Akkeron Hotels Group goes into administration

spot on

.... and "at lest 11" people are made redundant.

The problem for Tudor and other public representatives who have not been exposed to the murky world of modern finance and it's ever changing Emperor's clothes is that they're stitched up before they realise it.

They're already in the headlights when confronted with the "big boys" of the private sector and always ten steps behind.

Tudor, Vivien and the rest of the local party are not good enough for a paid political career (are you listening Jameson you slimy piece of shite) and people like Brent with their shape shifting organisation of their finances are taking people like this to the cleaners.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

You boys seem far too happy that your clubs two major backers seem to be in trouble.

It seems so, Yet the ones chirpy at this are the ones who "Really care".
Their are some on here & "the farm" that are genuinely good fans trying to see what's going on at the club early enough to avoid the issues of last time, for those I hope if there are issues you find them & the club never has to go through any of the issues we experienced before. For the fans and staff.
Then there are the ones who are more interested in a petty fallout between groups of grown men & scoring points against the others. For those I hope you find something meaningful in life soon to distract you from that fascination.

it will though (the issues). it always comes full circle. thats the way of life, man

and for your second point, why do you care so much? just ignore the pettiness

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

I'm not entirely clear how all this works with multiple different companies, but is this the gist of it?

1) One particular arm of the Akkeron empire has racked up a load of debts
2) Rather than the larger company (i.e. the rest of Akkeron) paying off those debts, the company has just been stuck in administration and the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab.
3) The rest of Akkeron is free to carry on doing whatever work it pleases despite 2)
4) Akkeron could theoretically shovel PAFC into a separate company, and then send us into administration, while walking away from the debt?

While there's losses scattered in various reports, I noticed Natatomisam (the ultimate parent company) had its turnover rise from £40m or so in 2011 to over £70m in 2012. That's quite a rise. Though the 2013 figures... who knows...

Turnover and profitability is only half the story, even a very profitable business can go bust simply by running out of cash.

Often companies that go through a period of rapid expansion, can find themselves in bother unless they manage their working capital properly.

Don't know much about Brent's Empire but it does appear to have multiple projects on the go, hotel refurbs etc.

Bailed out by Wrathall who'd have thought it   

Anyone know his views on HHP? Would be nice to see Mr J Winser posting over here.

Tim Chown wrote:

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:

I'm not entirely clear how all this works with multiple different companies, but is this the gist of it?

1) One particular arm of the Akkeron empire has racked up a load of debts
2) Rather than the larger company (i.e. the rest of Akkeron) paying off those debts, the company has just been stuck in administration and the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab.
3) The rest of Akkeron is free to carry on doing whatever work it pleases despite 2)
4) Akkeron could theoretically shovel PAFC into a separate company, and then send us into administration, while walking away from the debt?

While there's losses scattered in various reports, I noticed Natatomisam (the ultimate parent company) had its turnover rise from £40m or so in 2011 to over £70m in 2012. That's quite a rise. Though the 2013 figures... who knows...

The thing is when a firm is a Ltd company you only loose what you started of with.I reckon brent is putting all his bad eggs into one basket to prevent the profitable bits from being sucked into debt. The business world of Ltd companies is a very murky dark art.