I heard they were told this by an EX director. Who, in the past, has expressed an interest in buying Thompsons out.

They choose who they believe,  can't blame them for it because of the porkies Thompson has told previous.

I'll wait until I get something concrete.

Also, I know a first team player and when I asked him, he said he wasn't Aware of anything like this. I'd assume of it were true and their wages were going to be missed, the club would tell those who it directly affected and not a few fans who hate ST enough as it is.

ArdlerArab wrote:

I heard they were told this by an EX director. Who, in the past, has expressed an interest in buying Thompsons out.

They choose who they believe,  can't blame them for it because of the porkies Thompson has told previous.

I'll wait until I get something concrete.

Also, I know a first team player and when I asked him, he said he wasn't Aware of anything like this. I'd assume of it were true and their wages were going to be missed, the club would tell those who it directly affected and not a few fans who hate ST enough as it is.

 


Thats wrong an ex director nevwr told them that...

Also do you really think the club would tell the players now that there is a possibility they might no be paid or paid on time in april?

bowers wrote:

 
Thats wrong an ex director nevwr told them that...

Also do you really think the club would tell the players now that there is a possibility they might no be paid or paid on time in april?

It looks like some of the players have been told they weren't being paid a couple of months ago.

Well surely that would unsettle boys being told that a few month in advance?

Some of the players don't deserve to be paid. Or Someof the coaching staff or some of the dieectors or ceo's or chairman either.

Good post TheShed so it wasn't a wasted five minutes, ha ha.

Without too much thought or consideration I'm guessing the director in question is John Bennett, he's the only one that isn't loyal to ST.

And if it is him, based on what I know of him I would your scenario 1 is more about him wanting to be the one who said I told you so than out of him having any great concern for the fans.

The second scenario has never gone away and is still a possibility, although he's had chances to put up in the past and did not.

blackandtangerine wrote:

scarpia wrote:

Andy, plenty to worry about on the park and, as a consequence, off the park, but in all honesty I doubt that a spring insolvency is on the cards.

There is no suggestion that we cannot meet our liabilities and I've yet to see a sane explanation as to how an administration (far less a liquidation) would benefit the Thompson's.

So, for now, we should probably worry more about the on the park shite rather than the off the park shite.

 
If the club were to go into admin it would give the club the opportunity to reduce its weekly losses considerably.  I may be wrong on this but would it not be better to take a 15 point hit now rather than while in the championship.

 
Thought had crossed my mind b&t, what's the rule on that tho, is it admin before end of March is this season point deduction? Or am I making that up?

Just looked it up on spfl rules, basically says any insolvency event during a season means immediate 15 point deduction with 5 point deduction the following season.  If during the close season it's 15 points the following season and 5 points the next season again.

If it's going to happen, and I'm not saying it is, then it has to happen during this season.  Also while the majority of the debt will be to the loanees then I hope that any other bills will be taken care of first in full.

Andy wrote:

I'd imagine there's also some rule about manufacturing the deal early to take the deduction this season?

If we were bottom by say 19 points with 18 to play for come March there has to be some sporting integrity rule that would suspend the points deduction until the following season?

I would expect that if it was any other team.

 
There's a 198 page document of rules on the spfl website, didn't read it all, but the bit I did read seemed clear.

I would imagine there has to be a proper reason for admin tho, can't just do it for the sake of it.

It's all speculation until the facts come out, given the rumour has allegedly come from a directors quote, then I would expect a board meeting to be called to discuss why directors are talking financial details to fans and I would expect a statement denying the whole thing is true.

If that statement doesn't come, to me that will say a lot.

Arab_plumber wrote:

If we go in admin now we'd have minus points.....

 
1st team to finish a season with less points than we started it with

scarpia wrote:

Admin is not going to happen IMO, nor would it be a good idea - as The Shed has said above you need a good reason to go into admin and currently there are no credible reports, backed up by any facts or figures, suggesting that we are unable to meet our financial obligations.

Let's pause for a minute and look at what might happen though as its been suggested that we might as well do it this season as the points penalty would be meaningless as we might get relegated anyway.

The board were projecting net debt to be £1.4m at calender year end 2015, let's assume this is unchanged.

As a cynic I'd imagine the related party loans (ie the Thompsons) have been cleared - that would mean £1.4m owed to the investors who took over the bank debt.

We might be able to get shot of some players (who would then become creditors) but only some as we'd need to keep a team on the park to fulfilling our fixtures.

So the players (pissed off players) plus fan investors (also pissed off I'd think) would be the major creditors - doubt getting a CVA agreed would be much fun and would require a pence in the pound settlement acceptable to these creditors.

It would doubtless end up with us renting Tannadice from someone and probably having to pay off a percentage of any future profits from player sales to the creditors.

Given that we (along with most clubs) struggle to break even in the top flight without exceptional income and that we'd be a division down as well does anyone seriously see this as a credible option?

 
IMO it would only happen if it had already been agreed between all the loanees with that pence in the pound figure also already agreed, which IMO is a very dodgy way of doing business and also not sure of the legalities of this.

Directors of any business shouldn't be spouting off to their customers in the way that has allegedly happened tho.  If their gonna give us information do it correctly.  The drip feeding that goes on at Tannadice is ridiculous.  A certain chairman used to be the worst for it once he had a pint in him.

PatReilly wrote:

Agreeing with Scarpia here regarding administration possibilities, and would also suggest I'm confused by the argument that we are already down, thus should be planning for next season, and that Mixu's not the man for the job.

If he isn't seen as being capable of getting us out this mess, we can hardly plan for next season with him in charge. For what it's worth, I still expect and believe we'll get out of the relegation places, and maybe then we should consider our direction on and off the park.

And of course, if we mathematically cannot get out of this mess, then too we can think of changes that require to be made.

 
Pat if you think we can win 8/9 of our remaining matches which is the minimum we'd need good on you, I just can't see it happening.

scarpia wrote:

Admin is not going to happen IMO, nor would it be a good idea - as The Shed has said above you need a good reason to go into admin and currently there are no credible reports, backed up by any facts or figures, suggesting that we are unable to meet our financial obligations.

Let's pause for a minute and look at what might happen though as its been suggested that we might as well do it this season as the points penalty would be meaningless as we might get relegated anyway.

The board were projecting net debt to be £1.4m at calender year end 2015, let's assume this is unchanged.

As a cynic I'd imagine the related party loans (ie the Thompsons) have been cleared - that would mean £1.4m owed to the investors who took over the bank debt.

We might be able to get shot of some players (who would then become creditors) but only some as we'd need to keep a team on the park to fulfilling our fixtures.

So the players (pissed off players) plus fan investors (also pissed off I'd think) would be the major creditors - doubt getting a CVA agreed would be much fun and would require a pence in the pound settlement acceptable to these creditors.

It would doubtless end up with us renting Tannadice from someone and probably having to pay off a percentage of any future profits from player sales to the creditors.

Given that we (along with most clubs) struggle to break even in the top flight without exceptional income and that we'd be a division down as well does anyone seriously see this as a credible option?

We don't own Tannadice.  A loan note holder has the deeds. 

As HH and I have said we've been told that unless we get money in soon be it a sale or a loan then we won't have cash to pay April's wages. We're not saying this to be malicious we're only reporting what's been said. Bowers can confirm he's heard it too.
I honestly hope it isn't the case.

Last thing I'm going to say on the matter.