CONGRATS TO BEGBIES for winning the "we can take on loads of administrations" prize.

Stats compiled by Geoff Swire reveal that Begbies took on 243 appointments in 2011, a cool 76 ahead of second-placed KPMG.

Of course in isolation, with neither last year's figures at hand - or the value of the work - there isn't a huge amount that can be extrapolated from the appointments data. For example, the stats don't represent that Begbies has had a tough couple of years.

But it's interesting to note that KPMG are way clear of the other Big Four firms (Deloitte 86; E&Y 73; and PwC 56).

PwC makes up for lack of quantity with quality - a certain collapsed investment bank is keeping them occupied.

Deloitte and E&Y have also had some big wins in 2011, namely Barratts and Focus respectively.

So with KPMG also undertaking some mega-jobs, how have they kept up the numbers?

The answer would seem to come from their extensive office network - wider than the other big firms. This enables them to pick up smaller regional appointments.

Good for KPMG, not so good for smaller regionals coming up against a Big Four firm. No doubt the smaller guys would look at price as a key differentiator...

SOMETHING 'IRREGULAR' has happened at Bridge Business Recovery - that much is abundantly clear from its administrators' statement.

The seven-partner firm (eight before co-founder James Bradney recently left) was ticking along quite nicely before the roof caved in.

As I'm not planning on getting sued, it's therefore difficult to run through all the various rumours and hearsay around its collapse into administration.

But some issues can be aired.

Why did the courts reportedly decide that a pre-pack was not appropriate for Bridge? It certainly fitted the classic criteria for a pre-pack: A people business where any value would disappear if allowed to drag on through insolvency; insolvency professionals from KPMG reportedly backed the plan; as did the major creditor -believed to be HMRC. Answers on a postcard please.

As for the running of Bridge, there's not much detail that we can go into. Suffice to say, its controls and corporate governance must be called into question.

Whether a business' problems are cultural and endemic or very narrowly-focused, it seems that in the case of Bridge the seasoned business advisors were too busy helping others to kick their own tyres.

And that's a great shame for an exciting business - and a salutary warning to other new and fast-growing firms.