I would like to think that the clans suggestion could be a possibility.

Fingers crossed Clans proposal turns out to be true.

I don't want administration if we have other options open to us.

Administration would also mean the smaller 'investors' would also loose their shareholding in the club and the Supporters Trust would then loose their proxy/combined shareholding as way of having representation on the BoD.
I feel that if, as reported last night, one of the 3 suitors wants 100% control, then they would want the company to go into admin because they would buy 100% control from the administrator. The only other way that they could achieve their control position would be to buy off each shareholder individually -which could be costly in both time and money and also be an admin nightmare.

I spoke to him, he brought the list.

newgroundb4cas wrote:I have a list as long as my arm as evidence. Only dummies like u that dont realise whats going on at the minute !

The ONLY benefit of not going into Administration is that it doesn't give the RFL an easy excuse in July.

While it's possible that a potential buyer COULD speak to the various creditors, the only way the creditors would accept any offer is if it provided a better return for them than the club going into Administration. The only way this can be delivered is through a higher costs to whoever buys the club, which leaves the simple question of why would they pay more than they really need to?

Also, I can't see the other creditors agreeing to accept a reduced amount if SRW is getting his full amount back (even if it's over a longer period than currently intended).

That is still achievable.
Purchaser pays a liitle bit more, but reduces risk of rfl kicking off because we've gone into admin. TICK
Creditors get more than they would if we go into admin. TICK
Now this is a total guess, SRW is an interested party, he has a lot riding on this. He has something to do with yorkcourt and therefore the NM development he has also some money tied up with the club and a former director. TICK
Happy days! Everyones a winner!!!!

I think it stinks that we have to go into administration in order to move forward as a club...

absolutely stinks!

if administration did occur, would that basically mean you are out of super league?i know the rules get changed every year

Well it hasn't for Crusaders!

Tbf we all know that won't count for nothing, your only SL saving grace is using the Cru in admin point so if you did you'd lose that and with ground situation last time showing one failure & one on a knife edge plus RFL will look at cap spent this season added to crowds and performance and can you see someone else being dropped? Salford IMO were at risk but ground stepped up and spent big this year.

No buyer will pay extra to creditors when could still lose SL licence and will have then spent money on debt they could of on the club. At current Wakey don't seem able to run a SL set up, can that really change in what 3 months? Bare in mind SO'C took over Widnes in November, offered a 500k guarantee on the club in SL and was still told it was to soon!

Prior to Crusaders going into Admin all SL clubs voted to remove the clause about going into Admin being detrimental to membership[ of SL. Convenient for them. Wonder if it will be for us?

Administration is now a punishable offence and but does not exclude a club from or applying for a new SL licence. Bankruptcy/Liquidation does, administration then exiting administration does not. So if the administrators can find a buyer, which looks likely, then it theoretically has no impact on the licence process... the change of rules for Crusaders is suddenly good thing for Wakefield, not a bad thing!

We all know the possibility of a franchise was well and truly blown out of the water the moment Newmarket went to a public enquiry. No rule change with regard to administration will help us - quite the contrary, in fact. It merely safeguards the Crusaders.

As for administration - am I the only one who's thinking that maybe it won't be the panacea that some on here are claiming it will? Aside from the fact that no one seems to know what will happen regarding the remainder of the money due from the sale of Belle Vue, the thing that's made me wonder recently is this whole issue of the 350K we [ididn't get[/i from Yorkcourt because the Newmarket development went to a PI. And 350K wasn't the end of it, by all accounts.

So why were we due the money?

I may be wrong here - facts are not easy to come by - but I seem to recall someone claiming that it was Ted who bought part of the land (as greenbelt, or whatever it was designated as) and sold it to Yorkcourt. As development land, of course, it would have been worth considerably more than was paid for it - and this would have been the gamble. It would also account for the stadium tie-in.

Is this why the payments were due?

If we [ido[/i go into admininstration, Ted will no longer be chairman of the club. The Newmarket stadium development will no longer be his concern. The money for any development that takes place on the land (with or without stadium) will still be his, though (assuming he is in fact the former owner of the land). Now if you were Ted, what would you do?

I'm not saying this is deffo the case. I'm just building an argument on the basis of what's been mentioned here before. It seems a more credible explanation to me than the "sweetener" from Yorkcourt that had been put forward by some.

Do we really know what we're getting into here? That's the question.

i agree, and to compound the argument I hope it will mean we will get rid of you, until you hear something you do not like from new management and you harp on again.