Hugh wrote:
If we go into administration many helpfull people in the past will loose their money, or most of it. The big question is will someone come in for the club when in Administration, if not we are dead. Had we been better placed in the league it would be more hopefull.

brock_and_roll wrote:
Anyone else find it ironic that today's "agressive creditors" were previously helpful investors.

Football is by and large a mug's game for football club "investors" - today's heros and saviours almost inevitably become tomorrow's pariahs.

Much as I love the club, I am still intrigued as to why anyone would want to buy it given that it no longer has any real assets.

David Pearl is a very shrewd and tough businessman and there is no way if there were any development potential for the land that he would let someone get away with bargain.

FletcherTheCat wrote:

brock_and_roll wrote: Anyone else find it ironic that today's "agressive creditors" were previously helpful investors. Football is by and large a mug's game for football club "investors" - today's heros and saviours almost inevitably become tomorrow's pariahs. Much as I love the club, I am still intrigued as to why anyone would want to buy it given that it no longer has any real assets. David Pearl is a very shrewd and tough businessman and there is no way if there were any development potential for the land that he would let someone get away with bargain.

David Pearl is the landlord. The club haven't defaulted on the rent to my knowledge and so it's really very little to do with him.

clarmcherry wrote:
Is it possible we can sack Bond on Sunday, go into administration on Monday thus not having to pay him off which in my opinion is what he deserves for refusing to walk this season? Although we're down this season either way, we need to install someone, whether it be Eddie, Tindall or Fletch, who has passion for the club and can motivate the players

brock_and_roll wrote:

FletcherTheCat wrote:

brock_and_roll wrote: Anyone else find it ironic that today's "agressive creditors" were previously helpful investors. Football is by and large a mug's game for football club "investors" - today's heros and saviours almost inevitably become tomorrow's pariahs. Much as I love the club, I am still intrigued as to why anyone would want to buy it given that it no longer has any real assets. David Pearl is a very shrewd and tough businessman and there is no way if there were any development potential for the land that he would let someone get away with bargain.

David Pearl is the landlord. The club haven't defaulted on the rent to my knowledge and so it's really very little to do with him.

Yes but Bournemouth is a property play - and he holds all the cards!

What does the investor get apart from a loss making club, a 3 sided stadium and a large rent bill? Its not on the face of it the most exciting investment opportunity!

Vernon Crepe wrote:
While it is sad for the football club. How about the small businesses owed money or hundreds of fans who have loaned thousands, they will be the big losers if they see their kind loans lost forever. The Council I believe waved a huge loan payment given when the ground was built for use of facilities or something I seem to remember. So will the local tax payers also lose out when these facilities no longer are owned by AFC?

We are all losers here, but there is nothing that we can do from now on apart from turn up in greater numbers at every home match. If support dwindles, the administrator is far more likely to sell every half decent player on the spot. However the more money there is coming via the gate, the more cash there will be for creditors, and the more potential there is for him to hang onto the better players. We need those thousands who turned up at Wembley and Cardiff. If every supporter could bring a friend to the next home game it would make a huge difference to the administrators perception of the state of affairs.

CherriesBearsFatHead wrote:

We are all losers here, but there is nothing that we can do from now on apart from turn up in greater numbers at every home match. If support dwindles, the administrator is far more likely to sell every half decent player on the spot. However the more money there is coming via the gate, the more cash there will be for creditors, and the more potential there is for him to hang onto the better players. We need those thousands who turned up at Wembley and Cardiff. If every supporter could bring a friend to the next home game it would make a huge difference to the administrators perception of the state of affairs.

That's all very well and good, but how many times has this been asked of the fan base and how many times have the wembley/cardiff brigade failed us?? its a sad fact but one our club is used to

clinkers wrote:
Don't feel too secure on the question of the lease. It probably contains a clause enabling the landlord to forfeit it (i.e. chuck the club out) if the club goes into administration. You may think that the landlord would be daft to dump a tenant, after all who else would want a football ground? The conspiracy theorists will say that the landlord will have an opportunity to redevelop. No ground, no club, its that simple.

clinkers wrote:
Don't feel too secure on the question of the lease. It probably contains a clause enabling the landlord to forfeit it (i.e. chuck the club out) if the club goes into administration. You may think that the landlord would be daft to dump a tenant, after all who else would want a football ground? The conspiracy theorists will say that the landlord will have an opportunity to redevelop. No ground, no club, its that simple.

Noel wrote:

clinkers wrote: Don't feel too secure on the question of the lease. It probably contains a clause enabling the landlord to forfeit it (i.e. chuck the club out) if the club goes into administration. You may think that the landlord would be daft to dump a tenant, after all who else would want a football ground? The conspiracy theorists will say that the landlord will have an opportunity to redevelop. No ground, no club, its that simple.

At one point Bournemouth Council had a covenant on the ground saying it could only be used as a sporting venue. I presume that still applies. Mind you, with Bond as manager are we in breach of that covenant anyway?

Andy wrote:
as one of the 24000 that went to the wembley/cardiff game - i have tried to get into watching AFCB but each time i have gone the football has been diabolical. It is more fun playing it myself, watching a local non-league game or seeing a premiership match on the box. The other gripe is that you see the players out in town thinking they are all goldenballs... going into administration will buck the whole clubs ideas up and help return the professional image the club had in the 80's under Harry.

stevedavies wrote:
According to the Chippenham Town forum Rob Newman was up there scouting last night scouting the Chippenham Bromsgrove game, can't think that he's in any great peril if he was out on a night like last night scouting can he?

PeterA wrote:
The key matter now is that the club survivies and if administration can secure this, a big IF I know, this has to be the way to go. It does not matter to me if we are in the Conference next season as long as we are playing competitive football and I can still have my Saturday fix (a beer or two, meeting my mates and having a shout!). Surely AFCB are not the only club drifting into this situation, how od clubs with lower attendances etc. survive, is our financial maamngement worse than other clubs. Ultimately this all ocmes down to money in football gravitiating to the top where it is not needed and largely wasted on inflated salaries. THe Premier league is the worst thing to ever happen to English football, does anybody agree?

clinkers wrote:

Noel wrote:

clinkers wrote: Don't feel too secure on the question of the lease. It probably contains a clause enabling the landlord to forfeit it (i.e. chuck the club out) if the club goes into administration. You may think that the landlord would be daft to dump a tenant, after all who else would want a football ground? The conspiracy theorists will say that the landlord will have an opportunity to redevelop. No ground, no club, its that simple.

At one point Bournemouth Council had a covenant on the ground saying it could only be used as a sporting venue. I presume that still applies. Mind you, with Bond as manager are we in breach of that covenant anyway?

Covenants mean nothing in the property development world. You can always buy your way out of a covenant for a price. It all depends on the difference in value between land with a sporting use and land with a housing use. That's a no brainer. The Council have to look after taxpayers' interests, so there has to be a price at which they would waive the covenant.

Richard wrote:
For all the comments about the missing 24,000, those contributors seem to miss the fact that they would'nt all fit in the ground! I agree with the poster who said that many people are restricted by affordability and if they are, it does'nt make them any less of a fan, it just means that they have other priorities for their income. I regularly read stuff about who's a better fan than who and it's all rubbish. I go to as many home games as I can, but my job demands that I work many weekends and then I'm left with Radio Solent's coverage and shouting at the radio. Most football clubs have an unsatisfactory business model, that's why the game depends on Sky and wealthy foreiners to bail it out all the time.

alasdair wrote:

Richard wrote: For all the comments about the missing 24,000, those contributors seem to miss the fact that they would'nt all fit in the ground! I agree with the poster who said that many people are restricted by affordability and if they are, it does'nt make them any less of a fan, it just means that they have other priorities for their income. I regularly read stuff about who's a better fan than who and it's all rubbish. I go to as many home games as I can, but my job demands that I work many weekends and then I'm left with Radio Solent's coverage and shouting at the radio. Most football clubs have an unsatisfactory business model, that's why the game depends on Sky and wealthy foreiners to bail it out all the time.

im not doubting that they could not all fit in the ground at the same time all im saying is they are glory day supporters i dont see 30000 standing in a line waiting to buy tickets for a mid week jan game as i said seasons average 5700 leaving more than enough tickets for the missing 24000 if the ground where to be full week in week out then we would not be in as much debt as we are ,no matter what league your side is in you need the support of the fans as stated by many a manager the fans where like a 12th man !

Nixtrix_afcb wrote:
Interesting suggestion that the administrator will sell the assets to pay off the creditors, i.e. the players, that'll cover o/s debts of what, £500!!

Kevvo wrote:

PeterA wrote: The key matter now is that the club survivies and if administration can secure this, a big IF I know, this has to be the way to go. It does not matter to me if we are in the Conference next season as long as we are playing competitive football and I can still have my Saturday fix (a beer or two, meeting my mates and having a shout!). Surely AFCB are not the only club drifting into this situation, how od clubs with lower attendances etc. survive, is our financial maamngement worse than other clubs. Ultimately this all ocmes down to money in football gravitiating to the top where it is not needed and largely wasted on inflated salaries. THe Premier league is the worst thing to ever happen to English football, does anybody agree?

I must apologise to you PeterA I could never understand why you were sick of us complaining about the abilitie or rather lack of it of Bond Now I realise that it doesnt matter to you if we are in the Conferance as you put it so of course it would not matter how bad the Manager was, Personally I hope we dont go any lower than we have to to get out of this mess.

Ian wrote:
Just get on with it and out them into administration. Football is no longer “the beautiful game” and the less teams there are the better!

PeterA wrote:

Kevvo wrote:

PeterA wrote: The key matter now is that the club survivies and if administration can secure this, a big IF I know, this has to be the way to go. It does not matter to me if we are in the Conference next season as long as we are playing competitive football and I can still have my Saturday fix (a beer or two, meeting my mates and having a shout!). Surely AFCB are not the only club drifting into this situation, how od clubs with lower attendances etc. survive, is our financial maamngement worse than other clubs. Ultimately this all ocmes down to money in football gravitiating to the top where it is not needed and largely wasted on inflated salaries. THe Premier league is the worst thing to ever happen to English football, does anybody agree?

I must apologise to you PeterA I could never understand why you were sick of us complaining about the abilitie or rather lack of it of Bond Now I realise that it doesnt matter to you if we are in the Conferance as you put it so of course it would not matter how bad the Manager was, Personally I hope we dont go any lower than we have to to get out of this mess.

Kevvo - You completly miss the point here. What I am saying is the key thing is the the clubs survivies. If I take your apparent view you would rather the club folds than survives but in a lower league. Are you saying that? Our predicament this season has little to do with the manager, it is all about money. The team started the season with an arm tied behinds its back. If fault lies anywhere (and I doubt it does) this is just a culmination of circumstances) it is in years of financial mismanagement.

PeterA wrote:
You may be right Kevvo, is Jeff such a shining knight or is he in it for himself, However, even getting hold of the club post admin and "debt free" does not really represent a good investment does it?