Jump to content

Trouble at Birmingham City?


eddie

Recommended Posts

Posted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-31504347

 

Birmingham City FC's owners 'in receivership'
_81057355_birminghamcityThe club's parent company says it has appointed receivers

The owners of Birmingham City Football Club have said they have "no other option" than to go into receivership.

The Championship club's parent company Birmingham International Holdings Limited (BIHL), blamed "fractious and inharmonious relations within the management" for the decision.

BIHL said it had appointed three receivers from Ernst and Young.

The club said it wished to reassure supporters "most emphatically" that no winding-up petition had been filed.

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

Coventry, Portsmouth and Southampton were all deducted points when their holding companies went into administration - but the Birmingham case looks a little different as they are apparently solvent. It seems like a device to get rid of Yueng rather than a lack of cash.

Posted

The sooner Carlton Yeung is totally divorced from Birmingham City in particular, and English football in general, the better.

No blame is attached to the club who have done remarkably well under Gary R..

Leave Blues' points alone (they'll finish below us anyway).

Posted

Maybe explains why they turned down the cash from Bournemouth.

Posted

This is receivership - only administration carries the 10pt penalty.

Not so - any insolvency 'event' carries a ten point penalty.

 

The argument is whether or not the club is affected by its parent company's actions. In all previous cases the clubs involved have followed the holding companies into administration. This case is different as everyone is claiming that there is sufficient money around to keep paying the bills. Consequently no creditors are likely to force administration on the club - assuming that they're telling the truth.

 

There is also a bit of trouble brewing as to whether or not the directors of BIHL actually had the authority to call in the receivers against the wishes of the majority shareholders. This one is going to get messy.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...