League 2 finances

[Posh]

Just checked credit ratings of League 2 clubs and there a lot in an awful mess besides us. Many are just crawling from one month to the next.

Anything over 50 is decent. 30-50 isn't great. Under 30 is worrying. Less than 20 and the recommendation is do 'cash transactions only' and is close to going under. Obviously the credit agencies only look at the fundamentals. So Accy's rating is based on past performance and last accounts.

Notts County 0 - winding up order
Crawley Town 0 - winding up order
Mansfield Town 3
Accrington Stanley 5
Newport County 10
Hartlepool 10
Grimsby Town 13
Stevenage 13
Plymouth Argyle 14
Morecambe 19
Leyton Orient 22
Luton Town 24
Carlisle United 42
Cheltenham 43
Wycombe Wanderers 44
Doncaster Rovers 50
Yeovil 59
Crewe Alexandra 60
Cambridge United 64
Exeter City 66
Barnet 69
Portsmouth 75
Blackpool 91

[John L]

Winding up order for us as well if you believe what you read in the Mirror.

[Posh]

Winding up order for us as well if you believe what you read in the Mirror.

No winding up order for us currently. It gets updated automatically to my credit referencing company. Nothing on London Gazette either.

[John L]

Winding up order for us as well if you believe what you read in the Mirror.

No winding up order for us currently. It gets updated automatically to my credit referencing company. Nothing on London Gazette either.

That's reassuring. I couldn't make sense of what was on the LG site myself.

[marky No.1]

19 today, I can imagine us losing a couple a week in the direction we are heading

[Seasider9601]

Big club like Plymouth on 14....

[halfwayprawn]

All the tax is paid upto date,allegedly.

[black morse]

[quote="halfwayprawn"]All tax is paid upto date[/quote

Is that the clubs or yours?

[halfwayprawn]

Not mine

[Duffman]

Notts County have this morning reached an agreement with a local businessman to takeover the club. Great news for them to get themselves sorted before the transfer window.

[Seasider9601]

Notts County have this morning reached an agreement with a local businessman to takeover the club. Great news for them to get themselves sorted before the transfer window.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38363114

[marky No.1]

Difference here is you can instantly see what their new owner is about... I bet his office will be rather nice..
Their asking price had gone down from £10M to £5M and it's safe to say this guy has got it cheaper with HMRC knocking on their door today

http://m.nottinghampost.com/meet-alan-h ... story.html

[Christies Child]

Difference here is you can instantly see what their new owner is about... I bet his office will be rather nice..
Their asking price had gone down from £10M to £5M and it's safe to say this guy has got it cheaper with HMRC knocking on their door today

http://m.nottinghampost.com/meet-alan-h ... story.html

My 'early' New Year's wish is for a similar settlement for OUR great club. Unfortunately there are few local business people who have an interest in OUR club with that kind of money to buy MORECAMBE FC.

Assuming that PMcG is still the owner by default then he must surely have to vastly reduce his asking price if he is desperate to get rid or be responsible for all the excellent work and ambition he has had for OUR club go to waste by seeing the demise as we know it of MFC.....

[John L]

So, you don't think he's in any way responsible for the current mess, CC?

[Christies Child]

So, you don't think he's in any way responsible for the current mess, CC?

It's all too easy to play the blame game when nobody on here knows the workings of any deal. I'd like to think that PMcG entered into the deal believing that the buyer(S) offered the best option for the club of those deals that had been on the table....of which there were options

If people choose to think otherwise then that is their choice to do so. For myself I've made it perfectly clear on numerous posts my thoughts.

[morecambegeek]

Aside from the post where you libelled the chairman.

[John L]

So, you don't think he's in any way responsible for the current mess, CC?

It's all too easy to play the blame game when nobody on here knows the workings of any deal. I'd like to think that PMcG entered into the deal believing that the buyer(S) offered the best option for the club of those deals that had been on the table....of which there were options

If people choose to think otherwise then that is their choice to do so. For myself I've made it perfectly clear on numerous posts my thoughts.

It's also too easy to blame the new chairman without the relevant facts being known too...

[Phil Anderer]

Let's assess the FACTS:

F**k All Clear To See!

We have no facts, but we all seem to think something is not right, and the silence from the new owner/chairman isn't helping matters. As I see it, there are 4 options, all of which for the record are supposition and possibility, and not one of which is intended by me to be read as a fact (hope that's OK Keith ):

1. PMG didn't provide full disclosure to Diego Lemos, and he has subsequently found things not as he expected, and is now either fire-fighting or seeking to get out;
2. Diego Lemos wasn't totally up front with PMG, otherwise PMG wouldn't have agreed to sell, and now we are reaping the rewards of that deceit;
3. Neither was fully open with the other, and now there are machinations behind closed doors trying to sort out some sort of compromise/walk-away deal;
4. Everyone was totally up front, and there genuinely have been some honest teething problems which are now sorted, or just about, and we will see the results of that in the New Year.

I know which I'd like to be true, I'm not entirely sure what I think is true, but I've no intention of throwing accusations around which might land me in court, when I have absolutely no facts to go on.

[marky No.1]

Maybe Phil, but Keith may well be busy deleting a few variations of choices 1, 2 and 3 in the very near future

[KenH]

Given so many clubs are in some kind of financial difficulty, surely the FA need to be more supportive and spread the riches of the higher league clubs more evenly down into lower leagues?

[Shrimpy]

Given so many clubs are in some kind of financial difficulty, surely the FA need to be more supportive and spread the riches of the higher league clubs more evenly down into lower leagues?

Why is it the FA's responsibility?

The only reason clubs struggle financially is because they spend more money than they have. That's on the clubs, not the FA.

[George Dawes]

Given so many clubs are in some kind of financial difficulty, surely the FA need to be more supportive and spread the riches of the higher league clubs more evenly down into lower leagues?

Why is it the FA's responsibility?

The only reason clubs struggle financially is because they spend more money than they have. That's on the clubs, not the FA.

or lose customers because there Unhappy.

[BoroRedShrimp]

Given so many clubs are in some kind of financial difficulty, surely the FA need to be more supportive and spread the riches of the higher league clubs more evenly down into lower leagues?

Why is it the FA's responsibility?

The only reason clubs struggle financially is because they spend more money than they have. That's on the clubs, not the FA.

or lose customers because there Unhappy.

If also Sky sports had not scrapped live league one & two matches years back then maybe clubs like us wouldn't be in this financial mess. They only show the lower league clubs when the premiership & championship is on international duty. Some of it is our own doing but things like this don't help either for all the smaller clubs.

[Phil Anderer]

Maybe Phil, but Keith may well be busy deleting a few variations of choices 1, 2 and 3 in the very near future

I very clearly stated: 'all of which for the record are supposition and possibility, and not one of which is intended by me to be read as a fact'. I perhaps should also have said they should not be read as an accusation, but I would hope that is clear anyway. In fact, I have also stated among the options that both parties may be entirely innocent, which I hope is also clear is my preferred option. I have expressly not said 'X' has done 'Y' to 'Z', where X=one party to the deal, Z=the other party, and Y=a dishonest action in the deal, therefore for those who like their simultaneous equations:

X + Y =
Y + Z =
X + Z =