Administration Part III

[ernie06]

I have seen it mentioned many times on here ....the fear of City going into administration if we get relegated - I dont know why anyone fears this act.....

we are safe for the following reason.:D

In the first administration the BCST was formed - and with all due respect to the trust members -it was very much like learning to drive with a three wheeled car with a blindfold on and one hand tied behind their backs.

The second Administration saw a more robust Trust who where able to take some action in assisting getting BCFC back on the pitch.jump: jump:

THIS time around the trust commitee have atended several Suporters Direct AGM's and meetings - more wiser and financially secure.....Thay have a strong commitee who arecalled directors and who are busy raising funds every matchday to save towards committing BCFC into a trust owned status ....jawdrop:

It works for Northampton Town - who's posters are all over their ground - fighting the council for support, Rotherham seem happier for it......as do the errm few others.:eek:


So your fears are all unfounded and the trust will come to the rescue - WE only have to worry about the 10 point deduction then......tup:

[Mallorcabantam]

I thought a club could only go in to admin twice, third time, its out for good from the FA -- or am I wrong?

[king billy]

You get to keep the trophy if you go into admin for a third time.....tup: :D


I sense a slight wiff of sarcasm and irony in your post Ernie.....;)
A third administration would deffo spell the end for the club, and should that happen then we fully deserve it....i wouldn't weep this time - i'd just get on with it and find sommat else to do!!

[Jantje]

i'd just get on with it and find sommat else to do!!

You could go to Guiseley with Adie ;) :D

[Yeadon Bantam]

Yer come on join the SWA or White Lion Ultras :D

[Man Of The Cloth]

White Lion Ultras?????:confused:

[Jantje]

Imaginary Guiseley fans i presume, all 5 of them:rolleyes:

[king billy]

Riiiiight, so should City go to the wall i'd choose the Guiseley white shite over the Gers....:rolleyes:

I also have Eccleshill United on my doorstep - followed by Thackley, no offence but i wouldn't dare go watch Guiseley Gaydie!!....;)

[Man Of The Cloth]

I do recall some Guiseley fans wrecking the clubhouse at Armthorpe Colliery in the early 80's.

[ernie06]

Sarcasm - moi!!!!!

Think there would be enough people willing to spend all their time saving city for a third time - I don't .......

There will be many tearfull and sad people but how many times can you bail a bussiness out of the poo !!

[beerbantam]

Think there would be enough people willing to spend all their time saving city for a third time - I don't .......

There will be many tearfull and sad people but how many times can you bail a bussiness out of the poo !!

Sack the Turd get a new gaffer in and admin/money worries wont be an issue!!

Its Todd thats driven the fans/money away:rolleyes:
And if Rhodes doesnt realise he is flogging a dead horse in CT soon, the remaining 5k fans will turn on Rhodes in a big way!!jawdrop:

[eurobantam]

The new rule is that directors who have overseen two club administrations are barred from being directors of any club. That means that if we went into admin, JR would not be able remain in charge of any future manifestation of BCFC. This is surely good thing becuase he wont take the admin route as quickly as he did last time. On the other hand, if there is no alternative to admin, it precludes the Rhodes' from being invoilved in any rescue (which some people will also think is a good thing).

[Superfatbantam]

Nah, we'll be alright next time around cos that fantastic vehicle for fans feelings, the independent supporters' club is now stronger than ever and in a far better position to do something about it if Kroll turn up knocking tomorrow, eh?:rolleyes:

If you can give it, take it, and this is not meant in any way as a dig at any individual. Perhaps the real threat to City is the blinkered apathy that most supporters have contracted. Many either feel that they as individuals can't do anywhere near enough to ensure the Club moves in the right direction or don't care. Still, not our problem, eh? I mean who loses if City goes to the wall? JR? Nah, in my humble opinion the Club dies when the fans have lost all feeling for Bradford City. Tis a shame many focus on the differing opinions about what fans can do to help a Club rather than pull together to make a difference. Much easier to have a go eh? Just as an afterthought did any of you guys ever see me publicly criticise the supporters' club on any messageboards? No, didn't think so. If you don't agree with what the Trust is or does then don't join it, simple.

Glad I bit and ensured you got a catch.tup:

[ernie06]

oops - did I touch a nerve.

If i offended you in any way Mark - i publicy apologise here and now - it was never meant as a dig/ snip or assault

Infact if you read it again - without any pre concieved venom in your mind, I am far from having a dig at any individual.

As i state - you where learning to fly in the face of adversity - and in my opinion - did a fairly good job under the circumstances you where under.

I dont think the trust is a failure - it has it's membership so must please some - I dont and have never agreed with it's princilpes but thats my own choice.

I dont think the BCISC was a failure either - Two supporters groups - are out there - better and stronger for the experience of what we went through. I made the decision to close the BCISC down as i was not prepared to run it for such a small percentage of the clubs supporters to be members - Small membership numbers are something the Trust are prepared to carry on with - we where not.

Two things will ruin this club - firstly the abject failure of the BCFC Board to listen to the fans - they will soon hear very little in way of supporters noise due to the apathy with which they treat the fan base......

and the apathy of the fan base - for which the fans are blameless - entertain on the pitch and the fans will be prepared to pay your high prices feed them shit and you will only get the totally dedicated attend.

Again - if you read this post as a dig at YOU - then I appologise for any inference that you have not done anything but your best in trying to achieve for this club what best you could.

Regards

Ernie

[ChuckleBantam]

oops - did I touch a nerve.

If i offended you in any way Mark - i publicy apologise here and now - it was never meant as a dig/ snip or assault

Infact if you read it again - without any pre concieved venom in your mind, I am far from having a dig at any individual.

As i state - you where learning to fly in the face of adversity - and in my opinion - did a fairly good job under the circumstances you where under.

I dont think the trust is a failure - it has it's membership so must please some - I dont and have never agreed with it's princilpes but thats my own choice.

I dont think the BCISC was a failure either - Two supporters groups - are out there - better and stronger for the experience of what we went through. I made the decision to close the BCISC down as i was not prepared to run it for such a small percentage of the clubs supporters to be members - Small membership numbers are something the Trust are prepared to carry on with - we where not.

Two things will ruin this club - firstly the abject failure of the BCFC Board to listen to the fans - they will soon hear very little in way of supporters noise due to the apathy with which they treat the fan base......

and the apathy of the fan base - for which the fans are blameless - entertain on the pitch and the fans will be prepared to pay your high prices feed them shit and you will only get the totally dedicated attend.

Again - if you read this post as a dig at YOU - then I appologise for any inference that you have not done anything but your best in trying to achieve for this club what best you could.

Regards

Ernie

Neither was a faliure but only one was open and trustworthy to it's members.

[Superfatbantam]

Fair enough, Ernie, I take your point, I just read it as an inferment that the Trust is and was a worthless cause, and with that those who tried their best and still do will tend to take some offence when such criticism is levied.

For what it's worth I admired what you and others did with the BCISC and I just wish it hadn't have succumbed to the apathy that seems to creep in when our (gullible) fanbase are led to believe everything's ticking away nicely. GR once said the sums are too big for you as fans to be able to do anything about it. he was right and wrong, but his legacy is that most individual fans believed him and held his views to the letter. We proved him wrong in the second admin because had it not been for the fans we wouldn't have got anywhere near the 1st July, when we were "rescued" by the white knights on horses in the form of the steering committee. I still hold that they have yet to prove to me that they have done anything tangible to ensure this Club is progressing, save for the work done with the youth set up, the full details of which I wouldn't be privy to.

I didn't read the post with venom in mind, I just picked up on the hinted sarcasm that King Billy pointed out and wished to reply. I accept that Shipley Bantams and Shelf Bantams are stronger as a result of the work of BCISC and I support their agendas. Personally I still believe the Trust is a worthwhile venture, and that is my opinion. I hope it can help ensure the Club moves forward but that can only be if the Club itself embraces that fans can influence the directioon the Club takes and aren't just consumers of a good, there to be taken advantage of. Your opinion and that of my right honourable friend, Brother (Chuckle) Shipton, are entirely valid on this and prove that even the most loyal and diehard "customers" can be put off by the product available and will not maintain their support (in financial terms and attendance) simply because they are expected to because they label themselves City fans.

Perhaps I take it too personally, but I can't help that.

[panther]

Sack the Turd get a new gaffer in and admin/money worries wont be an issue!!

Its Todd thats driven the fans/money away:rolleyes:
And if Rhodes doesnt realise he is flogging a dead horse in CT soon, the remaining 5k fans will turn on Rhodes in a big way!!jawdrop:

I think you have hit the nail on the head there BB !!

I remember GG once saying that performance on the pitch had nothing whatsoever to do with attendances, sponsorship etc - just shows eh !

[Garlic Breath]

Maybe I'm wrong but a sense a distinct change of attitude from quite alot of folk towards anything BCFC these days.
Maybe most folk will just shuffle away coughing unconcernedly at the next administration and as Matty Lad says "find something else to do on a Saturday"
Life goes on.

[king billy]

Its only a fiver on Saturday and i can't be arsed going - i'm off out on Friday night instead, then i'll be taking QB and the snapper to a Xmas fair at the industrial museum on Saturday - i'd honestly rather do that.....

I'm off to the Millwall game - but only cos its a Friday and a night out afterwards.....

I'm looking forward to the Chesterfield game - but only because us top table boys have a xmas do night out in L**ds planned afterwards.....

Like Chuckle has mentioned on here for zonks, blind loyalty when you step back and look at it, is really stupidity, if i'm honest its the piss up and company thats kept me going for the last couple of years.....its gonna take a regime or big management change to tempt me back at the moment....

[beerbantam]

Its only a fiver on Saturday and i can't be arsed going - i'm off out on Friday night instead, then i'll be taking QB and the snapper to a Xmas fair at the industrial museum on Saturday - i'd honestly rather do that.....

I'm off to the Millwall game - but only cos its a Friday and a night out afterwards.....

I'm looking forward to the Chesterfield game - but only because us top table boys have a xmas do night out in L**ds planned afterwards.....

Like Chuckle has mentioned on here for zonks, blind loyalty when you step back and look at it, is really stupidity, if i'm honest its the piss up and company thats kept me going for the last couple of years.....its gonna take a regime or big management change to tempt me back at the moment....

Im the same now:mad: really worn out with watching City under Todd!
No more away games for me whilst he is still in charge! Its only my season ticket and the company that gets me to home games!!

As for the Chesterfield day - cant wait, the tickets arrived yesterday tootup: tup:

[matnab]

Rhodes said that he'd only fund the clubs shortfalls for so long. I'm prety sure that was the end of this season.

Nothing seems to happen at the club, either on the pitch or behind the scenes. As I've said before I think 1 jan is decision day for JR - all the loan players will go back and the club may fold at the end of the season. Unless of course this imaginary investor comes good :rolleyes: Personally I don't think relegation is the issue.

Jeez, I'm a cheery chap!

[Parrot]

Rhodes said that he'd only fund the clubs shortfalls for so long. I'm prety sure that was the end of this season.

Nothing seems to happen at the club, either on the pitch or behind the scenes. As I've said before I think 1 jan is decision day for JR - all the loan players will go back and the club may fold at the end of the season. Unless of course this imaginary investor comes good :rolleyes: Personally I don't think relegation is the issue.

Jeez, I'm a cheery chap!

The futures bright, the futures ginger mate;) ....Doubt GG would let his families pension fund disapear without a trace!

[baldbantam]

The futures bright, the futures ginger mate;) ....Doubt GG would let his families pension fund disapear without a trace!

He wouldn't need to. He paid £2.5 million for Valley Parade, and it would fetch at least that and probably a fair bit more if it was sold off for building land.

[king billy]

He wouldn't need to. He paid £2.5 million for Valley Parade, and it would fetch at least that and probably a fair bit more if it was sold off for building land.

Round there - your joking?....doubt the council would give planning permission for anything other than its present use either!!

[Parrot]

He wouldn't need to. He paid £2.5 million for Valley Parade, and it would fetch at least that and probably a fair bit more if it was sold off for building land.

In the middle of Manningham?:confused: ....Unless the regen takes off i cant see anyone paying half that, he'd be better sitting on it for a couple of years or until the BNP get in power & cleanse the area!:rolleyes: :D

[baldbantam]

It would make that much easily.

As I've mentioned previously, my family is potentially going to have some land compulsorily purchased off of us for the regen scheme. Because of that we've researched what decent size plots of land have gone for in and around the city centre over the last couple of years. To give an example which isn't too far away, the old Furniture City site opposite the Forster Square Retail Park was sold for just under two million, and there isn't anywhere near the acreage that Valley Parade has.

I think they're mad, but apartments are for sale in the developments in Little Germany, which is basically just the posh part of Leeds Road, for between 100k and 400k. You can get an awful lot of apartments on to a space the size of Valley Parade, or alternatively a decent size retail park.

If City had gone bust and the site was sitting derelict, the council would jump at the chance to get some decent new build in to the area to upgrade the general standard. It would be a brown field development and it would fly through, either as residential or for commercial like the Forster Square Retail Park which is only half a mile away.

[jimmy]

BB,GG paid £6.5 million for VP from Lombard Direct actually,so i doubt he would settle for £2 million really,do you?

[baldbantam]

BB,GG paid £6.5 million for VP from Lombard Direct actually,so i doubt he would settle for £2 million really,do you?

Do you have the recent David Markham book 'The Bradford City Story: the Pain and the Glory'?

If so, take a look on page 262:

Rhodes reveals 'I was happy to part with my money, but I suspected from the outset that it might prove difficult for Gordon Gibb, bearing in mind that a year and a half earlier he had parted with almost £2 million, and he had just bought the stadium for £2.5 million.'

[Parrot]

Do you have the recent David Markham book 'The Bradford City Story: the Pain and the Glory'?

If so, take a look on page 262:

So combined he'd spent £4.5m on City, £2m & £2.5m for the stadium?

[baldbantam]

So combined he'd spent £4.5m on City, £2m & £2.5m for the stadium?

That's about it.

He totally lost the £2 million he invested for 50% of the shares. Of everybody connected with City, Gibb probably got the crappest deal, because he was only involved for a comparatively short time and it cost him £2 million.

I could be wrong, but I'm sure there is a buyback clause in the deal with the stadium allowing Julian Rhodes to pay him out at £2.5 million.

[Parrot]

That's about it.

He totally lost the £2 million he invested for 50% of the shares. Of everybody connected with City, Gibb probably got the crappest deal, because he was only involved for a comparatively short time and it cost him £2 million.

I could be wrong, but I'm sure there is a buyback clause in the deal with the stadium allowing Julian Rhodes to pay him out at £2.5 million.

How much did he REALLY buy the stadium for though:confused: ...especially if the buy back clause is £2.5m?....I bet Jimmy's £6.5m is more nearer the mark that the Gibbs have invested in City than some researchers making a booktup:

[baldbantam]

No, he really bought the stadium for £2.5 million.

This figure isn't conjecture - it was widely reported at the time and I'm sure if you Google hard enough you'll find back up for it.

[Parrot]

No, he really bought the stadium for £2.5 million.

This figure isn't conjecture - it was widely reported at the time and I'm sure if you Google hard enough you'll find back up for it.

I said "Invested" matetup: ....I dont know how to break this to you gently, but all the answers to the Worlds questions aren't available on Google ffs:rolleyes:

Im sure the Gibbs have more money tied into City than £2.5m, otherwise they'd have wrote us off years ago!....you any idea how much GG is worth?....google it;) , Im sure a miilion to him is comparable to a grand to us:eek: .....work it out!

[baldbantam]

You weren't paying attention during the admin. I was - I followed it intently.

Gibb paid £2.3 million after the first administration to acquire 49.3% of Bradford City and become chairman. Rhodes also had 49.3% and the remainder belonged to minor shareholders. That investment was wiped out after the second administration when that company was liquidated - it's gone, and there is no way Gibb will ever see it back.

After the first administration, Lombard were still owed £6.2 million secured on the ground. We defaulted on a payment of £350,000 in January 2003, which precipitated negotiations that saw Gibb paying Lombard out for a one off payment of £2.5 million rather than not getting anything.

This all took place between two administrations when our books were being microscopically examined by the administrators to ensure that payments were made. The deal also had to be sanctioned as economically viable by the independent executors of the Gibb family pension fund, who are the actual owners of Valley Parade rather than Gordon Gibb.

The rent is in keeping with a commercial valuation of £2.5 million - commercial property investments are typically valued at 8 times the annual rent and we pay £300k.

[Parrot]

The administrators aren't "whiter than white"...I know this as FACT from my own dealings in the business world, theres a lot of corporate corruption just like there is in ALL business nowadaystdwn: ....that's all im prepared to say at the moment:(