Although, and correct me where I'm wrong (which I most probably am), the court is only rubber stamping the CVA which the creditors have agreed to and relates to historical debt repayment.
Meanwhile the EFL have to satisfy themselves that Bury have/will have the funds throughout the season to pay football creditors and to complete their fixtures.
Just because the court has accepted the CVA doesn't mean the EFL have to be satisfied with Burt's finances going forward.
@Twizz you are right that satisfying the court and satisfying the EFL are two different things. The issues regarding satisfying the EFL are worthy perhaps of further review.
If yesterday's statement from Bury's owner is to be believed (and I acknowledge that many Bury fans have indicated that they don't trust what he writes or says) then the sticking point is that the EFL are insisting on being shown that there is £1.5million sitting in a bank account, ready to spend and ring-fenced as contingency funds just in case it may be required. Whether or not a requirement for every club to demonstrate the availability of contingency funds is a good idea and should be made mandatory for all by the EFL is a different discussion, probably worthy of its own thread, but what would happen if the EFL were to insist right now on seeing the same from all of its member clubs as it is reportedly requesting from Bury? How many clubs would similarly be unable to show they have £1.5million sitting around in a bank account, readily available and not committed to other expenditure? How few matches would actually be taking place this weekend if failure to show this led to suspension of the match by the EFL?
Much as I hate the powers that be at the EFL, FA and PL for getting English football into the state it is regarding unsustainable finances, but I do feel here that the EFL are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Here we have a football club who have just applied a CVA. What would we be saying if they just let anyone come in and take over the club without asking for some kind of financial assurances? In theory, at least, the EFL have to look after the interest of all the club's and it wouldn't do to allow a club to start playing fixtures and then folding come Christmas.
It seems that football is the only sector where every time a club goes bust they expect to always be allowed to reform and go straight back trading as if nothing had happened. Yes I know it does happen elsewhere, and usually to avoid debt, but it isn't without consequence.
Finally do we know that they aren't asking for the same kind of assurance from Bolton? Even if not, since we don't know what business plans each club has set out and whether the EFL view them as realistic, we can't in my view be too critical of the position the EFL have taken.
what i really don't understand is why Bolton were allowed to be effectively bailed out with a 2M loan from the PFA. What's stopping the PFA loaning Bury 1.5M so that can prove to the EFL they can last the season?
@floyd said:
what i really don't understand is why Bolton were allowed to be effectively bailed out with a 2M loan from the PFA. What's stopping the PFA loaning Bury 1.5M so that can prove to the EFL they can last the season?
For a whole host of reasons Bolton are the more likely to survive and be able to pay the poverty stricken PFA back perhaps...whereas Bury would just promise to give it back next week when its Giro comes in with its mouth while it's sad eyes would be saying...you ain't seeing that again. The PFA might have to sell a Lowry or two to get by.
whilst people are masturbating over our increased chances of staying up this year.....this could be us afew years down the line. Vote aginst any takeover. What are you going to say to your grandchildren... "Yeah Wycombe Wanderers used to be a Football League Team...we signed Josh Parker once!"
Grand child..."but the warning signs were there...how stupid were you?"
@LX1 said:
whilst people are masturbating over our increased chances of staying up this year.....this could be us afew years down the line. Vote aginst any takeover. What are you going to say to your grandchildren... "Yeah Wycombe Wanderers used to be a Football League Team...we signed Josh Parker once!"
Grand child..."but the warning signs were there...how stupid were you?"
On the whole I like your surreal posts but this is not great.
I could level the same hypothetical charge against you; vote against a takeover and we can all talk about how we used to be a football league team.
Yup. I'm with Ewan and Oxford, @LX1. There are warning signs everywhere, for almost every club in our division. This is not a helpful post and adds nothing substantive. Let's not restart any more Carrots/Chair-style profit-of-doom-mongering.
And I'm with Brownie too - this kind of post. from the Bury chairman, post-11pm seems ill-advised. Regardless of the truth of the matter, it reads as deranged.
Ultimately, there is a big difference in leverage between a fan owned club that is breaking even, and a fan owned club that is losing over 500K a year. We are the latter, and unfortunately, it means that we have to take a risk either way.
It's not always about what is ideal. Might we need to all chip in to bail the club out again in the future? Possibly. Good chance we have to do that either way.
They are doing all the right things so far. If you cut behind the cheesy PR and the increased budget simple things like food and beer haven't been done right in decades and failure to take money off keen punters by having no stock or long queues has the same effect as overspending.
I’ve admitted before that LX1’s posts have confused me with their quirky sense of humour, but people seem to be taking this one seriously. If so, he joins the list of those people against a takeover who fail to propose a realistic alternative.
@glasshalffull said:
I’ve admitted before that LX1’s posts have confused me with their quirky sense of humour, but people seem to be taking this one seriously. If so, he joins the list of those people against a takeover who fail to propose a realistic alternative.
And we can add you to the list of people ignoring the pages of debate and alternatives that have been done to death. You can enjoy the new approach and still be cautious. Evidence our opposition today if nothing else.
I said realistic alternatives. Haven’t seen one yet. The Trust board has made it perfectly clear that the present model is unsustainable. I do agree with the need for caution at this early stage but if LX1 is being serious (a big ‘if’) he has categorically ruled out any takeover.
It’s always worth noting the times of @LX1’s posts I find. Their lucidity and logic seem to bleed into the darkness the further away we go from midnight.
@glasshalffull said:
If so, he joins the list of those people against a takeover who fail to propose a realistic alternative.
I’ve heard tell of these legendary lists kept by @glasshalffull, hand written in a zodiac killer scrawl. Some say they’re written in the blood of fans who took part in the black and white protests, others say his quill is made from the bones of anyone who didn’t give a standing ovation to Steve Hayes. I always thought it was an urban legend but we now finally have confirmation that at least one of them exists.
Comments
From memory, it doesn't look as though they have edited it much from the original.
The winding up petition against Bury has been dismissed. Obviously the court and creditors are happy with the CVA arrangements.
What a mess. Time to find a new meaning for the EFL acronym I feel!
Although, and correct me where I'm wrong (which I most probably am), the court is only rubber stamping the CVA which the creditors have agreed to and relates to historical debt repayment.
Meanwhile the EFL have to satisfy themselves that Bury have/will have the funds throughout the season to pay football creditors and to complete their fixtures.
Just because the court has accepted the CVA doesn't mean the EFL have to be satisfied with Burt's finances going forward.
Good point well made but still a mess.
@Twizz you are right that satisfying the court and satisfying the EFL are two different things. The issues regarding satisfying the EFL are worthy perhaps of further review.
If yesterday's statement from Bury's owner is to be believed (and I acknowledge that many Bury fans have indicated that they don't trust what he writes or says) then the sticking point is that the EFL are insisting on being shown that there is £1.5million sitting in a bank account, ready to spend and ring-fenced as contingency funds just in case it may be required. Whether or not a requirement for every club to demonstrate the availability of contingency funds is a good idea and should be made mandatory for all by the EFL is a different discussion, probably worthy of its own thread, but what would happen if the EFL were to insist right now on seeing the same from all of its member clubs as it is reportedly requesting from Bury? How many clubs would similarly be unable to show they have £1.5million sitting around in a bank account, readily available and not committed to other expenditure? How few matches would actually be taking place this weekend if failure to show this led to suspension of the match by the EFL?
Much as I hate the powers that be at the EFL, FA and PL for getting English football into the state it is regarding unsustainable finances, but I do feel here that the EFL are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Here we have a football club who have just applied a CVA. What would we be saying if they just let anyone come in and take over the club without asking for some kind of financial assurances? In theory, at least, the EFL have to look after the interest of all the club's and it wouldn't do to allow a club to start playing fixtures and then folding come Christmas.
It seems that football is the only sector where every time a club goes bust they expect to always be allowed to reform and go straight back trading as if nothing had happened. Yes I know it does happen elsewhere, and usually to avoid debt, but it isn't without consequence.
Finally do we know that they aren't asking for the same kind of assurance from Bolton? Even if not, since we don't know what business plans each club has set out and whether the EFL view them as realistic, we can't in my view be too critical of the position the EFL have taken.
what i really don't understand is why Bolton were allowed to be effectively bailed out with a 2M loan from the PFA. What's stopping the PFA loaning Bury 1.5M so that can prove to the EFL they can last the season?
For a whole host of reasons Bolton are the more likely to survive and be able to pay the poverty stricken PFA back perhaps...whereas Bury would just promise to give it back next week when its Giro comes in with its mouth while it's sad eyes would be saying...you ain't seeing that again. The PFA might have to sell a Lowry or two to get by.
Accrington game now also off for Bury: https://www.efl.com/news/2019/august/efl-statement-bury-fc-update/
Jeez. That's really, really not good in so many ways.
Starting to look terminal sadly.
The Bury owner's take on it. He's not happy: https://www.buryfc.co.uk/news/2019/august/chairmans-statement-after-accrington-stanley-game-postponed-by-efl/
Any official statement released at 11pm is likely to be ill-advised, this is an absolute whopper.
does anyone still want to sell the Club?
whilst people are masturbating over our increased chances of staying up this year.....this could be us afew years down the line. Vote aginst any takeover. What are you going to say to your grandchildren... "Yeah Wycombe Wanderers used to be a Football League Team...we signed Josh Parker once!"
Grand child..."but the warning signs were there...how stupid were you?"
On the whole I like your surreal posts but this is not great.
I could level the same hypothetical charge against you; vote against a takeover and we can all talk about how we used to be a football league team.
Have to say @LX1 that post is so unbelievably negative. Why not give the potential new owners a chance to prove their worth 1st?
Yup. I'm with Ewan and Oxford, @LX1. There are warning signs everywhere, for almost every club in our division. This is not a helpful post and adds nothing substantive. Let's not restart any more Carrots/Chair-style profit-of-doom-mongering.
And I'm with Brownie too - this kind of post. from the Bury chairman, post-11pm seems ill-advised. Regardless of the truth of the matter, it reads as deranged.
Ultimately, there is a big difference in leverage between a fan owned club that is breaking even, and a fan owned club that is losing over 500K a year. We are the latter, and unfortunately, it means that we have to take a risk either way.
It's not always about what is ideal. Might we need to all chip in to bail the club out again in the future? Possibly. Good chance we have to do that either way.
They are doing all the right things so far. If you cut behind the cheesy PR and the increased budget simple things like food and beer haven't been done right in decades and failure to take money off keen punters by having no stock or long queues has the same effect as overspending.
Very nicely put, @StrongestTeam.
I agree, good post @StrongestTeam.
I’ve admitted before that LX1’s posts have confused me with their quirky sense of humour, but people seem to be taking this one seriously. If so, he joins the list of those people against a takeover who fail to propose a realistic alternative.
And we can add you to the list of people ignoring the pages of debate and alternatives that have been done to death. You can enjoy the new approach and still be cautious. Evidence our opposition today if nothing else.
I said realistic alternatives. Haven’t seen one yet. The Trust board has made it perfectly clear that the present model is unsustainable. I do agree with the need for caution at this early stage but if LX1 is being serious (a big ‘if’) he has categorically ruled out any takeover.
It’s always worth noting the times of @LX1’s posts I find. Their lucidity and logic seem to bleed into the darkness the further away we go from midnight.
(But I’m just jealous)
LX is clearly one of the last standing believers that you can survive as supporter owned, despite so much evidence to the contrary.
I'm certain there's still people out there who believe Booker was a good idea. They wouldn't dare admit it now though.
Mr Parry probably would @Malone!
I’ve heard tell of these legendary lists kept by @glasshalffull, hand written in a zodiac killer scrawl. Some say they’re written in the blood of fans who took part in the black and white protests, others say his quill is made from the bones of anyone who didn’t give a standing ovation to Steve Hayes. I always thought it was an urban legend but we now finally have confirmation that at least one of them exists.