RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
22 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!
WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Latics in administration - Lenagan leading bid

DannyT wrote:
DannyT Cheeky half-back
Cheeky half-back

Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 12:10 am
Posts: 944
afootingmiracle21-12 wrote:
Are they really tho? Personally I think that’s more tichead nonsense because a lot haven’t been intelligent enough to understand the realities. Many still have delusions of grandeur that they’re a big club fallen on tough times, and capable of returning to the premier league in the not to distant future....something that’s now more a reality for Accrington Stanley or Forest Green Rovers (who could replace them in a couple of weeks)!!

Admins have also been trying to sell a club in almost impossible circumstances. The club are valueless, haemorrhaging money even now (15k per day :shock: despite rationalisation). So admins have had to leverage the value of the ground as an asset for essentially throwing your money down a bottomless pit!!
It’s a miracle they’ve sold them imo.

The added challenge is who’s interested. Mostly overseas individuals who see them as a loss making operation to use as a taxsaving vehicle on profits in their home country (like the Spanish) or worse still, a business to launder money. Those individuals don’t meet the fit and proper persons test to preserve league status, so most options have been dead ends!!

They’ve also accused them of lying because of lack of updates or limited information, without realising they have NDAs with every party dealing with them!!

Add it all together I think the admins have done a phenomenal job in keeping them in business....Macclesfield and Bury were arguably in stronger positions but went the other way. You’d expect they’d show some humility and realise that tbh


Nice opinion piece. It’s clear you detest Latics which is your prerogative of course but you won’t find this ‘tichead’ who is also a staunch rugby fan giving any praise whatsoever to the administrators for how they’ve handled things.

User avatarEgg Chasing wrote:
Egg Chasing User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:14 pm
Posts: 2890
Location: Watching Rugby League
DannyT wrote:
Nice opinion piece. It’s clear you detest Latics which is your prerogative of course but you won’t find this ‘tichead’ who is also a staunch rugby fan giving any praise whatsoever to the administrators for how they’ve handled things.


Don't think they'll get any credit from Lisa Nandy either

DannyT wrote:
DannyT Cheeky half-back
Cheeky half-back

Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 12:10 am
Posts: 944
Egg Chasing wrote:
Don't think they'll get any credit from Lisa Nandy either


The parliamentary privilege speech will be very interesting.

User avatarEgg Chasing wrote:
Egg Chasing User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:14 pm
Posts: 2890
Location: Watching Rugby League
DannyT wrote:
The parliamentary privilege speech will be very interesting.


That may have led to this interview
afootingmiracle21-12 Stevo's Armpit

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:31 pm
Posts: 63
DannyT wrote:
afootingmiracle21-12 wrote:
Are they really tho? Personally I think that’s more tichead nonsense because a lot haven’t been intelligent enough to understand the realities. Many still have delusions of grandeur that they’re a big club fallen on tough times, and capable of returning to the premier league in the not to distant future....something that’s now more a reality for Accrington Stanley or Forest Green Rovers (who could replace them in a couple of weeks)!!

Admins have also been trying to sell a club in almost impossible circumstances. The club are valueless, haemorrhaging money even now (15k per day :shock: despite rationalisation). So admins have had to leverage the value of the ground as an asset for essentially throwing your money down a bottomless pit!!
It’s a miracle they’ve sold them imo.

The added challenge is who’s interested. Mostly overseas individuals who see them as a loss making operation to use as a taxsaving vehicle on profits in their home country (like the Spanish) or worse still, a business to launder money. Those individuals don’t meet the fit and proper persons test to preserve league status, so most options have been dead ends!!

They’ve also accused them of lying because of lack of updates or limited information, without realising they have NDAs with every party dealing with them!!

Add it all together I think the admins have done a phenomenal job in keeping them in business....Macclesfield and Bury were arguably in stronger positions but went the other way. You’d expect they’d show some humility and realise that tbh


Nice opinion piece. It’s clear you detest Latics which is your prerogative of course but you won’t find this ‘tichead’ who is also a staunch rugby fan giving any praise whatsoever to the administrators for how they’ve handled things.


Don’t detest Latics at all. But I detest the huge chip on the shoulder many of their fans have.

My point was the admins had an almost impossible task, one that beat admins at bury and Macclesfield, despite Latics carrying more debt and ongoing losses than those clubs.
So I don’t really get what the criticism is about! Yes they haven’t given detailed information but that’s the nature of the beast and dealing with NDAs. Beyond that they’ve tried everything and finally found a buyer at the 11th hour.

Very difficult to sell if what you’re selling isn’t very attractive and a substantial loss making proposition. Bahranis are essentially signing themselves up for 5mil losses a year for likely league two football, just to stand still. If they’re ambitious for future promotion even more. Got to have deep pockets for that.

What have the admins done that can actually be substantiated?

User avatarEgg Chasing wrote:
Egg Chasing User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:14 pm
Posts: 2890
Location: Watching Rugby League
Latics have been ran the exact same way as we are. Accounts are totted up at the end of the season and the owner covers any gaps. If IL does what their owners did then we will be no better off and with no stadium or assets in a steuggling sport we won't be a very good sale either aside from our name so people in glass houses etc.

User avatarPieman wrote:
Pieman User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:34 pm
Posts: 4187
Location: Atherton
afootingmiracle21-12 wrote:
Are they really tho? Personally I think that’s more tichead nonsense because a lot haven’t been intelligent enough to understand the realities. Many still have delusions of grandeur that they’re a big club fallen on tough times, and capable of returning to the premier league in the not to distant future....something that’s now more a reality for Accrington Stanley or Forest Green Rovers (who could replace them in a couple of weeks)!!

Admins have also been trying to sell a club in almost impossible circumstances. The club are valueless, haemorrhaging money even now (15k per day :shock: despite rationalisation). So admins have had to leverage the value of the ground as an asset for essentially throwing your money down a bottomless pit!!
It’s a miracle they’ve sold them imo.

The added challenge is who’s interested. Mostly overseas individuals who see them as a loss making operation to use as a taxsaving vehicle on profits in their home country (like the Spanish) or worse still, a business to launder money. Those individuals don’t meet the fit and proper persons test to preserve league status, so most options have been dead ends!!

They’ve also accused them of lying because of lack of updates or limited information, without realising they have NDAs with every party dealing with them!!

Add it all together I think the admins have done a phenomenal job in keeping them in business....Macclesfield and Bury were arguably in stronger positions but went the other way. You’d expect they’d show some humility and realise that tbh


Ok ill bite, if they are legit and done the best for the club, why didnt they accept IL's bid as it was more than they sold it for? 4 months later when they have got all they can from it have they sold it for less than the bids that were tabled in Dec/Jan?
afootingmiracle21-12 Stevo's Armpit

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:31 pm
Posts: 63
Egg Chasing wrote:
Latics have been ran the exact same way as we are. Accounts are totted up at the end of the season and the owner covers any gaps. If IL does what their owners did then we will be no better off and with no stadium or assets in a steuggling sport we won't be a very good sale either aside from our name so people in glass houses etc.

Very different context tho. IL generally covers operating losses (if there are any) of a couple of hundred thousand a season. Latics are still haemorrhaging money at a rate of 15k per week, 5mil per season, down from over a million a month.
Two very different situations. We are largely financially stable.
afootingmiracle21-12 Stevo's Armpit

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:31 pm
Posts: 63
Pieman wrote:
Ok ill bite, if they are legit and done the best for the club, why didnt they accept IL's bid as it was more than they sold it for? 4 months later when they have got all they can from it have they sold it for less than the bids that were tabled in Dec/Jan?

That’s exactly my point! IL bid was just for the ground. He was initially interested in Latics and a ‘sporting partnership’ but I expect saw what a bottomless pit of money they were and how they’d be a huge risk to him and WRL and balked.
The admins were only willing to do a deal on the stadium if the purchaser took on the burden of the football club and their 4-5mil per year running losses, hence leneghan couldn’t continue as there were no willing parties to take that risk.

Had the admins been willing to sell the ground alone they’d have got more than 2.3mil for it. The fact they didn’t shows they went far beyond the call of duty trying to save the football club for the community. If I were a creditor I’d be royally peeved at getting 25p on the pound as it’s obvious if they’d have liquidated the returns would have been better.

User avatarPieman wrote:
Pieman User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:34 pm
Posts: 4187
Location: Atherton
afootingmiracle21-12 wrote:
That’s exactly my point! IL bid was just for the ground. He was initially interested in Latics and a ‘sporting partnership’ but I expect saw what a bottomless pit of money they were and how they’d be a huge risk to him and WRL and balked.
The admins were only willing to do a deal on the stadium if the purchaser took on the burden of the football club and their 4-5mil per year running losses, hence leneghan couldn’t continue as there were no willing parties to take that risk.

Had the admins been willing to sell the ground alone they’d have got more than 2.3mil for it. The fact they didn’t shows they went far beyond the call of duty trying to save the football club for the community. If I were a creditor I’d be royally peeved at getting 25p on the pound as it’s obvious if they’d have liquidated the returns would have been better.


he also had a buyer for the club and not ground with him so was the whole package, bear in mind were they not selling the club for £1, the stadium losses werent far away from the footballs losses and will be more as it needs 5-10 million spending on it, so IL's bid was for both in reality and for more money....so why again did they not accept it?
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Wandering Wiganer and 93 guests

Quick Reply



Subject:
Message:

   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.

Return to Wigan Warriors


POSTSONLINEMEMBERSRECORDTEAM
5,186,97572378,6789,567LOGIN
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
YOU HAVE RL CHAT OFF
RLFANS Match Centre
Sun 1st Aug
NRL RND: 20 St.George14-50Souths
NRL RND: 20 Newcastle34-24Canberra
NRL RND: 20 Melbourne37-10Penrith
CH RND: 15 Dewsbury18-22Swinton
CH RND: 15 Featherstone6-23Toulouse
CH RND: 15 Halifax24-21Bradford
CH RND: 15 Newcastle14-20Whitehaven
CH RND: 15 Oldham20-30LondonB
CH RND: 15 Widnes16-34Batley
L1 RND: 12 Doncaster24-46Hunslet
L1 RND: 12 Crusaders72-4West Wales
L1 RND: 12 Rochdale20-42Keighley
SL RND: 17 Wigan50-6Leigh
SL RND: 17 Leeds26-27Warrington
Sat 31st Jul
L1 RND: 12 LondonS12-14Coventry
Fri 30th Jul
NRL RND: 20 Wests16-18NZ Warriors
NRL RND: 20 Brisbane37-18NQL Cowboys
Thu 29th Jul
NRL RND: 20 Sydney28-0Parramatta
SLRND: 16 Catalans40-20Wakefield
SL RND: 16 Hull FC12-22Leeds
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
National Rugby League 2021 ROUND : 20
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Melbourne 19 689 224 465 34
Penrith 19 521 228 293 32
Souths 19 613 382 231 32
Parramatta 19 484 295 189 26
Sydney 19 509 343 166 26
Manly 18 529 378 151 22
Cronulla 18 370 418 -48 16
Canberra 19 383 465 -82 16
 
St.George 19 382 464 -82 16
Newcastle 19 325 472 -147 16
Gold Coast 18 426 478 -52 14
NZ Warriors 19 373 502 -129 12
Wests 19 412 564 -152 12
NQL Cowboys 19 358 584 -226 12
Brisbane 19 331 578 -247 10
Canterbury 18 236 566 -330 4
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Super League XXVI ROUND : 17
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Catalans 15 459 246 213 28 186.59 93.33
St.Helens 12 286 96 190 20 297.92 83.33
Warrington 15 456 247 209 23 184.62 76.67
Wigan 17 305 295 10 22 103.39 64.71
Hull FC 13 298 237 61 15 125.74 57.69
Hull KR 11 271 244 27 12 111.07 54.55
 
Leeds 16 380 290 90 16 131.03 50
Castleford 14 251 354 -103 12 70.90 42.86
Salford 14 237 405 -168 8 58.52 28.57
Huddersfield 15 244 318 -74 8 76.73 26.67
Wakefield 16 279 394 -115 8 70.81 25
Leigh 14 218 558 -340 0 39.07 0
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Championship 2021 ROUND : 16
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Toulouse 10 456 94 362 20 485.11 100
Featherstone 14 579 189 390 26 306.35 92.86
Halifax 15 422 220 202 22 191.82 73.33
LondonB 14 404 357 47 19 113.17 67.86
Batley 15 404 302 102 20 133.77 66.67
Bradford 14 375 339 36 18 110.62 64.29
 
Whitehaven 15 297 410 -113 13 72.44 43.33
Widnes 14 323 378 -55 11 85.45 39.29
Sheffield 14 313 413 -100 11 75.79 39.29
Newcastle 14 298 420 -122 11 70.95 39.29
York 14 345 327 18 10 105.50 35.71
Dewsbury 14 215 401 -186 9 53.62 32.14
Oldham 14 210 500 -290 4 42 14.29
Swinton 15 256 547 -291 2 46.80 6.67
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred League One 2021 ROUND : 13
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Barrow 11 382 162 220 19 235.80 86.36
Workington 9 334 158 176 15 211.39 83.33
Doncaster 11 348 251 97 15 138.65 68.18
Crusaders 11 350 322 28 12 108.70 54.55
Keighley 12 410 279 131 13 146.95 54.17
Hunslet 12 334 301 33 11 110.96 45.83
 
Coventry 11 258 264 -6 10 97.73 45.45
Rochdale 11 299 322 -23 10 92.86 45.45
LondonS 12 192 350 -158 7 54.86 29.17
West Wales 12 126 586 -460 0 21.50 0
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Womens Super League 2021 ROUND : 9
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
LeedsW 7 364 38 326 14 957.89 100
St.HelensW 7 370 36 334 12 1,027.78 85.71
WiganW 6 222 64 158 10 346.88 83.33
YorkW 6 186 102 84 8 182.35 66.67
CastlefordW 6 166 96 70 8 172.92 66.67
BradfordW 8 158 264 -106 6 59.85 37.50
 
Hudds W 7 104 288 -184 4 36.11 28.57
Wire W 8 150 334 -184 4 44.91 25
FeatherstoneW 8 122 338 -216 4 36.09 25
WakefieldW 7 50 332 -282 0 15.06 0
RLFANS Recent Posts




X