Remove this Banner Ad

News BLK placed under external administration

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

General Giant said:
But i dont wanna be a 4xl [emoji26]

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I recommend you go to Ed Harry and prep yourself. I went in there the other day to discover I'm a XXL in their sizing.
 
_MKMatty said:
I recommend you go to Ed Harry and prep yourself. I went in there the other day to discover I'm a XXL in their sizing.
Click to expand...
Is that like Jenny Craig?

Don't know if you're being a savage or helpful...
 
Greater Gattsby said:
Is that like Jenny Craig?

Don't know if you're being a savage or helpful...
Click to expand...
It's a men's clothing shop that seems to sell exclusively in slim fit for shirts. There, explained the (shit) joke for you ;)
 
Hank93 said:
This is brutal in its assessment

Cooked

https://www.ppbadvisory.com/uploads/i470-7-December-2016-Administrators-Report-to-Creditors.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting find, had a good read of it, some of the things I took away from it; (Apologies for a long winded Finance w***er sounding response)

In reading that report, it essentially confirms that no AFL club or any other sporting club will receive any recoup in funds owed to them, being trade creditors. The only people that will receive any money back will be Westpac being the financier and presumably holding General Security Agreements over the business and or director's it appears there was no property encumbered to Westpac according to that report.

Looking at what's owed, it is in excess of $20m, doesn't look like BLK own all of their the factories/warehouses/offices (Property Plant and Equipment only listed at $1.3m on the balance sheet) they operate out of I find it unlikely that anyone outside of Westpac will receive a cent, unless there is a specific clause written into the director's loan to BLK.

Here are the top 10 unsecured creditors, Adelaide likely to be worse off for all of this.

Screen Shot 2017-01-04 at 7.46.22 pm.png

Find it interesting a company turning over ~$30m didn't get their financials audited either, financials show strong Gross Profit Margin, but their expenses grew out of control over time, that and increasing stock from $8m to $18m shows overproduction on a massive scale with no way to sell obsolete stock.
Recording "Sponsorship Rights" on the balance sheet seems very unusual to me, let a lone a professional accountancy firm. That is made mention of in the report, not sure how they expected to derive value to be realised from having sponsorship rights.

FY15 seems to have been the year that "Broke the Camels back" They ran out of cash, stock close to doubled in 12 months and expenses grew massively. The PnL and Balance sheet have all the Characteristics of a business who has over estimated their ability to scale during expansion, they went way too hard way too quickly and paid the ultimate price. Can't see very much good news coming out of this from here on out.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

An excellent review by Noctorniquet
Here's an interesting highlight that caught my eye:
The cost of goods sold for the business has been steadily increasing, despite the decline in sales beginning in FY16. This appears to be at least partially attributable to the focus management has placed on pursuing professional sponsorships, which require the business to provide sportswear to major sporting teams free of charge.
So going out and sponsoring as many teams as possible did not get them more sales, it got them less.
Maybe their stuff was inferior quality and AFL supporters will not buy crap...

The only winner out of this will of course be PPB Advisory, who stand to make between 50 and 100k on the whole administration thing.

 
Noctorniquet said:
Interesting find, had a good read of it, some of the things I took away from it; (Apologies for a long winded Finance ****** sounding response)

In reading that report, it essentially confirms that no AFL club or any other sporting club will receive any recoup in funds owed to them, being trade creditors. The only people that will receive any money back will be Westpac being the financier and presumably holding General Security Agreements over the business and or director's it appears there was no property encumbered to Westpac according to that report.

Looking at what's owed, it is in excess of $20m, doesn't look like BLK own all of their the factories/warehouses/offices (Property Plant and Equipment only listed at $1.3m on the balance sheet) they operate out of I find it unlikely that anyone outside of Westpac will receive a cent, unless there is a specific clause written into the director's loan to BLK.

Here are the top 10 unsecured creditors, Adelaide likely to be worse off for all of this.

View attachment 324655

Find it interesting a company turning over ~$30m didn't get their financials audited either, financials show strong Gross Profit Margin, but their expenses grew out of control over time, that and increasing stock from $8m to $18m shows overproduction on a massive scale with no way to sell obsolete stock.
Recording "Sponsorship Rights" on the balance sheet seems very unusual to me, let a lone a professional accountancy firm. That is made mention of in the report, not sure how they expected to derive value to be realised from having sponsorship rights.

FY15 seems to have been the year that "Broke the Camels back" They ran out of cash, stock close to doubled in 12 months and expenses grew massively. The PnL and Balance sheet have all the Characteristics of a business who has over estimated their ability to scale during expansion, they went way too hard way too quickly and paid the ultimate price. Can't see very much good news coming out of this from here on out.
Click to expand...
Had a quick flick through, what caught my eye was sec. 2.7 and the view that they may have traded while insolvent. Looking back on my limited (extremely limited!) knowledge of the relevant sections of the corp. act that relate to insolvency, doesn't this open up the directors become possibly liable for some of the company's debts??

I also never knew that BLK stood for - Beyond Limits Known
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

makri said:
Had a quick flick through, what caught my eye was sec. 2.7 and the view that they may have traded while insolvent. Looking back on my limited (extremely limited!) knowledge of the relevant sections of the corp. act that relate to insolvency, doesn't this open up the directors become possibly liable for some of the company's debts??

I also never knew that BLK stood for - Beyond Limits Known
Click to expand...

Agree whole heartedly on your point, although typically business owners (*take with a grain of salt) will always believe that will trade through the tough times. I have no doubt the directors thought the expansion in sponsorships would lead to a proportionate increase in revenue and also profit. I think they under estimated the scalability of the operations to achieve the bottom line profit.

As a disclaimer it's very easy to say all of this in hindsight and with historical financials, but from my dealings with business owners on a small and large scale, they typically don't realise the s**t they are in until it is coming down on their heads. That is hard to prove in court also, I doubt they intentionally "traded whilst insolvent" they would admit times may have been tough but backed their management of the company to get them through and turn around results. I would suggest that the CFO and or Finance team may have had a better insight to the actual well being of the company.

Again time will tell on the above point. In relation to the Director's being liable, depending on the guarantee's or other that Westpac had imposed on them, they may be liable for nothing if their asset's are in a trust and or spouse's name? It can be a massive kettle of fish, this sort of litigation against Director's as no doubt they will test the legality of any contract they have signed if it gets that far.

There are many many layers to this, and I can see one result, this will be a fairly drawn out process to test the voracity of bank contracts and creditor contracts, and only Westpac of those creditors (being secured) will receive compensation along with the insolvency firm for their "services". After that is determined the Director's may be personally liable (assumedly for limits the bank imposed on BLK, based on their shareholding/unit holding) and even then, that will be limited to assets owned in their personal name if that is indeed who were signatories for the debt.

But without all of the relevant information, much of what I have said is presumptuous and may be proven otherwise.
 
Is this a parting shot at BLK from the Saints? :D

170106-summer.jpg
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News BLK placed under external administration

Similar threads

cannavo
  • Poll
Poll "What If" Wednesdays - Time Traveller Sneezes Edition: Week 50 - Gold Coast fold, new North Queensland team take their place - 2030
Replies
2
Views
682
DAT8
DAT8
cannavo
Competition "What If" Wednesdays - Time Traveller Sneezes Edition: Week 50 - Gold Coast fold, new North Queensland team take their place - 2030
Replies
9
Views
881
BigChippa52
BigChippa52

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top