I would confidently expect the new owners to honour them - will be reflected in the price they pay for the assets anyway, and commercial suicide not to.



Remember, relatively few Wakey supporters actually bought STs - that is one reason why they ran out of cash - so the exposure is not that great.

Precisely, and why would you want to p*ss off the few loyal fans the club does have immediately?

I heard all season ticket holders get their upstairs free if they buy their downstairs.

Ok, another question.

If there is a buyer ready to buy the club, why did they not buy it earlier to avoid administration? Why wait until after? Does the buyer get a better deal if the club is in administration?

because if they wait until its in administration they arent liable for the preious operating companies debts and start with a clean sheet to put it simply. adey or another of accounts types will know more detail though.

The main reason that Wakey is going into administration is that a winding up petition has been presented against them by HMRC for unpaid tax. If the company is put into administration it will automatically suspend the winding up petition.

Oh I know. But had the shoe been on the other foot, the Wakey fans would be battling it out with Keighley and 'Fax fans to have a gloat on here. I am just getting my retaliation in first.

As has been said, clean sheet. No responsibility for past liabilities (recognised or not yet recognised). Choice of which staff to take on.



What we have now is yet another in a line of SL clubs that have basically been given a massive unfair advantage compared with clubs that have run a tight ship and kept their house in order. In almost every case, the losers are us the taxpayer, big-time - and the owner if he was financing them (seemingly not in Wakey's case). It really is a scandal.



But its not the fans' fault - in each case they were or are fans, just like us. And had Caddick & co had their way with their vindictive £3m+ lawsuit, we would have been just like them. Blame then club bosses, and ultimately the general populus for not turning up at games in big enough numbers.

Why is this a bad thing? This must have been a ticking time-bomb for some time. We would all like Wakefield to be bringing in crowds of 10K every game but it doesn't look like it will ever happen. Wakefield have never been strongly supported in SL and I suspect they have always struggled to compete with other clubs regarding the salary cap. Their contribution to the competition consists of putting in the odd shock win but otherwise they have been mostly fodder for the bigger clubs.



It's sad to see a club with so much history struggle but that in itself isn't a reason for keeping them going. History is as much about change as it is about continuity. I've never understood why the likes of Wakefield and Cas (maybe Featherstone as well) can't be merged into a single franchise. At the moment they are both too small and dilute the quality of the overall competition, adding to negative perceptions of the sport outside the heartlands. It's often said that the fans wouldn't support a merged club, but with a new ground, combined resources and youth set-up they should be able to put together a much more competitive outfit. Fans will come if there's a winning team to follow, simple.

I agree with that, though legally I feel they probably have no rights. I remember working for a firm which went bust in the back in the 'wonderful' eighties. One customer bought and paid for goods which were caught up in the process and the receivers made the customer pay again before releasing the (very expensive) machinery.

Bunnies happy were they? Not!

Hope it wasn't a company I was working on the receivership of? We did that. Had to - no choice, since the customer deposit is an unsecured creditor in law, and to allow the deposit against the goods meant the Receiver was guilty either of granting a "fraudulent preference" or of disposing of assets at less than their realisable value - and for both of which he is liable. It's not the Insolvency practitioner's fault, its the insolvency legislation.



And the same would apply to season ticket holders - in law, unsecured creditors. it would be up to the buyer of the assets to decide whether to honour them. And for the IP to decide whether the reflection in the buying price for the assets as a consequence was unavoidable and that the best available net price had been achieved.

Doubt it was one of yours, Adey. The receivers were based in Manchester and were a well known company (even I'd heard of them, [ibefore [/ithe firm I worked for went bust) I knew must have acted within the law, they could hardly do otherwise, hence my thoughts on the legal position of the Wakey ticket holders. The same thoughts incidentally, which were in my ponderings on another thread, when we discussed the possible pitfalls of 25 year tickets.



The machinery in question though, was (as was virtually all of the stuff we did) a bespoke job and would have been totally useless to anyone else, and equally the customer [icould [/ihave said "sod you" and ordered the same thing from somewhere else, but then they would have had to wait months once more for the second firm to build it to their specifications. To have done so would really have been a classic 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' situation, so they paid up for the second time. Installing it was virtually the last thing I did before being shown the door!!

At the time though, I worked for what was then the largest accounting firm in the world (after a subsequent merger it is now the "C" in PwC) - and that had also taken over the country's top specialist insolvency firm. One particular trading receivership I worked on - onsite for a few weeks, at the time of the Falklands War in what was one of my first hands-on insights into running a factory - was of an engineering business that sounds very similar to the one you describe, and where we had to do exactly what you described with plant under construction. That was why I just wondered!