we'd rather go under than ... - Page 5

simon · 07-10-2009, 21:14

"Considering that, according to accounts published on Monday, Stanley had creditors totalling £740,000 in May 2008 and the club have faced further financial obstacles since then, that was no small commitment. "

Where does the telegraph get this from ?????

yonmon · 07-10-2009, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haggis316

Its reached the world of business recovery accountancy.

Accrington Stanley edges towards administration - Accountancy Age

From which a most poignant line Haggis ??......

"Milk drinking kids could soon be asking “who were they?”

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again."....remember this Mr O'Neil ???...I for one will not let you forget it!!

lancsdave · 07-10-2009, 21:39

I may be corrected regarding my confusion between administration and winding up, but out of curiosity, can a business go in to administration if there is a current winding up petition already in place ?

mab · 07-10-2009, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon

"Considering that, according to accounts published on Monday, Stanley had creditors totalling £740,000 in May 2008 and the club have faced further financial obstacles since then, that was no small commitment. "

Where does the telegraph get this from ?????

Does it really matter it's not the £750k thats going to wind STANLEY up it's the £308k the TAXMAN wants thats the one!! And if £120k that has been promist by the DIRECTORS is added to the fund we need another £118k to meet the BILL.. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG

Doug · 07-10-2009, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

I may be corrected regarding my confusion between administration and winding up, but out of curiosity, can a business go in to administration if there is a current winding up petition already in place ?

My understanding is that a winding up order is final…..If Accrington Stanley don’t have the £308.000 when they return to court it’s over; period. No letters of support or potential offers on the table will change that, it will be over……Accrington Stanley as we know it will be gone, no lower league football because we will have no player; they will be flogged off as assets along with the furniture.

If we want a Town Football Team it will have all to be done again and the shadow of all those that worked and fought over what to them were endless years will have been for nothing.

If something doesn’t happen soon Accrington Stanley will be Dead.

katei77 · 07-10-2009, 22:03

it states" up to £120,000"

so no one really knows how much the board will put in to the SOS fund

yonmon · 07-10-2009, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

My understanding is that a winding up order is final…..If Accrington Stanley don’t have the £308.000 when they return to court it’s over; period. No letters of support or potential offers on the table will change that, it will be over……Accrington Stanley as we know it will be gone, no lower league football because we will have no player; they will be flogged off as assets along with the furniture.

If we want a Town Football Team it will have all to be done again and the shadow of all those that worked and fought over what to them were endless years will have been for nothing.

If something doesn’t happen soon Accrington Stanley will be Dead.

So lets remind him again Doug !......His pledge :-

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again.".....

'WE ARE WORRIED !!'

Doug · 07-10-2009, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by yonmon

So lets remind him again Doug !......His pledge :-

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again.".....

'WE ARE WORRIED !!'

I feel quite upset tonight; this is the first time I have actually doubted that we will survive.

I would like to know why the club couldn’t negotiate with Mr. Khan at least to ensure that the funds he offered to match that of the directors contribution was secured.

Those gentlemen that brought about the resignation of Mr. Peter Marsden and the withdrawal of Mr. Khan’s offer should be ashamed; so much so, there can be no justification for them to consider themselves true supporters of Accrington Stanley.

I have made it clear that I have not felt comfortable with the offer made by the ASSF via Mr. Khan’s generosity and Mr. Khan is aware of my feeling on that matter; but there can be no justification for what these so call Directors have done.

It is the opinion of the majority of supporters and some members of the board that the only sensible road to survival was with the assistance of benefactors and true blooded Stanley Supporters like Mr. Khan and Mr. Marsden.

Mr. O’Neil and the Board; I ask you again to not wait until the day of court, end this now by paying this debt outright; we as true supporters will continue to invest in the SOS appeal long after the day of Judgement….If you can’t do it, pick up the phone and speak to both Mr. Khan and Mr. Marsden, no one needs to know what passes between you, just sit down and work it out.

Tealeaf · 07-10-2009, 22:50

Just remember this, Doug - when it comes to Company Law, there are a number of penalties which can be imposed upon the directors if it is found that the club has continued to 'trade' while it is technically insolvent and that as such they have not exercised their proper responsibilities. Not least of these penalties is the fact they can be disqualified from holding directorships in any other company for a number of years. Neither is a penal sentance for financial misfeasance out of the question.

maccawozzagod · 07-10-2009, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Not least of these penalties is the fact they can be disqualified from holding directorships in any other company for a number of years.

not relevant to some of them as they are 'retired' gentlemen who will have no wish to take up directorships anywhere else.

There are some directors though, and Marsden was one, who are young enough to have years of career left in them.

Tealeaf · 07-10-2009, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

not relevant to some of them as they are 'retired' gentlemen who will have no wish to take up directorships anywhere else.

There are some directors though, and Marsden was one, who are young enough to have years of career left in them.

Excepting the old boys - and I am quite sure that some would argue that they were not fully aware of the liabilities building up over the last few years - and Marsden, who now appears to have taken the honourable course of action - that still leaves at least two names, possibly three,

maccawozzagod · 07-10-2009, 23:27

do the same exemptions apply to the Company Secretary Hannah Bailey and Chief Executive Rob Heys?

I'm relatively sure that their positions carry same status as Directors

Tealeaf · 07-10-2009, 23:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

do the same exemptions apply to the Company Secretary Hannah Bailey and Chief Executive Rob Heys?

I'm relatively sure that their positions carry same status as Directors

Yep. But surely the questions boil down to 'What did they know' and 'When did they know it' and even then, if they were aware of the true financial state of the club but - acting in good faith - believed that it's position was in the long term, sustainable.

I'm still puzzled, though, by the accountants who signed off the financials. Those accounts, as far as I am aware, were never qualified - or were they?

maccawozzagod · 08-10-2009, 07:25

i wouldn't even know what you mean buddy! I have a copy of the accounts but its all mumbo jumbo to me. There isn't even a little picture at the bottom to to give you a summary of whether you've made or lost!!

bloody numbers and big words

JEFF · 08-10-2009, 09:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

do the same exemptions apply to the Company Secretary Hannah Bailey and Chief Executive Rob Heys?

I'm relatively sure that their positions carry same status as Directors

Stanley have joint Company Secretaries - Hannah Bailey and Geoff Heap