Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[sussexcobbler]

A club yes...but what future? Again, who knows?! The last time we went into administration the administrators sacked the manager and 10 players within 24 hours, forcing us to play a youth team with Phil Chard as player manager at Barnet.
Round and round in circles without getting anywhere....£12m to do something about it....our big chance....blown by the baffoon!

That's a fair point, and of course it would be a step into the unknown.  There is no ideal solution, but to me this is the only one that remotely has a chance of working.  There seems little chance of someone rolling into teyn with £10m+ to invest, but finding £2m is not such a big deal for people who have had a successful career.  The consortium I have heard might be interested certainly could raise a couple of million between them and I believe have the club and town at their hearts.

The next few weeks will be a rollercoaster I'm sure, but my prediction is that we will survive.... just!

[The 12th Marquis of Sixfields]

Wouldn't the club need to convince the administrators that there is a future for it as a company? And wasn't the last credit report something along the lines of "huge risk"?

[sussexcobbler]

It's unlikely we'll be allowed to enter administration whilst subject to a Winding Up Petition. It can happen, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.

I have to be honest, this is not an area of expertise for me so I don't know the in's and out's of the legal side.  However, lots of sporting outfits seem to have been hit with winding up orders over the last few years and they always seem to be saved at the 11th hour, so I guess I am hoping we join this list of outfits!

[sussexcobbler]

Wouldn't the club need to convince the administrators that there is a future for it as a company? And wasn't the last credit report something along the lines of "huge risk"?

In terms of lower league teams, we have been consistently well supported for many years.  This gives the administrator a base number of season ticket holders with guaranteed revenue.  If a few local businesses were to then also commit 5 or 6 figure sums in sponsorship and all of a sudden we look fairly viable as a business.

[John]

We need to fold completely and start again, with no debt. We can hire Sixfields on a match day basis. As long as we keep a couple of thousands fans interested, we'd soon move up the leagues and in some ways it would be quite exciting. Plenty of other clubs have done it, why couldn't we?

The debt will choke us for years if we survive.

[Andy NN3]

It's unlikely we'll be allowed to enter administration whilst subject to a Winding Up Petition. It can happen, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.

So if the WUP prevents administration, then presumably it (conveniently) stops an administrator going through the books in detail for another 4 weeks.

[JollyCobbler]

So if the WUP prevents administration, then presumably it (conveniently) stops an administrator going through the books in detail for another 4 weeks.

Unfortunately it's far from 'convenient' in any way shape or form. When the petition is heard, if the debt is not (or has not been) settled, then a winding up order is usually granted immediately. What further aggravates the situation is that other debtors can stake their own claims via the same hearing, and even if the tax bill was paid, if other debts are outstanding we could still get wound up.

One glimmer of hope would be the circumstances of the club having been 'potentially' subjected to a fraud, this might grant us a reprieve. My worry, and it's one that seems to have barely been raised: As directors of a business you are subject to certain responsibilities, and it concerns me that other directors (The Trust included) may have unwittingly aided any skulduggery. I don't doubt Cardoza has ran roughshod over the board, but if anyone has unwittingly aided any deception, this could prove disastrous for the club.   

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Unfortunately it's far from 'convenient' in any way shape or form. When the petition is heard, if the debt is not (or has not been) settled, then a winding up order is usually granted immediately. What further aggravates the situation is that other debtors can stake their own claims via the same hearing, and even if the tax bill was paid, if other debts are outstanding we could still get wound up.

One glimmer of hope would be the circumstances of the club having been 'potentially' subjected to a fraud, this might grant us a reprieve. My worry, and it's one that seems to have barely been raised: As directors of a business you are subject to certain responsibilities, and it concerns me that other directors (The Trust included) may have unwittingly aided any skulduggery. I don't doubt Cardoza has ran roughshod over the board, but if anyone has unwittingly aided any deception, this could prove disastrous for the club.   

This question was raised a few weeks before Andy Clarkes resignation. He was present in at least one meeting during which documents were signed. I notice Barry Hanc0cks signature on a couple of the loan documents lodged as mortgages from the council, DC has certainly been "sharing the responsibility" around!!

Another question....might be silly, might not, but if the Trust are shareholders in the club, and its the club that goes into administration, aren't the Trust liable for around 6.5% of the debt??

[Devon Cobbler]

GPC, no the Trust are not liable but they could lose the amount they have invested in the club.

[guest49]

Outside the social media and forum bubble, it is interesting just how little people are interested or don't understand the situation. I've spoken to loads of people recently (mainly as the cobblers fan) and there has been no one close to the situation. One Liverpool, Northampton based ST holder "Are you still building that stand?". To "Our council tax is paying for that new stand." and "Were they wearing pink shirts the other week?!" Even tonight, someone with their ear slightly closer to the ground said "You won't see him again, he's in Canada!"
I think for most the recent headlines wash over them.

[guest49]

This question was raised a few weeks before Andy Clarkes resignation. He was present in at least one meeting during which documents were signed. I notice Barry Hanc0cks signature on a couple of the loan documents lodged as mortgages from the council, DC has certainly been "sharing the responsibility" around!!

Another question....might be silly, might not, but if the Trust are shareholders in the club, and its the club that goes into administration, aren't the Trust liable for around 6.5% of the debt??

Hanc@ck happened to walk out with Cardoza the other day when the TV cameras were there. He was soon advised that he might want to be careful who he is pictured with these days. 

[pattcobb]

Outside the social media and forum bubble, it is interesting just how little people are interested or don't understand the situation. I've spoken to loads of people recently (mainly as the cobblers fan) and there has been no one close to the situation. One Liverpool, Northampton based ST holder "Are you still building that stand?". To "Our council tax is paying for that new stand." and "Were they wearing pink shirts the other week?!" Even tonight, someone with their ear slightly closer to the ground said "You won't see him again, he's in Canada!"
I think for most the recent headlines wash over them.

I think one of the reasons, certainly locally is the demise of a daily newspaper. Which had pages to fill for one and for another was read even by those with a passing interest. Nowadays if one wanted info on the Cobblers one would generally have to look a bit harder for it, thus their passing interest passes by.

[JollyCobbler]

This question was raised a few weeks before Andy Clarkes resignation. He was present in at least one meeting during which documents were signed. I notice Barry Hanc0cks signature on a couple of the loan documents lodged as mortgages from the council, DC has certainly been "sharing the responsibility" around!!

Another question....might be silly, might not, but if the Trust are shareholders in the club, and its the club that goes into administration, aren't the Trust liable for around 6.5% of the debt??

No they're not. But I'm not sure the Cardozas are free of a charge of misfeasance.

[guest2487]

I'll throw a couple of names into the takeover hat...

Spoke to an Oxford fan last night and apparently ex Oxford chairman Kelvin Thomas is in line to be the front man of a consortium to buy us, financially backed by Stewart Donald (Eastleigh).

Interestingly Kelvin Thomas was the man that appointed Chris Wilder at Oxford.

[MD]

Sorry if this isn't the best place to post this... didn't want to start yet another thread...

I posted last week after the WUP was issued against us (on p681 on the ReDev thread if you want to read it) the notes of a phone discussion I held with a very senior contact of mine who is vastly experienced in the field of corporate restructuring, WUPs, CVA's, administrations, etc etc.  The intention of that was to clarify a few FACTS about what the WUP meant (I trust this guy's professional expertise 110%, so if he tells me its fact, then its fact as far as I'm concerned!), rather than us all deal with assumptions and speculation as to what we think it means. 

He has kindly answered some further follow-up points of clarity from me this morning (for which I'm very grateful) which I set out below (I've reworded into 'non accountant' speak as much as I can, without losing the sentiment of what he said!):


CAN THE 'COMPANY' NOW NOT SELL ANY SIGNIFICANT ASSETS UNTIL AFTER THE WINDING UP HEARING?
All "dispositions of property" after the publication of the winding up petition are voidable (ie can be reversed by the court) but there is a process whereby the company can obtain a validation order from the court to cover normal trading transactions.  In practice this should be relatively easy for most normal transactions but would be difficult (but not impossible) for major disposals of assets.


CAN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE COMPANY BE SOLD BEFORE THE WINDING UP HEARING? (just to double-clarify what I already posted on p681!)
The restrictions above apply only to assets of the company, not its own shares, so there is no reason why this cannot happen... other than the practical problem that any new owner would be taking on the risk that the company they've just bought can be wound up at the winding up petition, hence it may not be a very attractive proposition.


CAN THE COMPANY STILL ENTER ADMINISTRATION (VOLUNTARY OR OTHERWISE) PRIOR TO THE WINDING UP HEARING?
Once a WUP is presented the Directors can't appoint an Administrator "out of court" (which would make a pre-pack administration difficult, which I'd thought may be a possible 'end game' prior to knowing about the WUP).  To do so, the Directors would have to apply to court having notified HMRC, who presented the petition.  In practice this might not be an issue if there is a valid reason to enter Administration however clearly this is a bit of an unknown.  The appointment of an Administrator, if granted, would effectively take precedence and the WUP proceedings would be stayed.


Please post (or PM me) any further questions of 'process' and I'll see if I can find out the answers.  Whilst none of us know the true facts of the scenario going on at NTFC, I thought it helpful to at least be a bit clearer on the meanings of the quite complex legal processes going on at the moment!

[JollyCobbler]

Thanks, MD. Appreciate your providing some clarity.

[guest2677]

Thanks MD.
If the outstanding amount owed to HMRC is paid on or before the high court hearing with nobody else has piggy backing onto it , will the most likely scenario be the order is thrown out as others on here have suggested?

[MD]

Thanks MD.
If the outstanding amount owed to HMRC is paid on or before the high court hearing with nobody else has piggy backing onto it , will the most likely scenario be the order is thrown out as others on here have suggested?

Yes, I'm sure that's the case... if the debt had been paid and nobody else had presented a further claim to piggy-back onto this action, then the High Court hearing you'd imagine should be pretty straight-forward - there would be no reason to force a winding up.  Clearly its a bit of a gamble though...

[MD]

Yes, I'm sure that's the case... if the debt had been paid and nobody else had presented a further claim to piggy-back onto this action, then the High Court hearing you'd imagine should be pretty straight-forward - there would be no reason to force a winding up.  Clearly its a bit of a **** though...

Haha, I actually just wrote the word "g&mble" above rather than anything more juicy, though any choice of expletives do indeed also apply...!

[Its_nice_to_michu]

I'll throw a couple of names into the takeover hat...

Spoke to an Oxford fan last night and apparently ex Oxford chairman Kelvin Thomas is in line to be the front man of a consortium to buy us, financially backed by Stewart Donald (Eastleigh).

Interestingly Kelvin Thomas was the man that appointed Chris Wilder at Oxford.

Seems very unlikely as Stewart Donald (Eastleigh) already owns a 10% sake in his beloved Oxford Utd.