Quote: Adeybull "You will never know if it was, because the previous board are no longer in situ, are no longer in a position to demonstrate whether or notthey told the fans the truth, and were never going to be able to do so once Caisley intervened to effectively stymie any inward investment - by making public the the shareholder disagreement the day before the pledge closed.
If the current board DOES "conclude" that administration is the "only option", you will never know what the true financial position was. Because all you will ever see or see quoted from - if you are lucky - will be the Statement of Affairs. Whcih is drawn up on a Realisation as opposed to a Going Concern basis. Which means it shows loads of liabilities that crystalise only on insolvency, and assets written down to their realisable amount. And therefore shows a far far worse financial position than a set of accounts does. Because it is not showing the same information.
And yet, just you watch. If it IS administration, I bet you will see people quoting numbers from the SOA to "prove" how bad the financial situation was. WHich will be total and utter bollox, and if they do I will shout it from the rooftoops. Since an SOA shows the position AFTER a business has been declared formally insolvent, so it is BOUND to look far worse. I sincerely hope, if administration DOES come to pass, that the new board, or Caisley, or anyone else involved in the process, tries to take the fans for fools with disingenuous statements. If they try, I'll be watching.
Incidentally, I felt sure, from talking to all of them, that the previous board were aware of their responsibilities regarding Trading whilst Insolvent - and the personal liability that such action can bring. And therefore I concluded that they would surely not call the pledge in unless they had realistic expectations that the business would not be insolvent afterwards, since for them to do otherwise would be reckless in the extreme, and perhaps render them exposed to actions against them personally. That is why I made my pledge straight after that discussion. But Caisley's intervention seems to have ensured that we will never now know the truth of it -since the previous board could use the (probably almost almost irrefutable) defence that they genuinely believed the pledge would secure further investment, but the intervention understandably frightened the prospective investors off.'"
Agree on the SOA and am I right in thinking they can project contracts they are obliged to honour as liabilities going forward. I also agree with the poster who refers to the role of Ryan Duckett in all of this. Surely, he can't be surprised by the financial position having been CEO.
On the last point, with the best will in the world I really can't see how you can make a case for the liklihood of PH almost securing investment only to be hijacked by the comments of CC. The loan from the RFL and the sale of the lease look like utterly desperate measures and the very fact that he was forced into a humiliating statement as regards the club almost going under surely underlines his inability to secure any serious support over the previous period. Asking for investment in the same statement you announce the club is a few weeks from having a chain put on the gate says the game was long up.
On the other hand if you, I or anyone else who owned 26% of a business and heard the Chair and CEO announce what they did, then I think you would have to act. I don't see what else could have happened.
FWIW I'm surer than ever that Hood should have taken the club into admin before the settlement of the Harris deal siting the alleged £3.2million liability.
) and well out of the limelight, so I wouldn't expect to hear very much, one way or the other, until things are actually sorted. Even then I wouldn't expect much detail.
