Practitioner responsible for setting up the CVA.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 11, 2019 22:38:23 GMT 1
Latest Guardian article on Bury by David Conn. It just gets worse! www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/11/bury-takeover-without-full-football-league-approval-transfer-embargo-efl?CMP=share_btn_tw"Under rules introduced after the serial financial collapse of clubs, including Bury, in the early 2000s, the EFL must be satisfied that a prospective new owner is “fit and proper” under its owners’ and directors’ test, and has enough money, from a legitimate source, to fund the club. In normal takeovers a prospective buyer is notified to the EFL in advance for these checks, including on the “source and sufficiency of funds”, and the league will block a takeover if it is not satisfied that the money is there. The EFL regulations state that “up to date future financial information” must be submitted by a club “as far in advance of the change of control as reasonably possible” or, if that is not reasonably practicable, within 10 working days after the takeover. Dale, however, did not undergo any part of that process before his takeover and even now, seven months into his ownership of Bury, he has still not provided the EFL with information it requires to be satisfied that he has the money to fund the club".
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Jul 11, 2019 22:50:20 GMT 1
So it sounds as if Bury have 7 players, (Juan without shorts).......
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jul 12, 2019 8:35:52 GMT 1
Latest Guardian article on Bury by David Conn. It just gets worse! www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/11/bury-takeover-without-full-football-league-approval-transfer-embargo-efl?CMP=share_btn_tw"Under rules introduced after the serial financial collapse of clubs, including Bury, in the early 2000s, the EFL must be satisfied that a prospective new owner is “fit and proper” under its owners’ and directors’ test, and has enough money, from a legitimate source, to fund the club. In normal takeovers a prospective buyer is notified to the EFL in advance for these checks, including on the “source and sufficiency of funds”, and the league will block a takeover if it is not satisfied that the money is there. The EFL regulations state that “up to date future financial information” must be submitted by a club “as far in advance of the change of control as reasonably possible” or, if that is not reasonably practicable, within 10 working days after the takeover. Dale, however, did not undergo any part of that process before his takeover and even now, seven months into his ownership of Bury, he has still not provided the EFL with information it requires to be satisfied that he has the money to fund the club". Just how spineless and gutless does the EFL have to be before anything is done about them. It would seem from this article that, not only was no information provided, but also no one in authority was bothered or suspicious. How many more fans will suffer because the EFL are simply not applying their own rules? It’s ludicrous and immoral. Who pays these people - I hope it’s not me through my taxes. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again they are not fit for purpose. Their neglect and ignorance has left people unpaid and having to rely on food banks for goodness sake. Someone at the EFL should be held accountable for such negligence.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jul 12, 2019 9:23:51 GMT 1
This whole situation is getting crazier by the day. For the new owner to have not passed ANY of the tests we hear so much about at the time of the purchase shows how little those tests actually mean. There is still no protection from the EFL for bad owners.
But for him to still be up to what hes doing now Many Many months after taking over and STILL not given the EFL any details that they would want for a new owner is something you cant quite believe. I mean what the hell are the EFL playing at. What is the punishment for not supplying this data. Nothing? Then whats the point.
At this stage, I kinda want Bury to fold and start again so that a proper inquiry into what the EFL are doing when it comes to checking owners... someone needs to look into it.
Between EPPP, the farce of the EFL Trophy, dominance over the EFL by the money from the premiership, being unable to do anything about owners, not taking fan thoughts into consideration on ANYTHING I think the EFL is in the worst place its been with fans for a long time... particularly lower league fans.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 12, 2019 9:29:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Jul 12, 2019 9:33:52 GMT 1
A fit and proper test is required for the EFL!
|
|
|
Post by tdk on Jul 12, 2019 10:00:47 GMT 1
So it sounds as if Bury have 7 players, (Juan without shorts)....... And an embargo on signing new players
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Jul 12, 2019 10:09:54 GMT 1
So it sounds as if Bury have 7 players, (Juan without shorts)....... And an embargo on signing new players I wouldn't worry if I were them. I expect the EFL will come along with a £2 million interest free loan.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 12, 2019 10:18:25 GMT 1
A fit and proper test is required for the EFL! That could perhaps be raised at their next AGM, which for some reason always seems to be held in Portugal!
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jul 12, 2019 10:56:59 GMT 1
I would certainly want some answers if I were a Bury fan.
|
|
|
Post by BlueTone on Jul 12, 2019 11:06:29 GMT 1
The EFL are too busy ensuring AFC Wimbledon respect the franchise. EFL need to take a good look at themselves.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 12, 2019 16:05:22 GMT 1
Post from a Bury fan:-
"There seems to be broad agreement that the EFL is not fit for purpose, with only the extent of its culpability for our situation under debate.
However, I would like to challenge the view that the EFL was powerless to act in our case, on the grounds that the Day/Dale transaction was not of itself illegal under relevant company law. This lets the EFL off the hook, particularly given that it wasn’t powerless.
In the business world, rejection of proposed transactions and appointments which are not necessarily of themselves illegal is commonplace. Take financial services as an example. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has responsibility for the regulation of authorized firms. It operates an “approved persons” regime whereby directors and other individuals performing “controlled functions “ must be approved. Not infrequently, it doesn’t give approval.
Turning to the EFL, its Directors are responsible for ensuring that the EFL is governed effectively and efficiently, in accordance with best practice, and to the satisfaction of all of its stakeholders. They are also responsible for ensuring that prospective purchasers pass the EFL’s owners and directors test, which is designed to stop people damaging the image and integrity of the league and its competitions. In an interview with the BBC in 2017, Shaun Harvey boasted that the EFL’s rules had stopped a number of people from buying clubs. There was no suggestion that any of these transactions were of themselves illegal, but the EFL’s test prevailed because it stands alongside - albeit separate to - the ordinary directors duties which apply in English law. The test is not usurped.
In our case it would appear from available information that Dale has either failed the test (according to Frith), or ignored it. Either way, the EFL seems to have chosen not to apply it - a case of not using existing powers, rather than not having the power. IMHO, this indicates that the EFL’s directors are guilty of negligence in failing to adequately discharge their governance responsibilities".
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jul 12, 2019 16:22:10 GMT 1
Good post from that Bury fan. Given that Bury were in already a bad way when Dale over, I wonder whether they were too quick to waive their own rules in letting that takeover go through.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jul 12, 2019 16:38:51 GMT 1
Negligent whichever way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 12, 2019 16:50:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by razzledazzle on Jul 12, 2019 19:59:14 GMT 1
northwestman, don't you find it worrying that the Bury fans chose to bury their heads in the sand at the time of Dale's appointment, even though you (and to a lesser extent I) were able to pinpoint the smell of fish more or less straightaway?
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 12, 2019 22:44:19 GMT 1
Reading from a Bury fan on twitter the other day that he thought they only had about 4 players left and another left today. Other staff have been told they will be let go because the club is insolvent and various bury fans have been getting their season tickets refunded.
So what hope is there? they wont have players in place, they won't have the staff to run it and they won't have the season ticket money.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 12, 2019 22:47:02 GMT 1
northwestman, don't you find it worrying that the Bury fans chose to bury their heads in the sand at the time of Dale's appointment, even though you (and to a lesser extent I) were able to pinpoint the smell of fish more or less straightaway? Yes, I must admit I was slightly surprised at that, though they are certainly investigating Dale and his associates in some depth now. But they were undoubtedly slow off the mark to raise initial concerns. Perhaps they were sidetracked by this video:- the guy with Dale, Matt McCarthy was appointed a Director on 7th December 2018, but resigned on 6th June 2019. www.buryfc.co.uk/news/2018/december/free-ifollow-video-new-chairman-steve-dale--director-matt-mccarthy/
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 13, 2019 10:10:14 GMT 1
Something for Dale to take into account:-
Trading whilst insolvent is a serious issue and if the company fails the directors can face serious repercussions. This can result in them incurring personal liability for company debts and possibly being disqualified from being a director for up to 15 years.
A limited company becomes insolvent when it can no longer pay its bills when due, or its liabilities—including contingent liabilities such as redundancy payments—outweigh the company’s assets. This is a critical point in the lifespan of a company as it denotes when the directors' responsibilities move from the interests of shareholders to the interests of creditors. It also means that the directors need to be extremely careful when considering whether to continue to trade, or not. Any director who knows that the company is insolvent and makes the decision to continue to trade, and in doing so increases the debts of the company can be made liable for the company debts.
|
|