Birmingham parent company into administration

This is saints related because their parent company is arguing that because it's been done because of board disputes between pro and anti Yeung factions and not due to financial difficulties (they turned down large bids from Bompey for one of their players in the last window), there shouldn't be a points deduction.

As everyone knows when our parent company went into admin BM couldn't wait to hit us with the max

Interesting arguement. Should be interesting.

It will be interesting to see. The FL seem to be fairly arbitrary in their decision making.

They've gone into receivership rather than administration. Not sure what the difference is TBH

What else is there under the parent company?

Is it just the football club?

They've gone into receivership rather than administration. Not sure what the difference is TBH

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1589276/What-is-receivership.html

Receivership and administration are both methods of staving off the complete collapse of a company. However, there are significant differences between the two.

 

Administration is designed to protect companies from their creditors while a restructuring plan is completed. Control of the business is handed to a licensed insolvency practitioner appointed by the courts.

 

Administrators will examine whether the company can be saved and may try to sell the company, or part of it, as a "going concern" while stripping out costs.

The mechanism was used by a string of football clubs such as Leeds and Crystal Palace, while a number of retailers have appointed administrators over the past six months including Courts, Allders and the Gadget Shop.

 

Receivership is a process initiated by banks or other creditors who have lost faith in a company's ability to repay its debts. Receivers are appointed with a view to selling assets so that creditors can recover money owed to them.

So, going by that, receivership sounds worse than administration?

It will be interesting to see. The FA seem to be fairly arbitrary in their decision making.

Football League, and they were anything but arbitrary until Mawhinney stepped down and they went a bit soft. They always punished the club, and they always punished the club according to the rules they had set out.

Of course the Skates completely dodged the impact of the -10 in League One for not paying a penny of their Prem/Championship admin CVA (which was a condition of them being allowed into L1), as it didn't come into effect until they came out of admin, by which time they were already being relegated to L2 and the -10 had precisely zero effect and wasn't enforced the following season either, thus rendering there no effective punishment for going into admin twice in quick succession without paying a penny back to original non-football creditors.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1589276/What-is-receivership.html

 

So, going by that, receivership sounds worse than administration?

Receivership is the bit after Admin isn't it? You're permanently closing and they're selling your stuff to get some money back, as opposed to you keeping your stuff and trying to negotiate a resolution with the people you owe.

Receivership is the bit after Admin isn't it? You're permanently closing and they're selling your stuff to get some money back, as opposed to you keeping your stuff and trying to negotiate a resolution with the people you owe.

Ok, well you asked...... No, you are thinking of Liquidation (which often follows Admin) which happens after the assets or main business have been sold. The other potential outcome process is a CVA.

Receivership is incredibly rare these days, it used to be a common procedure and involved a secured lender (think mortgage) appointing someone over their assets, usually the main business and property etc.

It has been 99.5% replaced by Administration, which involves a court appointed person (or three people as it is here) who has to try to either rescue the business, or achieve a better outcome than Liquidation could do alone. The Administrator is court official and must act for the benefit of all creditors, not just the secured lender. In the media though, the term "Receivership" is used generally, in the same way as Companies are sometimes described as "going bankrupt" - which only applies to individuals. Chances are that this is actually an Administration, unless this appointment is only over a Property.

This is saints related because their parent company is arguing that because it's been done because of board disputes between pro and anti Yeung factions and not due to financial difficulties (they turned down large bids from Bompey for one of their players in the last window), there shouldn't be a points deduction.

 

As everyone knows when our parent company went into admin BM couldn't wait to hit us with the max

 

Interesting arguement. Should be interesting.

If it is an interesting argument then I agree that it should be interesting

It will be interesting to see. The FA seem to be fairly arbitrary in their decision making.

It is the Football League, not the FA that is responsible here.

http://www.irasia.com/listco/hk/birminghamint/index.htm

That's their home page.

Corporate Profile

The principal activity of the Company is investment holding. The principal activities of the subsidiaries are engaged in (i) professional football operation; (ii) entertainment and media services and (iii) investment holding.

Investment holding and Cayman Islands = God knows what. I suspect that the Cayman's will be a dead end for the FA, and that they will have little choice but to deduct 10 points.

This is saints related because their parent company is arguing that because it's been done because of board disputes between pro and anti Yeung factions and not due to financial difficulties (they turned down large bids from Bompey for one of their players in the last window), there shouldn't be a points deduction.

 

As everyone knows when our parent company went into admin BM couldn't wait to hit us with the max

 

Interesting arguement. Should be interesting.

ouch ! ....we've been there and it wasn't a pleasant memory. Can hope the transition goes smoother than ours did ....for their sakes.

Would suggest it depends whether any third party loses any money as a result as to whether there is a points deduction

http://www.oftenpartisan.co.uk/archives/13107/bih-call-in-receivers.html

Fan site run by a bloke I vaguely know. The old board tried to sue him for exposing their previous money laundering exploits but failed.

Seem to remember Wham's parent company(The Icelandic bank) going into admin and no points deduction for wham. Also when Liverpool's former owners can't remember what they were called, they went bankrupt also no penalty. It seems if you have a big enough name no penalty.

Seem to remember Wham's parent company(The Icelandic bank) going into admin and no points deduction for wham. Also when Liverpool's former owners can't remember what they were called, they went bankrupt also no penalty. It seems if you have a big enough name no penalty.

Or have a parent company that does more than just running a football club....

Seem to remember Wham's parent company(The Icelandic bank) going into admin and no points deduction for wham. Also when Liverpool's former owners can't remember what they were called, they went bankrupt also no penalty. It seems if you have a big enough name no penalty.

FL vs PL?

Or have a parent company that does more than just running a football club....

This. We were punished in accordance to the rules, fair and square. Let's not pretend we were harshly singled out when we weren't. Lowe tried to be clever and he blew it.

Brum have a great academy, they must have some good players coming through that we can nab to help them repay their debts. Even Demarai Gray in their first team looks a good little player, Bompey have been after him all year so it would give me double pleasure to save Brum and beat Bompey at the same time!

This. We were punished in accordance to the rules, fair and square. Let's not pretend we were harshly singled out when we weren't. Lowe tried to be clever and he blew it.

Didn't he try to use the loop hole Derby used when they fell on stony ground, having not realised that the weak and weary Blazers in charge of the FL (Football in general really) were reactionary rather than proactive, and having seen the Derby swerve promptly closed that loop hole smartish, but we fell right into the remaining black hole and got hammered after arguing without a leg to stand on?

If it is an interesting argument then I agree that it should be interesting

A logical contradiction. If it IS an interesting argument, the condition of being interesting has already been met.

There can't be a 'should' about it.

The battle of the pedants has begun ....................

Brum have a great academy, they must have some good players coming through that we can nab to help them repay their debts. Even Demarai Gray in their first team looks a good little player, Bompey have been after him all year so it would give me double pleasure to save Brum and beat Bompey at the same time!

Mental that Brum turned down a £6m bid for him in January, that may well have saved them. (Also mental that Bournemouth are chucking about £6m for players!)

Mental that Brum turned down a £6m bid for him in January, that may well have saved them. (Also mental that Bournemouth are chucking about £6m for players!)

I thought it wasn't a question of financial viability, rather a means to rid themselves of Yeung's influence?