Bedlington hit with winding up petition

quakersam · Post by **quakersam** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:46 pm

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/ ... n+terriers

All the best to them

spen666 · Post by **spen666** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:34 pm

notice that the company's registered office is the same as the football club's.

something strange going on I suspect

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:45 pm

Why is that strange?

mobi · Post by **mobi** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:52 pm

That's the address of the club secretary.

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:54 pm

I am used to seeing CVLs but that is usually with the view to starting a phoenix, it is often the company directors who will petition for the winding up. The fact that no IP is mentioned suggests to me the current owners just want their hands clean of it and will happily let any receivers take it from the courts. Do Bedlington own their ground?

SyMpOsIuM · Post by **SyMpOsIuM** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:57 pm

The ground is leased from the council.

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:03 pm

So no assets at all then?

princes town · Post by **princes town** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:11 pm

What happened to the American fella?

Quakerz · Post by **Quakerz** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:19 pm

Apparently the company putting the winding up order on Bedlington share the same registered address? Eh?

divas · Post by **divas** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:32 pm

Quakerz wrote:Apparently the company putting the winding up order on Bedlington share the same registered address? Eh?

Address could be that of an accountant etc - our registered address is similar - Clive Owen accountants on Coniscliffe Rd - perfectly acceptad to have a company or number of companies registered at the same address and an address they've never occupied.

Here you go - a number of companies registered at the Frances Ville address

http://www.companieslist.co.uk/chopping ... -5/?sort=o

And the address is the premises if the account Stewart Grimes who as mobi points out is also secretary of Bedlington.

Trike1 · Post by **Trike1** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:56 am

all the best to em

if this is successful then league will fall back to 22 with one promoted if they relegate none to our league.......we have to win it

fozzovmurton · Post by **fozzovmurton** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:36 am

Trike1 wrote:all the best to em

if this is successful then league will fall back to 22 with one promoted if they relegate none to our league.......we have to win it

That was always the case

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2

poppyfield · Post by **poppyfield** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:47 am

Was this a case of the sugar daddy pulling the plug? If so how many others in this league are in the same boat? I am really glad we moved away from all that.

Quakerz · Post by **Quakerz** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:06 pm

I'm not sure that they have a sugar daddy, it's a bit mysterious how they can spend as much as they obviously have on players. Some have said they have some good sponsors, others have said they've been spending money that they don't have, it'll all come out in the end.

I'm glad too that we've moved away from the sugar daddy thing.

I'm also glad that we've moved away from incompetent boards spending money that we don't have, leaving us potless 2/3rds of the way through the season also...

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:40 pm

Trike1 wrote:f this is successful then league will fall back to 22 with one promoted if they relegate none to our league.......we have to win it

Wouldn't a team due to be relegated by reprieved? That is the standard process and I imagine those at the bottom of Division 1 would be rightly annoyed if this precendent were not followed?

shawry · Post by **shawry** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:00 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Trike1 wrote:f this is successful then league will fall back to 22 with one promoted if they relegate none to our league.......we have to win it
Wouldn't a team due to be relegated by reprieved? That is the standard process and I imagine those at the bottom of Division 1 would be rightly annoyed if this precendent were not followed?

Im assuming if there is a requirement to reduce the number of teams, then they wouldn't reprieve a team, teams are only reprieved to maintain the quota of teams in the division.

Darlo-Richie · Post by **Darlo-Richie** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:28 pm

According to Bedlington's chairman, the creditor is trying winding the club up to get his hands on the score board, even though it isn't owned by the club!

olrad · Post by **olrad** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:41 pm

Q are we 2/3 through already ? i'm also glad we are now free from uber critical, dont get off their arse , so called fans who slate those who have contributed massively in time and effort, so we have a team to support. care to elaborate on the incompentancies that you refer to . we aint cash rich but i'm sure we'll get through.

princes town · Post by **princes town** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:57 pm

olrad wrote:Q are we 2/3 through already ? i'm also glad we are now free from uber critical, dont get off their arse , so called fans who slate those who have contributed massively in time and effort, so we have a team to support. care to elaborate on the incompentancies that you refer to . we aint cash rich but i'm sure we'll get through.

Q is referring to previous administrations surely. I've never seen him raise a negative comment about the present board. If not disappointing.

Fibonacci0112358 · Post by **Fibonacci0112358** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:00 pm

princes town wrote:
Q is referring to previous administrations surely.

That's how I read it.

Quakerz · Post by **Quakerz** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:12 pm

olrad wrote:Q are we 2/3 through already ? i'm also glad we are now free from uber critical, dont get off their arse , so called fans who slate those who have contributed massively in time and effort, so we have a team to support. care to elaborate on the incompentancies that you refer to . we aint cash rich but i'm sure we'll get through.

I said I'm glad we've moved away from that.

Fatty eats roadkill · Post by **Fatty eats roadkill** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:27 pm

Do they have anyone good we can nick?

poppyfield · Post by **poppyfield** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:36 pm

Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Do they have anyone good we can nick?

Sounds a bit like the vultures are getting ready, but,
Paul Brayson has got 19 league goals so far this season.

quakersam · Post by **quakersam** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:40 pm

Already tried to get Brayson and Baxter, couldn't afford them

lo36789 · Post by **lo36789** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:39 pm

Couldn't afford then when? When they were offered a mint by Bedlington maybe if we become the best offer on the table it will be a different story!

quakersam · Post by **quakersam** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:59 pm

We enquired about them recently

princes town · Post by **princes town** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:07 am

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east ... -32806505/

latest press article on bedlington terriers.

LoidPhil · Post by **LoidPhil** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:28 pm

Bumping this because a topic on NLZ states that Bedlington are in court tomorrow to face their winding up petition. If the worst happens and they are wound up tomorrow then all of their fixtures could be declared null and void. We bagged maximum points from them but guess who they managed to hold to a 0-0 draw back in January!!

Purely selfish reasons aside, let's hope they pull through for the fans sake and for the sake of a Northern League stalwart.

Post by **loan_star** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:32 pm

I would guess it would be adjourned, rarely sorted on the same day these things.

SyMpOsIuM · Post by **SyMpOsIuM** » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:35 pm

Its already been adjourned to this point. I understand this date to return to court has been known by the club for quite some time however have decided to keep it away from the fans and public until it appeared in todays local paper.

Darlo Uncovered

Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition

Re: Bedlington hit with winding up petition