Jim Phipps on Facebook

[Sean Thornton]

Directors don't have to change, at least I don't think so, although they sometimes distance themselves from their new venture (as "emplyees" in the new company). Trading under a similar name is murky, they are not supposed to, but adding a year or (Sheffield) to the name seems to be the norm.

"......
A phoenix company is the idea where a new business rises from the ashes of the old one. Or put it another way, the old company goes bust, creditors are not paid and then the directors start a new company with the assets of the old and the customer contacts. This can breed suspicion and resentment from creditors, and in the case of larger businesses, the public at large.

As such, there has to be a transfer of assets from the old to the new.



Is it legal?

Provided the following sets of rules are complied with.

• The best possible price is obtained for the old assets and they have been marketed properly
• The trading name of the new company is not the same or similar to the liquidated company. This is in accordance with section 216 of the Insolvency Act

The first point can normally be covered if a Chartered Surveyor has valued the assets prior to the liquidation and has made attempts to sell them. If this is the case then the assets of the firm can be sold to a "connected party" In many cases this will be the previous directors....."

I believe the real estate was held in a separate company.

 

[PeteBlade]

Oh you mean you expect everybody to read all these bickering posts word for word eh Sean. No way.

Anyway I've found your oblique reference to a £3m share allotment and it says nothing.

Anyone think that NOT accusing anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint of having a personality disorder would help cut down the bickering?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Anyone think that NOT accusing anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint of having a personality disorder would help cut down the bickering?

He's made the usual long winded statement using supposition as insight about the ownership when the information is available for free for anyone who cares to look. A reference to a share allotment that he knew nothing about is then described as oblique and he has a dig about bickering. This from someone who puts " good post" when someone who agrees with him and " irrelevant" when they don't, totally missing the reality that a good post is one that makes you think about another viewpoint even if it's at odds with yours.

 

[PeteBlade]

He's made the usual long winded statement using supposition as insight about the ownership when the information is available for free for anyone who cares to look. A reference to a share allotment that he knew nothing about is then described as oblique and he has a dig about bickering. This from someone who puts " good post" when someone who agrees with him and " irrelevant" when they don't, totally missing the reality that a good post is one that makes you think about another viewpoint even if it's at odds with yours.

Good post.

 

[Rodders]

I'm on message for 99% of this but to use your phrase its actually about everything you say "appointing the right football manager" and giving them time to do the job. While the managers and the players change, the one thing that never alters is the increasing pressure on the managers we employ. Lets say we sack this one at the end of the season, do we think we will get another one of anything like the same quality?

One thing I am sure about it shows that while some of his methods of motivation are questionable, Clough wasn't actually getting it anything like as wrong as some on here would have you believe. Even with a pre-season behind him and new players in the only thing we are doing is scoring more goals. We aren't winning more games by percentage and neither are we marching up the league as some thought would happen. Proves it is quite difficult this football lark. Unless your called Barny of course.

Clough did get a fair bit right, unfortunately his biggest hurdle was that he's a colossal bell-end.

 

[Rodders]

Directors don't have to change, at least I don't think so, although they sometimes distance themselves from their new venture (as "emplyees" in the new company). Trading under a similar name is murky, they are not supposed to, but adding a year or (Sheffield) to the name seems to be the norm.

"......
A phoenix company is the idea where a new business rises from the ashes of the old one. Or put it another way, the old company goes bust, creditors are not paid and then the directors start a new company with the assets of the old and the customer contacts. This can breed suspicion and resentment from creditors, and in the case of larger businesses, the public at large.

As such, there has to be a transfer of assets from the old to the new.



Is it legal?

Provided the following sets of rules are complied with.

• The best possible price is obtained for the old assets and they have been marketed properly
• The trading name of the new company is not the same or similar to the liquidated company. This is in accordance with section 216 of the Insolvency Act

The first point can normally be covered if a Chartered Surveyor has valued the assets prior to the liquidation and has made attempts to sell them. If this is the case then the assets of the firm can be sold to a "connected party" In many cases this will be the previous directors....."

My knowledge of this is fairly extensive; for example Jerry St Clair had to take over the Phoenix when Brian Potter lost his licence.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I'm on message for 99% of this but to use your phrase its actually about everything you say "appointing the right football manager" and giving them time to do the job. While the managers and the players change, the one thing that never alters is the increasing pressure on the managers we employ. Lets say we sack this one at the end of the season, do we think we will get another one of anything like the same quality?

One thing I am sure about it shows that while some of his methods of motivation are questionable, Clough wasn't actually getting it anything like as wrong as some on here would have you believe. Even with a pre-season behind him and new players in the only thing we are doing is scoring more goals. We aren't winning more games by percentage and neither are we marching up the league as some thought would happen. Proves it is quite difficult this football lark. Unless your called Barny of course.

Maybe so, maybe not but a very good post.

When we were regular correspondents you may recall I always said every manager has to have a year before anyone should judge him. I'd apply that to the manager at Hillsborough as much as anybody, perhaps even more so.

New managers need time to reshape squads, develop existing players, get rid of some.

That was what was such a shock about Clough, he seemed to do everything right for his first 9 months then he started signing players on contract, hence my obsession with Simon's performance. By the time he'd been in post a year the wheels were falling off.

Nobody should judge Adkins yet. Just because the club has failed for 5 years before is not down to him and nobody should have expected him to wave a magic wand. Expectations at Bramall Lane almost inevitably exceed reality but one day it'll all take off, might start next Saturday even.

 

[MobileBlade]

Isn't that a way limited liability can be used to effectively and legally cheat creditors: you set up a limited company, which then goes insolvent. Creditors can only get access to the company's assets, not the assets of the shareholders in their personal capacity, which may be substantial. The owners of the liquidated company can then legally use those assets to buy the assets of the liquidated company whilst the creditors get 4p in the pound.

The FA/Premier League/Football League caught wind of this a few years ago and put things in place to stop football clubs doing this. Hence, before any takeover is authorised, all football creditors have to be paid (and this was ruled legal in the courts much to HMRC dismay who usually finished up losing the most). They also make any new companies pay a rather large bond which is given to administrators should the secondary company go bust. Working this alongside FFP or the lower leagues equivalent has effectively stopped any clubs from going into administration for the past few seasons.

 

[BushBlade]

My knowledge of this is fairly extensive; for example Jerry St Clair had to take over the Phoenix when Brian Potter lost his licence.

I do recall a change in the law some time ago regarding this which is forgotten about yesterday. I vaguely recall something about not wanting to 'punish entrepreneurs' and some figures being quoted about how many successful businessmen had businesses that had failed in the past. I didn't realise it was a licence to fuck creditors over. I may have to rethink a few of my business strategies.

 

[Guesty]

My knowledge of this is fairly extensive; for example Jerry St Clair had to take over the Phoenix when Brian Potter lost his licence.

Never has the phrase 'I can do what we like, it's your club!' been so apt.

 

[BushBlade]

Isn't that a way limited liability can be used to effectively and legally cheat creditors: you set up a limited company, which then goes insolvent. Creditors can only get access to the company's assets, not the assets of the shareholders in their personal capacity, which may be substantial. The owners of the liquidated company can then legally use those assets to buy the assets of the liquidated company whilst the creditors get 4p in the pound.

It's been done for years in the construction industry. The old way was to put the new company in the name of a family member, usually the wife. Another trick was to do s substandard job and then burn it down just before completion. Blame it on kids. Then you get to build it again but this time you do it properly. Apparently. So I've been told.

 

[Darren]

It's been done for years in the construction industry. The old way was to put the new company in the name of a family member, usually the wife. Another trick was to do s substandard job and then burn it down just before completion. Blame it on kids. Then you get to build it again but this time you do it properly. Apparently. So I've been told.

I suppose the remedy if a company looks remotely dodgy is to demand payment before you supply them with anything.

 

[Woodwardfan]

He's made the usual long winded statement using supposition as insight about the ownership when the information is available for free for anyone who cares to look. A reference to a share allotment that he knew nothing about is then described as oblique and he has a dig about bickering. This from someone who puts " good post" when someone who agrees with him and " irrelevant" when they don't, totally missing the reality that a good post is one that makes you think about another viewpoint even if it's at odds with yours.

Sean. I asked whether anybody knew or cared to estimate the split of the share ownership these days after all this investment and an outstanding question to Jim's big statement . You stated that you had covered it the previous day.

I looked that up and still don't know. Please enlighten me.

 

[BushBlade]

I suppose the remedy if a company looks remotely dodgy is to demand payment before you supply them with anything.

Rarely happens in business though. You can do a lot of checks, Dun & Bradstreet etc. In my former life, the company I worked for would spend about two weeks identifying the ultimate controlling party and doing checks on them. Partly money laundering requirements and partly self protection.

 

[BushBlade]

Sean. I asked whether anybody knew or cared to estimate the split of the share ownership these days after all this investment and an outstanding question to Jim's big statement . You stated that you had covered it the previous day.

I looked that up and still don't know. Please enlighten me.

I don't know and I barely care but do you have reasonable grounds to believe it's no longer 50/50?

Bullet points will be more than sufficient.

 

[Sean Thornton]

The FA/Premier League/Football League caught wind of this a few years ago and put things in place to stop football clubs doing this. Hence, before any takeover is authorised, all football creditors have to be paid (and this was ruled legal in the courts much to HMRC dismay who usually finished up losing the most). They also make any new companies pay a rather large bond which is given to administrators should the secondary company go bust. Working this alongside FFP or the lower leagues equivalent has effectively stopped any clubs from going into administration for the past few seasons.

"Football debts" are effectively secured creditors and have to be paid. God knows how HMRC lost that case especially when they ceased to be secured creditors themselves some years ago.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Sean. I asked whether anybody knew or cared to estimate the split of the share ownership these days after all this investment and an outstanding question to Jim's big statement . You stated that you had covered it the previous day.

I looked that up and still don't know. Please enlighten me.

Again, read things properly. I said there had been a share allotment. I never claimed to have "covered it" I said why I wouldn't bother.

I notice you've not corrected your error on bickering either but I suppose that's beneath you.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I don't know and I barely care but do you have reasonable grounds to believe it's no longer 50/50?

Bullet points will be more than sufficient.

When the shares were split 50/50 this will have been dependent on the prince investing so much cash over a period. My view is that a valuation of the club will have been agreed at the time and an agreed level for the prince to reach to in effect pay for the 50%. When that level has been surpassed then there will be a mechanism for the prince to be gradually purchasing the remaining 50% of the shares over a period. Whether the 50% has been reached on the investment of £13.5m is only guesswork. I reckon he'll be about there, but only they know. On investment of another similar sum he might well become full owner. The beauty of this deal, if indeed it is shaped like that, is that KM only gives up his control and involvement gradually. Maybe KM sees himself matching the prince's investment once he gets to 50%, but I doubt it.

 

[Sean Thornton]

When the shares were split 50/50 this will have been dependent on the prince investing so much cash over a period. My view is that a valuation of the club will have been agreed at the time and an agreed level for the prince to reach to in effect pay for the 50%. When that level has been surpassed then there will be a mechanism for the prince to be gradually purchasing the remaining 50% of the shares over a period. Whether the 50% has been reached on the investment of £13.5m is only guesswork. I reckon he'll be about there, but only they know. On investment of another similar sum he might well become full owner. The beauty of this deal, if indeed it is shaped like that, is that KM only gives up his control and involvement gradually. Maybe KM sees himself matching the prince's investment once he gets to 50%, but I doubt it.

The Prince owned 50% from day one. It's there in black and white whatever theories you come up with to tittilate your ego with. Further shares have been issued so you can dream up whatever scenario you want now and then ignore your waffle when the actual facts are explained.

 

[BushBlade]

When the shares were split 50/50 this will have been dependent on the prince investing so much cash over a period. My view is that a valuation of the club will have been agreed at the time and an agreed level for the prince to reach to in effect pay for the 50%. When that level has been surpassed then there will be a mechanism for the prince to be gradually purchasing the remaining 50% of the shares over a period. Whether the 50% has been reached on the investment of £13.5m is only guesswork. I reckon he'll be about there, but only they know. On investment of another similar sum he might well become full owner. The beauty of this deal, if indeed it is shaped like that, is that KM only gives up his control and involvement gradually. Maybe KM sees himself matching the prince's investment once he gets to 50%, but I doubt it.

My understanding from reports at the time was that KM would only sell his share when we were promoted, presumably based on the increased value of the club.

 

[Grappler]

Isn't that a way limited liability can be used to effectively and legally cheat creditors: you set up a limited company, which then goes insolvent. Creditors can only get access to the company's assets, not the assets of the shareholders in their personal capacity, which may be substantial. The owners of the liquidated company can then legally use those assets to buy the assets of the liquidated company whilst the creditors get 4p in the pound.

Yep.same sort of thing, the limited company is limited (usually) to the amount of share capital plus assets (if any).

 

[Woodwardfan]

My understanding from reports at the time was that KM would only sell his share when we were promoted, presumably based on the increased value of the club.

I must have missed that, could have been speculation, anyway it won't be long!!

 

[finlaytheblade]

I would assume as Mccabe has invested upwards of 50 million the prince will have agreed to do the same only then would he own half the
club.Mr Phipps says they have put in 13million+ at this present time so he has some way to go yet.
In my opinion why would Mccabe sell his half to the prince anyway,his two sons are on the board and I get the feeling it's part of the family silver.He will have a price of course but will the prince pay it?. Possibly!!!

 

[Woodwardfan]

I would assume as Mccabe has invested upwards of 50 million the prince will have agreed to do the same only then would he own half the
club.Mr Phipps says they have put in 13million+ at this present time so he has some way to go yet.
In my opinion why would Mccabe sell his half to the prince anyway,his two sons are on the board and I get the feeling it's part of the family silver.He will have a price of course but will the prince pay it?. Possibly!!!

McCabe has lost over £50m. The value of the club when the prince got involved may have been £20m at best. KM has GIVEN half the club to the prince in return from the prince investing over a period and developing the club from thereon in.

If the prince buys out KM before he achieves success then he will make more in due course.

Some think KM will hang in there until the prince multiplies his share and then he will sell. Chicken and the egg. Surely KM will just be tempted to bail out after all the abuse we see on here each day.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I'm having difficulty getting acces to JimPhipps on Facebook. Can anybody help please?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'm having difficulty getting acces to JimPhipps on Facebook. Can anybody help please?

Edit: This doesn't work. It's his personal page.

See next post, hopefully.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'm having difficulty getting acces to JimPhipps on Facebook. Can anybody help please?

Try typing this in the Search bar at the top and then press the magnifying glass.

 

[finlaytheblade]

McCabe has lost over £50m. The value of the club when the prince got involved may have been £20m at best. KM has GIVEN half the club to the prince in return from the prince investing over a period and developing the club from thereon in.

If the prince buys out KM before he achieves success then he will make more in due course.

Some think KM will hang in there until the prince multiplies his share and then he will sell. Chicken and the egg. Surely KM will just be tempted to bail out after all the abuse we see on here each day.

In my opinion woody the shares are worth whatever Mccabe and the prince agreed upon ,having put so much in I don't think the Mccabes
will have given up 50% cheaply.with the majority of shares in there hands the real value is not known.I have still got my shares in the club
but of no real value as basically Mccabe can name his own price I will keep them for the time being.

 

[Woodwardfan]

In my opinion woody the shares are worth whatever Mccabe and the prince agreed upon ,having put so much in I don't think the Mccabes
will have given up 50% cheaply.with the majority of shares in there hands the real value is not known.I have still got my shares in the club
but of no real value as basically Mccabe can name his own price I will keep them for the time being.

Latest price I believe is 6.5p.

As for the McCabes giving up the shares cheaply, it was a league 1 club with an expensive, poor squad, no freehold, rookie manager etc. Not worth much at all.

 

[finlaytheblade]

Latest price I believe is 6.5p.

As for the McCabes giving up the shares cheaply, it was a league 1 club with an expensive, poor squad, no freehold, rookie manager etc. Not worth much at all.

The share price would have been academic as they struck a deal for the prince to invest in the club.Mccabe did say it would be a substantial amount at 6 + pence a share the prince has put in enough all ready to buy Mccabe out ,I think the prince has some way to go yet to full fill his agreement with Mccabe but we will never know the full terms of there partnership ,my shares aren't worth much at that price, maybe when we get back to the promised land they would be worth selling.