Skip to main content

New chairman

New chairman

Eddie's Johnson said:
Im nto sure what your point is? we've not been in administration.

Were scare stories employed to steal form the shareholders? no, tbh there werent. We were in a position were we had become completely reliant on Hemmings covering our losses. Without that (or someone else providing it) it would have been liquidation, not a handy wiping off of our debts.

For me, the lies or spin have come after. The idea the mans a benefactor in any positive way is wrong, but we were just mismanaged to the point were he became the only show in town. You can laud Derek all you want for raising the finance to build a 4th stand, or for supporting his managers to a couple of play offs, but ultimately thats the mans legacy - putting the club in a position were we were entirely reliant on the whims of one man, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

My point is we would have been better off taking official administration and wiping our Debt. Look at Southampton,Leeds, Palace, Portsmouth doing a little better after our debicle. We administered our in house administration without wiping any debt and actually increasing it .

Those winding up letters were sent to 13 clubs we as a plc had to declare ours to the media. They were a common thing, sent out early by the new Govt. Most business employ a tactic of waiting for the red letter. It was a VAT reminder Bill.


Well done, i,m glad you give DS some credit then , best 10 years footy since Sir Tom and single handedly did a stand with no plc float money etc. Your 2nd point is explained above that we would ,if other clubs are anything go by , be in a much healthier position if administration at the right time had of been sought. I dont think many could have stood in the way of TH, we dont know what was promised and once main shareholders had given up their shares the ordinary supporter didnt have a say.
 
Last edited:
Barton said:
My point is we would have been better off taking official administration and wiping our Debt. Look at Southampton,Leeds, Palace, Portsmouth doing a little better after our debicle. We administered our in house administration without wiping any debt and actually increasing it .

Those winding up letters were sent to 13 clubs we as a plc had to declare ours to the media. They were a common thing, sent out early by the new Govt. Most business employ a tactic of waiting for the red letter. It was a VAT reminder Bill.


Well done, i,m glad you give DS some credit then , best 10 years footy since Sir Tom and single handedly did a stand with no plc float money etc. Your 2nd point is explained above that we would ,if other clubs are anything go by , be in a much healthier position if administration at the right time had of been sought. I dont think many could have stood in the way of TH, we dont know what was promised and once main shareholders had given up their shares the ordinary supporter didnt have a say.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't wipe out your debt under administration - that's liquidation. Under Administration, the creditors have to agree to take a reduction (why would TH have agreed?) and you have to find a new owner!

There would also be a points penalty and most of the better players would have had to be sold to get the costs far lower than they currently are. Portsmouth is a poor example if you consider what has happened in the last week. You could even end up like Plymouth.

In the Leeds, Southamopton scenarios it wasn't the owner who was owed over 80% of the debt! That is the crux of our situation. Bates & co didn't have to write off massive personal debts for their clubs to come out of administration. Rather a naive post - reading too much of 6pence's nonsense who still thinks that TH will get his money back via corporation tax relief!!
 
Barton said:
My point is we would have been better off taking official administration and wiping our Debt. Look at Southampton,Leeds, Palace, Portsmouth doing a little better after our debicle. We administered our in house administration without wiping any debt and actually increasing it .

Those winding up letters were sent to 13 clubs we as a plc had to declare ours to the media. They were a common thing, sent out early by the new Govt. Most business employ a tactic of waiting for the red letter. It was a VAT reminder Bill.


Well done, i,m glad you give DS some credit then , best 10 years footy since Sir Tom and single handedly did a stand with no plc float money etc. Your 2nd point is explained above that we would ,if other clubs are anything go by , be in a much healthier position if administration at the right time had of been sought. I dont think many could have stood in the way of TH, we dont know what was promised and once main shareholders had given up their shares the ordinary supporter didnt have a say.
Click to expand...
Meh, this has been gone through loads of time so far yet this myth that when the winding up petition came we should have gone into administration instead of letting TH take over still perpetuates.


People really need to do even the most cursory bit of research about what administration means and how you get out of it and reasonably apply it to the situation at out club before singing from the rooftops about how it would have forced Hemmings to wipe out our debt to him because other clubs have used it to clear debt.


its simple. to come out of administration and not get liquidated, you need 75% (by value) of you creditors to agree to a CVA (the infamous penny in the pound agreements).

So given about 50% of our debt was to hemmings, administration meant nothing in our position. there were 2 options.
  • Hes happy to write off the debt, or a percentage of it, in which case he could do it anytime he wants without giving us a 10pt penalty and other associated ills with administration
  • He doesnt want to write off his debt and wants to get as much back as possible over a long time. he takes over the club reduces his financial input to the club and then gets his loans back over time.

Applying other clubs situations to ours is pure folly.
 
Last edited:
Eddie's Johnson said:
please explain.
Click to expand...

OK

TH takes over club, reduces monthly outgoings by £1m per year and in 15 years gets all the physical cash he has ever put in back - Clearly the preferred option

TH does not take over the club, we enter admin,then:

a) Local consortium comes along and offers 10p in the £ to all creditors, which means TH gets 10% of what he put in
b) Local consortium does not come in, things drag out and we sell all of our assets. We give what we can to creditors and fold.

Given the likely firesale value of assets would a) or b) be better for TH (b also comes with negative publicity)

Oddly TH chose the first choice and administration was never put on the table. Liquidation was possible in option b) but it would offer a lower payoff to TH than a) ((Figures may be slightly different, but I am sure any clever consortium would ensure that a) was chosen by TH))
 
Well what ever has happened we have doubled the dept with approx the same income from the last 2 years. Where will this end ? I think option A you mentioned would have worked far better. If we had gone in administration and TH sold the dept for as you put 10p in the pound or indeed sold the club for a £10 as one Chairman did we could start again as a club . We will never get a buyer if he we double our original debt every couple of years.
There are enough wealthy business man that could fund such a consortium if the debt was reasonable and not gone out of control.
 
The debate over Hemming's reclaiming his debt is a good one. He sees his investment, his input, his injection of money, as a loan. This means he intends to get it back in terms of cash or equity. It is not a handout. As ridiculous as it seems, the handout - a benevolent act of charity for a perceived cause - is what has brought success to many clubs, from the big Italian clubs, down to Blackburn Rovers, and Real Madrid. This has come in the form of an attachment to a local business with the club representing, and adding kudos to that company, or to one single man with a dream.
Generally, the trend is for a board to be established which has, at its root cause, a good, winning, football team.
The problem with North End's arrangement is that Hemmings is only interested in keeping the club solvent in order that he maintains his legacy. Nowhere in that arrangement is Hemmings - this is obvious - bothered about the team's performance. As I have said for decades, the club has been treading water, going neither forwards or backwards. When the club gets a sniff of success, the immediate reaction from the accountants and the board is not to "BUILD ON THIS SUCCESS" but rather, "LET'S SELL PLAYERS AND PAY SOME DEBTS OFF". And the team sinks. With this millstone of "OWING HEMMINGS" around the club's neck, the club will "NEVER" go forward and will tread water, at best, in perpetuity.
This contrasts from the very visible club benefactors such as Ibramovich, Mandaric, Kenwright and Jack Walker. These are in it, not only for the public glory of being an event patron (an ancient tradition amongst the wealthy, going back to the earliest forms of public entertainment), but also, crucially for the same reasons as the fans amongst who they sit. They want the team to win, or to do as best they possibly can.
This certainly got Derek Shaw a great deal of mileage and far more tolerance (which he deserved) than the likes of Maurice or North End's invisible cash machine (credit card).
Suffice to say, it is not being ungrateful to question the motives of Hemmings. It is right to scrutinize his aims and objectives, so that people and fans can decide on whether it is a cause worth getting behind.
The vibe I get is that there are far more fans out there who are waiting - not simply for top flight football - but for the club to create a genuine dream, a vision, that fans can get behind and believe in. Selling Nugent, Gregan, and countless others at their peak is not it.
I am most concerned that Hemmings sees North End as a chapter in his portfolio, and nothing more. Such that, even were someone to come in and buy him out, he would still want much to do with the property rights.
 
6pence said:
OK

TH takes over club, reduces monthly outgoings by £1m per year and in 15 years gets all the physical cash he has ever put in back - Clearly the preferred option

TH does not take over the club, we enter admin,then:

a) Local consortium comes along and offers 10p in the £ to all creditors, which means TH gets 10% of what he put in
b) Local consortium does not come in, things drag out and we sell all of our assets. We give what we can to creditors and fold.

Given the likely firesale value of assets would a) or b) be better for TH (b also comes with negative publicity)

Oddly TH chose the first choice and administration was never put on the table. Liquidation was possible in option b) but it would offer a lower payoff to TH than a) ((Figures may be slightly different, but I am sure any clever consortium would ensure that a) was chosen by TH))
Click to expand...

Firstly.

are you serious that everyone disregards the preferred option of the major creditor, who we were still financially reliant on on an ongoing basis for day to day operations in the hope a local consortium (rumours of whom existing have only surfaced 18months after the takeover) can persuade him to take only 10% of his debt, as well as persuading HMRC, banks, local businesses etc to take only 10% of their debts, can afford to pay that as well as pay all our footballing debts in full and that they can cover our 500k a month shortfall? and that of course as well as hoping for that, also hope that this local consortium would do a better job of running the football club in the long run than a self made billionaire?

Seems a lot of blue sky thinking really.

Secondly, the entire supposition disregards the key point of the argument really. If TH was willing to write of 90% of his debt, why not just do it instead of forcing us down the admin route to do it?
Barton said:
Well what ever has happened we have doubled the dept with approx the same income from the last 2 years. Where will this end ? I think option A you mentioned would have worked far better. If we had gone in administration and TH sold the dept for as you put 10p in the pound or indeed sold the club for a £10 as one Chairman did we could start again as a club . We will never get a buyer if he we double our original debt every couple of years.
There are enough wealthy business man that could fund such a consortium if the debt was reasonable and not gone out of control.
Click to expand...
id be ecstatic if TH chose option A that I mentioned, but he clearly doesnt want to write off our debt to him. Thats the point.



Im not defending the man, he was part of the decision making process to go and spend way beyond our means thats seen us end up where we are today, and as a result hes culpable for where we are today, im just trying to put to bed the myths that we should have gone into administration instead of selling to him. We had no choice but to sell him really.

If we really want to play the hindsight game and try to identify the point at which it all went wrong then lets do it properly and say we shouldnt have doommongered and been shit scared of relegation in the 07/08 season under Simpson and gone on a spending spree to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
paolo poggi said:
The debate over Hemming's reclaiming his debt is a good one. He sees his investment, his input, his injection of money, as a loan. This means he intends to get it back in terms of cash or equity. It is not a handout. As ridiculous as it seems, the handout - a benevolent act of charity for a perceived cause - is what has brought success to many clubs, from the big Italian clubs, down to Blackburn Rovers, and Real Madrid. This has come in the form of an attachment to a local business with the club representing, and adding kudos to that company, or to one single man with a dream.
Generally, the trend is for a board to be established which has, at its root cause, a good, winning, football team.
The problem with North End's arrangement is that Hemmings is only interested in keeping the club solvent in order that he maintains his legacy. Nowhere in that arrangement is Hemmings - this is obvious - bothered about the team's performance. As I have said for decades, the club has been treading water, going neither forwards or backwards. When the club gets a sniff of success, the immediate reaction from the accountants and the board is not to "BUILD ON THIS SUCCESS" but rather, "LET'S SELL PLAYERS AND PAY SOME DEBTS OFF". And the team sinks. With this millstone of "OWING HEMMINGS" around the club's neck, the club will "NEVER" go forward and will tread water, at best, in perpetuity.
This contrasts from the very visible club benefactors such as Ibramovich, Mandaric, Kenwright and Jack Walker. These are in it, not only for the public glory of being an event patron (an ancient tradition amongst the wealthy, going back to the earliest forms of public entertainment), but also, crucially for the same reasons as the fans amongst who they sit. They want the team to win, or to do as best they possibly can.
This certainly got Derek Shaw a great deal of mileage and far more tolerance (which he deserved) than the likes of Maurice or North End's invisible cash machine (credit card).
Suffice to say, it is not being ungrateful to question the motives of Hemmings. It is right to scrutinize his aims and objectives, so that people and fans can decide on whether it is a cause worth getting behind.
The vibe I get is that there are far more fans out there who are waiting - not simply for top flight football - but for the club to create a genuine dream, a vision, that fans can get behind and believe in. Selling Nugent, Gregan, and countless others at their peak is not it.
I am most concerned that Hemmings sees North End as a chapter in his portfolio, and nothing more. Such that, even were someone to come in and buy him out, he would still want much to do with the property rights.
Click to expand...

you make some good points and i agree. Everyone would like him to do a "roman" or a "walker", but its fairly obvious he isnt, and has never been willing to do that.

I dont think its necessarily fair to say he categorically doesnt care about team performance though, at least in the long term sense. I dont think he cares about short term team performance because he wants to stop the clubs continued reliance on him for finance.

He could write off his debt tomorrow and we'd still be reliant on him sticking 6m a year in. in that sense hes just trying to cut the deficit in the short term at any cost. We may all disagree with his methods, or his ideology but ultimately his intentions i think the vast majority of sane fans would like to see us move towards. The ability to stand on our own 2 feet as a club.
 
budgierustler said:
There will be plenty of speculation.....

Brian Gray
Steve Jackson maybe....ok maybe not
Steve Cowell....you're right I'm only kidding

Maybe one of Hemmings right hand men...it's a crucial decision for Trevor who might reflect on getting the last decision wrong - mind you hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Whoever it is should preferably have some sort of football administration background, be an excellent communicator, a deal of vibrancy and should treat the backroom staff with the respect they deserve.

Maurice has gone and I wish him a speedy recovery - best decision for all concerned I think.

Onwards and upwards - come on you Whites
Click to expand...

It does'nt matter. Sir Trev(shame on you)is pulling the strings so who ever it is CANT Do better than the Pie munching silly sausage
 
Back
Top