Jump to content

Sons' sorrow


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, The Moonster said:

How exactly would closing us down play out? Genuine question, as I don't really understand these things. I wouldn't think administrators seizing control of the club is what Henning wants but perhaps I don't understand enough.

If liquidators were appointed then essentially their job would be to sell all of the club's assets and then distribute the funds to the club's creditors. If there was money left after any debts were paid, shareholders would receive a payment based on their shareholding.

There's a hierarchy of repayment:

  • Secured creditors with a fixed charge
  • Preferential creditors
  • Secured creditors with a floating charge
  • Unsecured creditors
  • Shareholders

So any money raised from the sale of the club's assets would be paid to secured creditors first, then preferential creditors, then creditors with a floating charge, then unsecured creditors. Whatever was left would be used to pay shareholders. Meaning that:

- The securities granted on the part of the current ground site for which planning permission was given would need to be discharged first. The first round of payments would go to cover those securities. Pendragon Group currently hold a charge over that portion of land. The land would be sold and priority would be to discharge Pendragon's security held on that land.

- I'm not sure that the club has any preferential creditors. There doesnt appear to be any creditor relationship between the club and Brabco.

- Are there any director loans outstanding? That's typically the only unsecured creditors that we'd have as Dumbarton don't run with significant bank borrowing.

- Anything left would be paid to shareholders.

The big question is how much is all of that worth? The land at the the current ground is former industrial land that has limited value because of the associated clean up costs. It's fine for a football stadium but not great for housing. That brings the price of the land down a considerable amount. They're not going to be earning millions by sinking Dumbarton FC and selling the ground off for housing. Sinking the club and splitting the land price would obviously be an option, but it wouldn't be a desirable one for the owners as it doesnt give them the return they want. You could be looking at £500K - £700k for the portion of land with planning permission. It's perhaps a last resort for them if they can't make their money elsewhere, but its not their first choice. Their first choice remains relocating and making their money through the overall deal. I'd look at the idea of sinking the club and picking the carcass clean as a last resort, but one that they'd almost certainly consider if there was no other way out for them.

Which doesnt give the club a whole lot of protection unfortunately. It's still a route that they may eventually go down if they can't make money from their ownership of the club and nobody is able to buy it from them. The ideal scenario would be a buyout of some kind. That would probably require a Motherwell style model where an investor would fund the buyout and then accept repayment over a 10-15 year period. Perhaps even longer. You could be looking at having to fundraise £150k a year, every year for at least 15 years, to repay the takeover costs. If it came to it then it's an option, but it's not a particularly easy one to achieve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frank Quitely said:

I'll be honest, I don't trust the owners.  And I don't believe they have either the money or ability to move the club.  That leaves them with an ailing football club sitting on a prime site for housing, with a council keen to see housing down  there.  The club relies on funding from the owners.  The owners fail to get planning permission for Dalmoak.  The owners then choke off the funding and a crisis develops.  Join the dots. 

But then, I could be wrong.

Its not a prime site.

Historic Scotland would restrict the number of properties that could be built. There would be an exclusion area around the base of the rock. Then there's the ground itself - its a former industrial site and would need a degree of clean up work. They used any old garbage to fill in the dock area down there. The original Brabco plan was to fund the move solely from the sale of the current ground. It didnt take the previous owners long to realise that this was pie in the sky and that any move would require enabling developments to raise the money needed to build a new ground and realise their anticipated profit. I'm not convinced that they'd get planning permission for anything beyond the portion of the current site for which planning permission has already been granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, I don't trust the owners.  And I don't believe they have either the money or ability to move the club.  That leaves them with an ailing football club sitting on a prime site for housing, with a council keen to see housing down  there.  The club relies on funding from the owners.  The owners fail to get planning permission for Dalmoak.  The owners then choke off the funding and a crisis develops.  Join the dots. 
But then, I could be wrong.
What funding do the owners currently provide?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like there could be a bit of squad movement in January…

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/dumbarton-boss-stevie-farrell-already-25702338.amp

If Farrell can somehow get shot of guff like Buchanan, Boyle and Geggan to free up wages for better replacements then fair play, I’m not sure how easy that will be mind you. I’d imagine it will be a 1 out 1 in type situation, we can’t have much room for additions without players leaving surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

It looks like there could be a bit of squad movement in January…

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/dumbarton-boss-stevie-farrell-already-25702338.amp

If Farrell can somehow get shot of guff like Buchanan, Boyle and Geggan to free up wages for better replacements then fair play, I’m not sure how easy that will be mind you. I’d imagine it will be a 1 out 1 in type situation, we can’t have much room for additions without players leaving surely.

I'm sure we could free up players but that's the straightforward part of the equation - finding decent replacements in January is a really tall order.  And for what it's worth I'd be looking to replace McKee, he's a been a ghost of the player he was previously here.  We also need to seriously consider the situation with Hopkirk, Erskine, Maley, McKnight and Muir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

I'm sure we could free up players but that's the straightforward part of the equation - finding decent replacements in January is a really tall order.  And for what it's worth I'd be looking to replace McKee, he's a been a ghost of the player he was previously here.  We also need to seriously consider the situation with Hopkirk, Erskine, Maley, McKnight and Muir.

I’d tend to agree but I’m worried we’re lumped with Buchanan for the forseeable given he signed a two year deal. McKee is the same in that regard, although I still think he can do a job, we need the manager to get the best out of him. His set pieces for us were deadly a couple of years ago, yet we have guys like Paddy Boyle plodding up the park to take a corner. We have been really wasteful with set pieces recently as well, which is hugely frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BallochSonsFan said:

If liquidators were appointed then essentially their job would be to sell all of the club's assets and then distribute the funds to the club's creditors. If there was money left after any debts were paid, shareholders would receive a payment based on their shareholding.

There's a hierarchy of repayment:

  • Secured creditors with a fixed charge
  • Preferential creditors
  • Secured creditors with a floating charge
  • Unsecured creditors
  • Shareholders

So any money raised from the sale of the club's assets would be paid to secured creditors first, then preferential creditors, then creditors with a floating charge, then unsecured creditors. Whatever was left would be used to pay shareholders. Meaning that:

- The securities granted on the part of the current ground site for which planning permission was given would need to be discharged first. The first round of payments would go to cover those securities. Pendragon Group currently hold a charge over that portion of land. The land would be sold and priority would be to discharge Pendragon's security held on that land.

- I'm not sure that the club has any preferential creditors. There doesnt appear to be any creditor relationship between the club and Brabco.

- Are there any director loans outstanding? That's typically the only unsecured creditors that we'd have as Dumbarton don't run with significant bank borrowing.

- Anything left would be paid to shareholders.

The big question is how much is all of that worth? The land at the the current ground is former industrial land that has limited value because of the associated clean up costs. It's fine for a football stadium but not great for housing. That brings the price of the land down a considerable amount. They're not going to be earning millions by sinking Dumbarton FC and selling the ground off for housing. Sinking the club and splitting the land price would obviously be an option, but it wouldn't be a desirable one for the owners as it doesnt give them the return they want. You could be looking at £500K - £700k for the portion of land with planning permission. It's perhaps a last resort for them if they can't make their money elsewhere, but its not their first choice. Their first choice remains relocating and making their money through the overall deal. I'd look at the idea of sinking the club and picking the carcass clean as a last resort, but one that they'd almost certainly consider if there was no other way out for them.

Which doesnt give the club a whole lot of protection unfortunately. It's still a route that they may eventually go down if they can't make money from their ownership of the club and nobody is able to buy it from them. The ideal scenario would be a buyout of some kind. That would probably require a Motherwell style model where an investor would fund the buyout and then accept repayment over a 10-15 year period. Perhaps even longer. You could be looking at having to fundraise £150k a year, every year for at least 15 years, to repay the takeover costs. If it came to it then it's an option, but it's not a particularly easy one to achieve. 

Very informative, thank you. My question would be, can a golden shareholder block this? My ( limited) understanding is that there is suchfor Dumbarton Fc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cremola foam said:

Very informative, thank you. My question would be, can a golden shareholder block this? My ( limited) understanding is that there is suchfor Dumbarton Fc.

A 75% majority of C share holders is needed for votes relating to either liquidation of the DFC company or sale/disposal/transfer of the heritable property. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cremola foam said:

Very informative, thank you. My question would be, can a golden shareholder block this? My ( limited) understanding is that there is suchfor Dumbarton Fc.

 

1 hour ago, George Parr said:

A 75% majority of C share holders is needed for votes relating to either liquidation of the DFC company or sale/disposal/transfer of the heritable property. 

For voluntary liquidation? Sure. There's a very strong argument that the C shares would essentially prevent the owners from pursuing voluntary liquidation.

For compulsory liquidation? Unfortunately at that point there's little anybody can do to influence things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

 

For voluntary liquidation? Sure. There's a very strong argument that the C shares would essentially prevent the owners from pursuing voluntary liquidation.

For compulsory liquidation? Unfortunately at that point there's little anybody can do to influence things.

Yes of course, agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

I’d tend to agree but I’m worried we’re lumped with Buchanan for the forseeable given he signed a two year deal. McKee is the same in that regard, although I still think he can do a job, we need the manager to get the best out of him. His set pieces for us were deadly a couple of years ago, yet we have guys like Paddy Boyle plodding up the park to take a corner. We have been really wasteful with set pieces recently as well, which is hugely frustrating.


I would put Buchanan in the same bracket as McKee, there is a good player in there, we have seen it but he isn’t performing the greatest at the moment but he still has pace and strength just makes silly mistakes.

Boyle unfortunately has lost his pace. So imo needs to go or be a substitute.

As crazy as it sounds I don’t think we are massively far off being a decent team. Some of our play before the penalty on Saturday was really good. The problem we have is people making basic mistakes and when we go a goal down the heads are gone.

FWIW the owner/board situation isn’t the greatest but this season I think the manager and players need to take responsibility on the poor form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sons Fan said:

Also just realised where’s Mark Lamont? 
 

it’s weird that we signed him last minute and I don’t think he has played on been on the bench at all. 

He played about 15 minutes as a sub at Firhill in July. But I've not even seen him around the stadium since then. A really odd one.

Looking at the squad, there's a fair amount that Faz could probably do to reshape things in January.

We don't need three goalkeepers, so Calum Erskine would probably be best moving on - on loan at least. Kirk McKnight has barely played so I'd be sending him back to Kilmarnock, Lamont, the less-spotted Kristoffer Syvertsen, Evan Maley (who hasn't played a single minute competitively) and Sam Muir could also be cut from the squad without anyone really noticing.

Assuming David Hopkirk is still deciding to take time away from football then I'd like to think an agreement could be reached to terminate his contract, taking us to a squad of 18. I also think Faz has a decision to make on big Ryan Schiavone. His deal is up in January and - although I've been quite impressed by him - he's clearly not doing enough to earn regular starts. And he's not scoring either. If he's going to be a sub for us then I'd hope Faz was looking around to see if there was an upgrade available.

Our priority areas have to be at centre-back, full-back and striker. One more attacking player (ideally an out and out striker), a right-back, left-back and centre-half would put us in a far stronger position. 

We've got plenty of options in centre-mid, we've got plenty of options wide, and we've got a decent few who can play as a forward - albeit not naturally. Tightening up the defence and adding something different going forward would make a huge difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I see is that Mark Lamont, Sam Muir, Kirk McKnight and Evan Maley all cost us basically nothing - they're all on amateur terms with the exception of Lamont, are they not? It doesn't exactly free up budget to bring in one or two with more quality, Lamont will be on peanuts if we're paying him anything at all. I like Schiavone but I don't think he's a lone striker, wouldn't mind seeing McLean played up front with him, Schiavone doing the heavy lifting and McLean playing on the last man.

Goalkeeper (preferably one that will challenge The Bum), centre half, left back and an actual striker (not a "forward" that plays anywhere in the final third) would be the top priorities for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If McGeever is going to be out much longer I’d be targetting an experienced centre back. Despite Buchanan being 31 now he clearly needs talked through games much like he did the last time he was here.

As for a striker… Is big Anton Dowds featuring regularly for Arbroath? I think someone in that mould would really suit us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

If McGeever is going to be out much longer I’d be targetting an experienced centre back. Despite Buchanan being 31 now he clearly needs talked through games much like he did the last time he was here.

As for a striker… Is big Anton Dowds featuring regularly for Arbroath? I think someone in that mould would really suit us.

Featuring and scoring recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...