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 Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 12:10 am
Posts: 1022
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: 2973
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 Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 12:10 am
Posts: 1022
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: 2973
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: 69
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: 2973
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: 4242
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: 69
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: 69
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: 4242
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: Bad Leg Strikes, exiled Warrior, Grimmy, Irregs#16, LewCharnock, Leyland Warrior, MattyB, NickyKiss, Phuzzy, Pieman, sergeant pepper, Trainman, Wigg'n and 296 guests

Quick Reply



Subject:
Message:

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

Return to Wigan Warriors


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 12th Sep
SLRND: 24 Leigh26-18Wakefield
NRL RND: 26 Parramatta28-20Newcastle
CH RND: 21 Batley24-31Dewsbury
CH RND: 21 LondonB28-48Featherstone
CH RND: 21 Oldham24-38Newcastle
CH RND: 21 Whitehaven19-6Halifax
CH RND: 21 Widnes10-9Bradford
CH RND: 21 Sheffield28-34Swinton
L1 RND: 21 Workington14-32Hunslet
L1 RND: 21 Doncaster26-28Keighley
L1 RND: 21 Rochdale50-22Coventry
WSL RND: 15 CastlefordW6-50St.HelensW
WSL RND: 15 Wire W18-34FeatherstoneW
WSL RND: 15 LeedsW28-10WiganW
Sat 11th Sep
SL RND: 24 Hull FC0-10Wigan
SL RND: 24 Warrington20-19Salford
SL RND: 24 Catalans18-30Huddersfield
SL RND: 24 Hull KR26-19Castleford
NRL
LIVE
Sydney25-24Gold Coast
NRL
LIVE
Penrith10-16Souths
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
National Rugby League 2021 ROUND : 25
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Melbourne 24 815 316 499 42
Penrith 24 640 280 360 42
Souths 24 775 453 322 40
Manly 24 744 492 252 32
Sydney 24 636 475 161 32
Parramatta 24 566 457 109 30
Newcastle 24 428 571 -143 24
Gold Coast 24 568 553 15 20
 
Cronulla 24 512 556 -44 20
Canberra 24 481 578 -97 20
St.George 24 474 616 -142 16
NZ Warriors 24 453 624 -171 16
Wests 24 500 714 -214 16
Brisbane 24 446 695 -249 14
NQL Cowboys 24 460 748 -288 14
Canterbury 24 340 710 -370 6
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Super League XXVI ROUND : 24
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Catalans 22 680 386 294 38 176.17 86.36
St.Helens 20 534 203 331 32 263.05 80
Warrington 20 548 330 218 29 166.06 72.50
Wigan 24 375 377 -2 28 99.47 58.33
Hull KR 19 485 422 63 20 114.93 52.63
Leeds 23 520 428 92 24 121.50 52.17
 
Castleford 22 415 512 -97 22 81.05 50
Hull FC 20 397 432 -35 17 91.90 42.50
Huddersfield 23 418 492 -74 16 84.96 34.78
Wakefield 23 438 536 -98 16 81.72 34.78
Salford 21 376 572 -196 12 65.73 28.57
Leigh 21 332 828 -496 4 40.10 9.52
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Championship 2021 ROUND : 20
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Toulouse 13 616 112 504 26 550 100
Featherstone 19 817 254 563 34 321.65 94.74
Halifax 19 512 323 189 26 158.51 68.42
Bradford 18 483 455 28 24 106.15 66.67
LondonB 18 504 499 5 21 101 63.89
Batley 19 525 370 155 24 141.89 63.16
 
Whitehaven 20 447 496 -49 21 90.12 52.50
York 19 470 455 15 16 103.30 42.11
Widnes 19 458 509 -51 15 89.98 39.47
Newcastle 18 381 521 -140 13 73.13 36.11
Sheffield 18 382 553 -171 13 69.08 36.11
Dewsbury 19 308 570 -262 13 54.04 34.21
Oldham 19 270 691 -421 5 39.07 13.16
Swinton 20 354 719 -365 3 49.24 7.50
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred League One 2021 ROUND : 22
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
Barrow 17 596 275 321 27 216.73 79.41
Workington 15 471 310 161 21 151.94 70
Crusaders 17 539 410 129 22 131.46 64.71
Doncaster 17 472 390 82 22 121.03 64.71
Keighley 18 612 385 227 23 158.96 63.89
Hunslet 18 562 435 127 20 129.20 55.56
 
Rochdale 17 505 488 17 17 103.48 50
Coventry 17 407 460 -53 12 88.48 35.29
LondonS 18 292 577 -285 7 50.61 19.44
West Wales 18 208 896 -688 1 23.21 2.78
This is an inplay table and positions can change as matches are in play.
Betfred Womens Super League 2021 ROUND : 9
 PLDFADIFFPTSDIFFWP%
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
LeedsW 7 364 38 326 14 957.89 100
WakefieldW 7 50 332 -282 0 15.06 0
RLFANS Recent Posts




X
::::::::