Admin you offer something in the pound to all creditors generally speaking ie 1p in the £.

In sport admin is often seen differently to the general market place, as with Leeds United the football league would not allow them to come out of admin until an offer was made, but certain debts had to be repaid otherwise they could not compete. They had to pay in full to ex players, other clubs etc, even though in admin it would only be a small offer, to allow them to compete they had to pay it all.

You are right in that football operates differently to other businesses when it comes administration and debts. This is because all football debts (Money owed to other clubs and players) have to be paid off first and in full.

I really think you underplay the level of mismanagement that Ted & Co have been involve in.
Weather there were other buyers (we all heard the stories and people connected to the club, have in the past added some weight to these stories), is both un-proveable from either side and in the end irrelevant as nobody did, for which ever reason you chose to believe.

I accept things may be a bit different for Glover than what Ted inherited, but he was responsible for the almost demise of the club because of the way he ran the club, not because of the debts incurred 15 years before.

I have some sympathy for Ted in as much as i believe he was a genuine fan, but if he were not in it for his own ends he would have walked away long before and that has left us since the last round of franchise in a very precarious position.

On the positives, and before you accuse me of a Pro-Glover rant

i truly think that we are in with a better shout (if a very slim shout) of retaining our license, because of the business strategy and efforts being put in now, than if Ted were still here.
The Marketing of our club is so positive that it makes you feel proud to be a Trin fan, rather than some kind of laughable character, like in the past.
The match day improvements, have cost little but generates extra income, something Ted could never grasp, the idea that if you spent wisely you could generate income.
The improvements at Cats and the reinstatement of the supporters bar in the Benidorm apartments and the food offers, finally we have this revenue coming into the club not lost in someone's back pocket.
I dont know the why's and wherefores of Ray Barnes' involvement, maybe you do and you can explain, but the amount of money that supporters spent (and this includes the lottery now) thinking it was for the good of the club that never saw the clubs bank account, but went to individuals, is it any wonder we couldn't pay the bills.

Whatever your views are, things are very much better now, is it too little too late? possibly.
We have at least a fighting chance, and if we are going out of SL, so be it, but we are in better shape to survive in the championship, than if AG had not taken over, if we had gone down and Ted was still in charge, i think it would have killed us., as much by resentment as by mismanagement.

It does and it doesn't as far as I'm aware. It's a bit like a personal IVA where at the end of the term you are not debt free as the adverts suggest. In an IVA you are obliged to attempt to pay of the outstanding debt which still exists after the 5 year term is over by re-morgaging your house etc. Also during the IVA your income is monitored and a percentage of any excess goes to the creditors. So at the end of the CVA debts would still be there but theoretically at a more manageable level. Not all debts from 2000 had to go into the CVA, some may have remained outside. I'm not an expert but that is roughly how I understand it. The other way to look at it is after 3 years in a CVA totally cash starved there were a lot of urgent things the club needed to spend money on. The one I remember is in 2004 the Academy team played in the same kit as the first team rather than cast offs for the first time in 3 years.

The new Trinity as far as I'm aware has no debt as it's a brand new company. The downside is that although there was no inherited debt there was also no inherited assets AKA Ferguson - who for that short period of time between admin and new company belonged to the creditor or the creditors. Now the thing I'm not so sure about is that if we are anew company and we have no debt but all the old clubs contract with players etc were void - what exactly did AG pay 35k for. I'm guessing it went to the creditors but I don't know?

Either way other than a lack of a credit history the new club is better off as far as I can tell.

I don't underplay it, I m just yet to see any real proof that anything out of the ordinary let alone criminal has occurred. I keep asking people who I consider knowledgeable and the response seems to be he didn't do much wrong under the circumstances. The general consensus seems to be is if a few calculated gambles had paid off he'd still be Chairman and we'd still be in SL next year. So in the short term it's not better with AG other than the improvements you mention but that's not his fault. However if AG has the luck Ted didn't and pulls a rabbit out of the bag then long term I'd say he looks the better bet. I say this because NL Rugby is a disaster for the club for anything longer than one maybe two seasons.

The lottery was run by Stuart Farrar an ex board member. Now he and the Club did nothing wrong IF it was made clear that the lottery was not connected to the club. My personal belief is that it was not made clear at all especially as when it started it was heralded as a revenue stream for the club. I don't know how Farrar came to run it or what part Ted had in that but in the 6 years I was involved with SWAG Farrar was not involved in the club in any capacity as far as I could tell- a strange one. There cannot be a club in any sport that 100% beyond reproach, thus although to me this appears out of order it doesn't suggest the club was institutionally corrupt.

I think the Ray Barnes thing is an example again of people jumping the gun. As far as I'm aware his catering company paid a fixed price each season to run the catering at BV. After he paid his fee that was it we got no more. It was a poor deal IMO but at the time when we didn't have the cash to refurb bars and pay staff so it's understandable. I'm guessing that is why that cash never went into the clubs bank accounts, as it wasn't the clubs money. As far as I'm aware Barnes got his seat on the BOD by paying for the new shop. I honestly see nothing dishonest in this particular issue.

The problem is like with so much else to do with this is that the creditors report only tells one side of the story and I very black and white terms.

There are no real villains in this story just casualties as far as I can see. If you want a pantomime villain then I suppose Eric Pickles fit the bill because he destroyed what chance we had but then what real obligation did he have to WTWRLFC - nowt. Lessons to learn for certain but me I'm not interested in my pound of flesh - what does it achieve.

Just a point of order on this one (as many people seem to have this wrong). There was a fixed rate deal with Barnes for the catering - i.e. Barnes paid a sum of £xx,xxx for the opportunity to run the bars / catering at BV. It's a bit of a gamble - as the club could win or lose on the deal, but as the club are making a real fist of looking after this side of matters then it is better to have it as it is now under this regime and yes, the club benefit from every pie / pint sold as things stand - and that's a good thing.

The result of the previous deal was that it was only the Barnes business that stood to gain from each pie / pint sold, but that did not mean that a substantial amount wasn't paid to the club for the priviledge, or that Barnes was necessarily making a fortune out of the deal (and of that I have no idea).

HTH.

Finished making an of yourself on the VT (again) so you thought you would carry it on on here?

Thanks for that TRB, so would i be right in guessing, at some point in the not too dim and distant past, the club needed some money, Barnes put it up, became a director (or was he already a director) and said there's your money, and my end of the deal is i get the food/refreshments/hospitality business?
Any idea what kind of investment this will have been?

TRB has confirmed what I posted earlier regarding Barnes. As I say the problem with things like these credit reports is the y are very black and white and one sided. They simply cannot be viewed in isolation.

Well I can see one name on their who deals with making electronic signs, so would not surprise me if your score board was eeerr " repossessed".

What more real proof do you need, than the club being on its knees with massive debts and a real possibility of going into immediate oblivion, the fact that even you think that a year or two could be the end shows what a terrible state the club was/still is in. Not even you can put it down to bad luck, no other club is in such a state, unless you can prove otherwise.
Any money paid in from Barnes or the lottery company, didn't they used to use office facilities at BV, so pay rent. Wouldn't that have been on the club accounts?
Creditors reports are indeed black and white, that is because they are facts, and show what the outstanding monies are, i agree with your earlier post on credit terms, but i would guess that does not account for the level of debt we had.
Eric Pickles may well have put the boot in at the wrong time, i'm not aware of what policies he is responsible to and to his reasoning, however he cannot be held responsible for the shoddy way our club has been run over the last few years.

Sorry Vastman, just the order i read the posts.
So what was the deal then? (regarding my post to TRB)

The Ray Barnes deal.

?

Kinley, I give you my explanation for what happened. That is all I can give you based on what fragments of info I have, I really don't know what you want from people who don't share your theories - total surrender.

I've never asked for proof that the club wasn't being run well, I asked for proof that it was being run criminally which is what people are saying when they claim Ted pocketed cash he wasn't entitled to - why do you struggle so much with that concept.

Of course it wasn't just bad luck. But as a scenario, imagine for whatever reason Glasshoughton fails what state do you think that would leave Castleford in and how long before they crashed just like we did. I'd say most SL clubs are close to the brink but most have a stronger base than we did, can I prove it no that's why I say I'm guessing so often.

I said Pickles was the pantomime villian ffs PANTOMIME, I agree it's not his fault he can do what he wants until the electorate kick him out, it was just an example of bad luck on one mans whim that cost us big that's all.

I have explained as best I can with the limited knowledge I have the issues raised in the credit report. I don't expect you to agree but I do expect you to accept their are alternative explanations and no matter how much you stamp your feet I'm not going to agree with you on this one.

I'm saying TRB confirmed in his post what I said in my post regarding the Barnes deal. Are you being deliberately slow today

My understanding was that Barnes paid for the Superstore - as well as an annually agreed sum for the catering / bar services. I don't know any more than that about that deal.

I bet they got Fergy cheap because they knew the £24k owed to them would be written off.

I assume the Macron debt would have been paid wouldn't it? If not then why would they continue to stock our store this season?

Nobody mentioned criminality Vastman, you brought that up, you were responding to my point about mismanagement, i notice you edited your post, perhaps to shoe horn that point in so to speak?!
When you were explaining about Barnes' involvement i didn't realise you were piecing together fragments, i thought you were telling me facts, however TRB posted so i assumed he knew what he was talking about, hence i asked him, if you do not know, don't feel the need to involve yourself in that question, if all you have is assumptions.
I accept many things Vastman, i was just pointing out that the Credit report is based on facts, the ones you crave, and when presented with ones you don't like, you try to discount them, strange!
I am not trying to get you to surrender or indeed change your mind or whatever it is that you think, i remember someone on here, saying something about strong opinions and differing points of view.
Oh hang on it was you, i find it all a little complexing how your strong opinions and points of view, don't like to be examined too much.

Yes i'm sure that is what AG referred to when he said he'd like to honour some of the debt

Goodwill - more than likely, ours.

Correct. Eric was the company's Finance Director and I think that Andrew Wright & Co were engaged as the club's accountants to prepare the annual accounts for Companies House.

As the club would (& still will) be classed as a small business they didn't need to have the accounts audited.

Correct

It was a decent deal as the club got a regular lump sum. Barnes then had the worry about making enough profit to cover this. Also Ray Barnes did buy the club shop and fitted it all out as his payment for joining the board.