Admin.

[Chicken Balti Pie]

I'm not being facetious but can anyone explain or remind me where all this chatter about administration came from? I'm not saying it's not a possibility but am I still right in thinking it is factually groundless at this point? As far as I am aware we are simply waiting and hoping for good news from the SA group's meetings in London this week and hoping the May group are unceremoniously dumped in the gutter where they belong. Has that changed?

people started ejecting faecal matter into their under garments because no news. They have a scenario in their heads without actually thinking it through, the only person putting us into admin is Hardy (we have no charge holder) so he needs to foot the bill of three months running costs. We're more likely to be liquidated than administration but like you said, more likely to be sold

[countygump]

people started ejecting faecal matter into their under garments because no news. They have a scenario in their heads without actually thinking it through, the only person putting us into admin is Hardy (we have no charge holder) so he needs to foot the bill of three months running costs. We're more likely to be liquidated than administration but like you said, more likely to be sold

Meanwhile, the good news just a keeps on coming.............


https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport...-money-2972544

[Bohinen]

Meanwhile, the good news just a keeps on coming.............

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport...-money-2972544

However, there appears to be little progress over a deal with a South African consortium after weekend talks yielded no breakthrough.

That's why people are talking about admin. I don't even see admin as a bad thing, maybe it's necessary.

[frenchmagpie]

people started ejecting faecal matter into their under garments because no news. They have a scenario in their heads without actually thinking it through, the only person putting us into admin is Hardy (we have no charge holder) so he needs to foot the bill of three months running costs. We're more likely to be liquidated than administration but like you said, more likely to be sold

I don't understand where these points come from. Administration is a process whereby a company which is insolvent is taken out of the management of it's directors and professional insolvency practitioners step in to take over the management and to realise assets to satisfy the creditors. Having a charge over assets is irrelevant to that process. And I just don't get the three months running costs bit. Once administrators are in it's up to them to find the funds to run the business or close it down. Hardy has no say at that point.

If administrators aren't appointed when the company is unable to meet it's debts then the directors can become personally liable for those debts so I think if Hardy was being really pushed by someone to cough up (see Gumps post) he would have no choice. HMRC have chosen to hold off until 10 July.

[Old_pie]

I'm not being facetious but can anyone explain or remind me where all this chatter about administration came from? I'm not saying it's not a possibility but am I still right in thinking it is factually groundless at this point? As far as I am aware we are simply waiting and hoping for good news from the SA group's meetings in London this week and hoping the May group are unceremoniously dumped in the gutter where they belong. Has that changed?

It is a logical extension of being taken to court for unpaid debts. You may have noticed that the club has been in court twice.

The options are:

1) Liquidation - it is all taken out of the owner's hands and the company is wound-up, finished, kaput, gone. Well there are other variations nicely explained at https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com...to-liquidation

Something may then continue from scratch as AFC-Notts County (2019) Ltd entering the FA at some lowly level but it will have nothing to do with the current club and no doubt the ground lease will be sold.

2) Administration - well here there is the opportunity for the debts to be wiped at (or 10p/£1 or whatever) and the appointed administrator runs the club with the aim of getting the most for the creditors which would possibly mean accepting the highest bid. AH loses control, the Administrator is top man.

https://www.gov.uk/put-your-company-into-administration

I don't know enough about company law to state whether AH would be able to claim anything in either scenario even if he is a creditor, but one or more of his business that have lent money may be able to.

If the creditors agree the deal with the administrator then the club continues under the new owners.

So of the two scenarios most of us I guess are assuming Adminstration if there is no direct deal between AH and the interested parties that satisfies the baying wolves, HMRC, Paragon, Harry Kewell, Crawley, Wycombe, and no doubt many others including season ticket holders.

You know I've long been a critic of AH - and each passing day justifies my dislike of the man. He's not rational. He's not straight. If he couldn't afford to sack Nolan, or buy Vaughan then he shouldn't have.

I'm getting angry again now. Hope the above addresses your question.

[Chicken Balti Pie]

I don't understand where these points come from. Administration is a process whereby a company which is insolvent is taken out of the management of it's directors and professional insolvency practitioners step in to take over the management and to realise assets to satisfy the creditors. Having a charge over assets is irrelevant to that process. And I just don't get the three months running costs bit. Once administrators are in it's up to them to find the funds to run the business or close it down. Hardy has no say at that point.

If administrators aren't appointed when the company is unable to meet it's debts then the directors can become personally liable for those debts so I think if Hardy was being really pushed by someone to cough up (see Gumps post) he would have no choice. HMRC have chosen to hold off until 10 July.

At no point can a director be personally liable for debts for a limited company...

[Old_pie]

At no point can a director be personally liable for debts for a limited company...

I don't believe that is strictly true though it may need to be shown that they've acted fraudulently rather than stupidly.

[SmiffyPie]

At no point can a director be personally liable for debts for a limited company...

Not true.

While company status offers valuable protection to a director, there are certain situations where limited liability can be disregarded, leaving the director responsible for paying the company’s debts.

These include:

Overdrawn director’s loan accounts
Signing a personal guarantee
Debts have accumulated due to fraudulent means (such as taking on credit you knew you wouldn’t be able to repay)
Director misconduct
Continuing to pay shareholders dividends whilst the company is insolvent
Withdrawing and/or using company funds for non-business activity; this is an offence known as misfeasance
Disposing of the company's assets at undervalue or no value

[Amsterdan1]

At no point can a director be personally liable for debts for a limited company...

If a company continues trading whilst insolvent and the interest of shareholders that are directors are prioritised over other creditors then they most certainly can!

[SwalePie]

It is a logical extension of being taken to court for unpaid debts. You may have noticed that the club has been in court twice.

The options are:

1) Liquidation - it is all taken out of the owner's hands and the company is wound-up, finished, kaput, gone. Well there are other variations nicely explained at https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com...to-liquidation

Something may then continue from scratch as AFC-Notts County (2019) Ltd entering the FA at some lowly level but it will have nothing to do with the current club and no doubt the ground lease will be sold.

2) Administration - well here there is the opportunity for the debts to be wiped at (or 10p/£1 or whatever) and the appointed administrator runs the club with the aim of getting the most for the creditors which would possibly mean accepting the highest bid. AH loses control, the Administrator is top man.

https://www.gov.uk/put-your-company-into-administration

I don't know enough about company law to state whether AH would be able to claim anything in either scenario even if he is a creditor, but one or more of his business that have lent money may be able to.

If the creditors agree the deal with the administrator then the club continues under the new owners.

So of the two scenarios most of us I guess are assuming Adminstration if there is no direct deal between AH and the interested parties that satisfies the baying wolves, HMRC, Paragon, Harry Kewell, Crawley, Wycombe, and no doubt many others including season ticket holders.

You know I've long been a critic of AH - and each passing day justifies my dislike of the man. He's not rational. He's not straight. If he couldn't afford to sack Nolan, or buy Vaughan then he shouldn't have.

I'm getting angry again now. Hope the above addresses your question.

I think my query was misunderstood. I'm fully aware of the meaning of administration but was wondering why it had so suddenly become the main talking point as I had not seen an actual cause for the shift in thinking.