Bramall and Watson to return??

[nortikorner]

Three men in the same boat hope its not the titanic

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Interesting point made in an article by John Ryan.

“We have been talking about it, they feel the club is being well run now, and I am keen to get them back.”

Anyone else feel a bit of a hint about Dave Morris in there?

[The Red Baron]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster/exclusive-ryan-stops-at-rovers-as-former-allies-look-to-return-and-help-run-the-keepmoat-1-4477639

Link to the article. I think the YP has a bit of a nerve to claim an exclusive as the Free Press has been running with this since last week, but heigh-ho.

Like BFYP, I thought the line about the club "being well run now" stood out like a sore thumb. Was it a reference to the change of CEO, or to the apparent phasing out of McKay's involvement?

I also think the stadium is at the bottom of all this- although I am struggling to see why it is so critical. OK, Rovers might be able to run the stadium more effectively than the SMC, but I hardly see it as a money-making machine. Maybe there are things in the "small print" of the deal with the SMC that are potentially attractive to a businessman like Terry Bramall.

My nagging concern is that we've been here before- where the club's stadium- or at least the land it stands on- is worth considerably more than the club itself.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

It's not a money making machine given it costs a lot to run, however with the salary cap it does produce extra revenue to get around that a bit easier.

[Pinter777]

Im trying not to get carried away and excited icase it does not happen, but this could really boost the club at the moment.

http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/bramall-and-watson-set-to-return-1-4474952

[Sheepskin Stu]

Augenthaler couldn't do it, Lineker probably could!

[RobTheRover]

They are just discharging their duties as directors - Company and Insolvency Law looks dimly on directors who have pledged financial assistance (eg. funding a 3 year contract for DS) then left the company in a potentially technically insolvent state.  But no money for transfers because they have no need to do that.

They are not directors, so have no legal duties. There is also no obligation for directors to continue funding a loss making business - they are perfectly able to stop pouring money in, if they so wish.

But if the company was to become insolvent - which it would if JR stopped funding it - then the administrator would look back at the actions of the directors appointed over the last 3 years.  In doing so, board minutes would show certain contractual commitments obviously made on the assumption that the company would remain a Going Concern throughout the period of those future obligations.  The investigation would also show that the ability to remain a Going Concern (and therefore able to fulfill those commitments) was based on pledges of financial assistance from those directors.  If those directors (whether still in office or resigned) don't honour those pledges then the insolvency may be traced back to that refusal, and they may be held liable.

I'm not an insolvency expert and it would be good if someone who is could come on here and give a better explanation, but I hope that makes a little sense.

Doesnt Jenny get involved in insolvency cases?  I may have made that bit up, but I'm pretty sure she posted something about it a couple of years ago.

[sedwardsdrfc]

I'm not an insolvency expert
[/quote]

Clearly

[WBDRFC]

They are just discharging their duties as directors - Company and Insolvency Law looks dimly on directors who have pledged financial assistance (eg. funding a 3 year contract for DS) then left the company in a potentially technically insolvent state.  But no money for transfers because they have no need to do that.

They are not directors, so have no legal duties. There is also no obligation for directors to continue funding a loss making business - they are perfectly able to stop pouring money in, if they so wish.

But if the company was to become insolvent - which it would if JR stopped funding it - then the administrator would look back at the actions of the directors appointed over the last 3 years.  In doing so, board minutes would show certain contractual commitments obviously made on the assumption that the company would remain a Going Concern throughout the period of those future obligations.  The investigation would also show that the ability to remain a Going Concern (and therefore able to fulfill those commitments) was based on pledges of financial assistance from those directors.  If those directors (whether still in office or resigned) don't honour those pledges then the insolvency may be traced back to that refusal, and they may be held liable.

I'm not an insolvency expert and it would be good if someone who is could come on here and give a better explanation, but I hope that makes a little sense.

There are no legal implications for directors if a business fails, unless they have taken money OUT of the business when they shouldn't have done, sold assets for less than they were worth or done something illegal. These are the only circumstances that can start a investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. None of these situations appear to be relevant to DRFC.

Secondly, they do not need to become directors to put more money into the club. According to the DFP they may rejoin the board of directors.

So I don't think this is anything to do with their obligations, as they have none. I think it is do with protecting their investment and/or the stadium.

[Wokingviking]

They are just discharging their duties as directors - Company and Insolvency Law looks dimly on directors who have pledged financial assistance (eg. funding a 3 year contract for DS) then left the company in a potentially technically insolvent state.  But no money for transfers because they have no need to do that.

They are not directors, so have no legal duties. There is also no obligation for directors to continue funding a loss making business - they are perfectly able to stop pouring money in, if they so wish.

But if the company was to become insolvent - which it would if JR stopped funding it - then the administrator would look back at the actions of the directors appointed over the last 3 years.  In doing so, board minutes would show certain contractual commitments obviously made on the assumption that the company would remain a Going Concern throughout the period of those future obligations.  The investigation would also show that the ability to remain a Going Concern (and therefore able to fulfill those commitments) was based on pledges of financial assistance from those directors.  If those directors (whether still in office or resigned) don't honour those pledges then the insolvency may be traced back to that refusal, and they may be held liable.

I'm not an insolvency expert and it would be good if someone who is could come on here and give a better explanation, but I hope that makes a little sense.

There are no legal implications for directors if a business fails, unless they have taken money OUT of the business when they shouldn't have done, sold assets for less than they were worth or done something illegal. These are the only circumstances that can start a investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. None of these situations appear to be relevant to DRFC.

Secondly, they do not need to become directors to put more money into the club. According to the DFP they may rejoin the board of directors.

So I don't think this is anything to do with their obligations, as they have none. I think it is do with protecting their investment and/or the stadium.

It's not the OFT that is the regulatory body here WB, it's got nothing to do with them.  If directors make pledges of financial assistance and then they aren't forthcoming and the company then goes into administration and creditors are prejudiced as a result, then the directors would probably face an action from the administrator if the act of insolvency can be linked to the directors decision to renege on the funding commitment.

There are two potential impacts for the KM2 here - the first is that the administrator would attempt to recover monies from them (the least of the KM2's worries I would have thought) and the second, far more damaging both reputationally and functionally, is that the administrator's report that is filed with the BIS could potentially recommend disqualification as directors.

However maybe the past is all secondary now and there is a real desire to get involved again.  What do I know?

[WBDRFC]

They are just discharging their duties as directors - Company and Insolvency Law looks dimly on directors who have pledged financial assistance (eg. funding a 3 year contract for DS) then left the company in a potentially technically insolvent state.  But no money for transfers because they have no need to do that.

They are not directors, so have no legal duties. There is also no obligation for directors to continue funding a loss making business - they are perfectly able to stop pouring money in, if they so wish.

But if the company was to become insolvent - which it would if JR stopped funding it - then the administrator would look back at the actions of the directors appointed over the last 3 years.  In doing so, board minutes would show certain contractual commitments obviously made on the assumption that the company would remain a Going Concern throughout the period of those future obligations.  The investigation would also show that the ability to remain a Going Concern (and therefore able to fulfill those commitments) was based on pledges of financial assistance from those directors.  If those directors (whether still in office or resigned) don't honour those pledges then the insolvency may be traced back to that refusal, and they may be held liable.

I'm not an insolvency expert and it would be good if someone who is could come on here and give a better explanation, but I hope that makes a little sense.

There are no legal implications for directors if a business fails, unless they have taken money OUT of the business when they shouldn't have done, sold assets for less than they were worth or done something illegal. These are the only circumstances that can start a investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. None of these situations appear to be relevant to DRFC.

Secondly, they do not need to become directors to put more money into the club. According to the DFP they may rejoin the board of directors.

So I don't think this is anything to do with their obligations, as they have none. I think it is do with protecting their investment and/or the stadium.

It's not the OFT that is the regulatory body here WB, it's got nothing to do with them.  If directors make pledges of financial assistance and then they aren't forthcoming and the company then goes into administration and creditors are prejudiced as a result, then the directors would probably face an action from the administrator if the act of insolvency can be linked to the directors decision to renege on the funding commitment.

There are two potential impacts for the KM2 here - the first is that the administrator would attempt to recover monies from them (the least of the KM2's worries I would have thought) and the second, far more damaging both reputationally and functionally, is that the administrator's report that is filed with the BIS could potentially recommend disqualification as directors.

However maybe the past is all secondary now and there is a real desire to get involved again.  What do I know?

You're right that it is the BIS. It was late when I posted my response. But the BIS will only investigate the directors if there is adverse report from the Administrator that indicates that one of the three scenarios I mentioned takes place - none of which has in this case.

"Pledges of assistance" are just a promise, and not a contract. If there is no formal contract, then an Administrator will be powerless to do anything at all. If there is a formal contract then JR or the club can take legal action now.

As I said, there is no legal requirement for a director to put money into a loss making business. They do not have to rejoin the board to fulfil any legal requirements, but it looks like they could be rejoining, so it looks like they want to get actively involved again.

[Standanista]

Like BFYP, I thought the line about the club "being well run now" stood out like a sore thumb. Was it a reference to the change of CEO, or to the apparent phasing out of McKay's involvement?

"Over the last few weeks, the club’s chief executive Dave Morris has been replaced by operations director Gavin Baldwin on an interim basis and McKay’s involvement has now been scaled down."

I'd go for the first bit of that statement as more significant than the latter half, given Morris's track record.

[Wokingviking]

They are just discharging their duties as directors - Company and Insolvency Law looks dimly on directors who have pledged financial assistance (eg. funding a 3 year contract for DS) then left the company in a potentially technically insolvent state.  But no money for transfers because they have no need to do that.

They are not directors, so have no legal duties. There is also no obligation for directors to continue funding a loss making business - they are perfectly able to stop pouring money in, if they so wish.

But if the company was to become insolvent - which it would if JR stopped funding it - then the administrator would look back at the actions of the directors appointed over the last 3 years.  In doing so, board minutes would show certain contractual commitments obviously made on the assumption that the company would remain a Going Concern throughout the period of those future obligations.  The investigation would also show that the ability to remain a Going Concern (and therefore able to fulfill those commitments) was based on pledges of financial assistance from those directors.  If those directors (whether still in office or resigned) don't honour those pledges then the insolvency may be traced back to that refusal, and they may be held liable.

I'm not an insolvency expert and it would be good if someone who is could come on here and give a better explanation, but I hope that makes a little sense.

There are no legal implications for directors if a business fails, unless they have taken money OUT of the business when they shouldn't have done, sold assets for less than they were worth or done something illegal. These are the only circumstances that can start a investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. None of these situations appear to be relevant to DRFC.

Secondly, they do not need to become directors to put more money into the club. According to the DFP they may rejoin the board of directors.

So I don't think this is anything to do with their obligations, as they have none. I think it is do with protecting their investment and/or the stadium.

It's not the OFT that is the regulatory body here WB, it's got nothing to do with them.  If directors make pledges of financial assistance and then they aren't forthcoming and the company then goes into administration and creditors are prejudiced as a result, then the directors would probably face an action from the administrator if the act of insolvency can be linked to the directors decision to renege on the funding commitment.

There are two potential impacts for the KM2 here - the first is that the administrator would attempt to recover monies from them (the least of the KM2's worries I would have thought) and the second, far more damaging both reputationally and functionally, is that the administrator's report that is filed with the BIS could potentially recommend disqualification as directors.

However maybe the past is all secondary now and there is a real desire to get involved again.  What do I know?

You're right that it is the BIS. It was late when I posted my response. But the BIS will only investigate the directors if there is adverse report from the Administrator that indicates that one of the three scenarios I mentioned takes place - none of which has in this case.

"Pledges of assistance" are just a promise, and not a contract. If there is no formal contract, then an Administrator will be powerless to do anything at all. If there is a formal contract then JR or the club can take legal action now.

As I said, there is no legal requirement for a director to put money into a loss making business. They do not have to rejoin the board to fulfil any legal requirements, but it looks like they could be rejoining, so it looks like they want to get actively involved again.

Wrongful Trading is another scenario that tends to catch directors (and funnily enough it is the one that JR would be cogniscent of potentially applying to himself once the KM2 ceased funding).

As you point out, it's unlikely there was any "contract" as such, but somewhere along the spectrum of commitment - purely verbal undocumented discussions of support at one end of it and a signed subordinated loan agreement right at the other - sits a point in between at which the Administrator would chance his arm at trying to stake a claim.

It's the part about "not funding new transfers" which might suggest that the KM2's return is purely focused on extinguishing any (perceived) existing personal commitments.  But then agian, they may be fully back in the saddle and wanting to go forward and the "not funding new transfers" is simple prudence on their part.  All speculation unfortunately, but I'm glad JR's getting at least some support again.

Do you think anyone will sign us up as their entertainers at their Xmas Do WB...?

[Sheepskin Stu]

Wrongful Trading is another scenario that tends to catch directors (and funnily enough it is the one that JR would be cogniscent of potentially applying to himself once the KM2 ceased funding).

As you point out, it's unlikely there was any "contract" as such, but somewhere along the spectrum of commitment - purely verbal undocumented discussions of support at one end of it and a signed subordinated loan agreement right at the other - sits a point in between at which the Administrator would chance his arm at trying to stake a claim.

It's the part about "not funding new transfers" which might suggest that the KM2's return is purely focused on extinguishing any (perceived) existing personal commitments.  But then agian, they may be fully back in the saddle and wanting to go forward and the "not funding new transfers" is simple prudence on their part.  All speculation unfortunately, but I'm glad JR's getting at least some support again.

Do you think anyone will sign us up as their entertainers at their Xmas Do WB...?

Your job is consuming you. 

[Wokingviking]

Wrongful Trading is another scenario that tends to catch directors (and funnily enough it is the one that JR would be cogniscent of potentially applying to himself once the KM2 ceased funding).

As you point out, it's unlikely there was any "contract" as such, but somewhere along the spectrum of commitment - purely verbal undocumented discussions of support at one end of it and a signed subordinated loan agreement right at the other - sits a point in between at which the Administrator would chance his arm at trying to stake a claim.

It's the part about "not funding new transfers" which might suggest that the KM2's return is purely focused on extinguishing any (perceived) existing personal commitments.  But then agian, they may be fully back in the saddle and wanting to go forward and the "not funding new transfers" is simple prudence on their part.  All speculation unfortunately, but I'm glad JR's getting at least some support again.

Do you think anyone will sign us up as their entertainers at their Xmas Do WB...?

Your job is consuming you. 

How dare you?  It's taken me years to turn into the t**t that I realise I've become when I read that back...

[BobG]

I'm fairly confident that, somewhere, there will be a price to pay if the KM2 do come back onto the Board. Why would they come back at all if they're not willing to inout new funds? It clearly cannot be for footballing or 'fan support' reasons then. There is an agenda here somewhere. Too much that is odd, too much that is not obviously open, and now too much that simply doen't make any sense at all has gone on for there not to be an agenda hidden away somewhere in this lot. I have offered a few speculations before about what that agenda might be, But who knows? But there's one there somewhere alright. That's why I'm so desparate for the VSC to be in a position where it can play a part.

BobG

[jonnydog]

Let's be honest, would you 'invest' in something that was running at a loss of 'x' millions a year. They may be fans, but they are also business men. Very few would run anything at a loss year on year (that's why we're lucky with JR!!)

Now we're in league 1, it may provide us with a clear out option, fresh faces/attitude, younger, fitter side at half the wages, running in the black. That would certainly attract anyone keen to invest in the club.

Onwards and upwards, keep the faith and all those other cliche's lol

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I think most of you are missing something.  Nobody would invest into Rovers expecting to make money it just will never happen for a long time.  If you want to make money you'd invest elsewhere, especially given the time and flack you take investing in a football club.

[WBDRFC]

Wrongful Trading is another scenario that tends to catch directors (and funnily enough it is the one that JR would be cogniscent of potentially applying to himself once the KM2 ceased funding).

As you point out, it's unlikely there was any "contract" as such, but somewhere along the spectrum of commitment - purely verbal undocumented discussions of support at one end of it and a signed subordinated loan agreement right at the other - sits a point in between at which the Administrator would chance his arm at trying to stake a claim.

It's the part about "not funding new transfers" which might suggest that the KM2's return is purely focused on extinguishing any (perceived) existing personal commitments.  But then agian, they may be fully back in the saddle and wanting to go forward and the "not funding new transfers" is simple prudence on their part.  All speculation unfortunately, but I'm glad JR's getting at least some support again.

Do you think anyone will sign us up as their entertainers at their Xmas Do WB...?

LOL. I think we'll probably bore too many people, with all this business speak:)