UCF2008

Probably also depends on how much the Green consortium fancy their chances of getting over the remaining hurdles with the SPL, SFA...not to mention UEFA considering their stance on football debts. We've got to remember that none of those can be taken lightly and you can pretty much guarantee that they'll be keeping a keen eye on the BDO investigation for any other 'crimes' we can be punished for. Then you've got the situation with the players which could see a significant quantity of the clubs assets lost in the blink of an eye for next to nothing. Get through that lot unscathed and the club could be worth a fair bit of money. At the moment though, all our new owners have to show for their efforts that's set in stone is some property assets of debatable value and a major headache.

It would appear that D&P have rushed through the Newco sale to the Green consortium before BDO could have their say on the matter. Unless that can somehow be reversed by the liquidators, which I doubt it could, then Walter's group will have to deal with Green if they're to be part of the club's future.

Have to say I agree with that in principal. It even looks as though he wasn't bullshitting with regards to the terms of investment when he said at square one 'hand me a cheque and give me your name'. However that rather simplistic approach to business could possibly backfire on him and his consortium if there's enough of those investors to make up a majority shareholding and they're now backing the Smith consortium.

It could also suggest however that some of Green's consortium haven't made legally binding agreements to invest.

Not too surprising if that statement is anything to go by. It would appear that Hart himself hasn't been too sure what horse he was backing - The club or Dougie Park or whatever get's the CVA accross the line. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the root of Green's uncertainty on that one lies with D&P.

I really don't know where to start with that. You really couldn't make some of this shit up. So he's saying he invested some money in our youth department a number of years ago and that money was still lying there. So in other words it was the club's money or an asset if you will. We'll leave alone the fact that it was 'unused for a number of years' for now. So he was going to 'allow' this to be used in the CVA ...wtf? It's not his money!!!. At best he'd be a creditor and at worst just some guy that invested an amount years ago that was so insignificant it was forgotten about. The rest just suggests that he's 'behind' DP and as such said cash was going towards TBK bid ...Says it all really.

Glenmuir's an interesting one. I wonder if that's purely an investment in return for a shareholding or something else.

You've got to remember that this is all history we're going to be 'carrying across' to the Newco. There won't be any redemption on our behalf. It's all just more airing of dirty laundry.

Personally, I don't think I want to know. Did we not feel a mixture of relief and anger at the SFA announcing their investigation. Relief that they might find something untoward in our favor and anger that it took them so long to get round to it. How did that one work out for us?

Much like the whole case in the first place

Like I was suggesting before I think it'll be another massive fail on their part and if it is a success it sure won't be for us.

# That's the CVA proposal that's supposedly about to be rejected. Nevertheless the ongoing litigation is supposed to be funded by ringfenced funding including Transfer (Jelavic) monies. I doubt they'll be getting a penny out of the Newco.

Why is that exactly when it didn't stop them raiding Ibrox during the aforementioned Stevens inquiry? You've got to wonder just how much of our current predicament can be traced back to that.

Nobody is arguing that HMRC don't take a tough stance against CVA's where tax evasion is involved. The point is that they do still accept some CVA's under those conditions and in our case encouraged our pursuing of that avenue. We didn't offer enough and what we did offer incorporated too many variables.

There won't be any £25m. Never was going to be. IIRC, it's not included in the CVA proposal for a newco scenario. The newco (if it happens) could persevere with the case, but I doubt they would.

HMRC accept CVA's all the time. In a high profile case like this they need to justify it. As for those squeaky bums - That doesn't help our situation one bit. It's just more dirt to shovel over us.

...Then there's Bill Miller. Somehow I doubt he'd be made so unwelcome now.

At the end of the day BK might be in a position to make TBK's majority shareholders and rescue the CVA. CG on the other hand may be running the show for now, but he himself has stated that he's hoping to jump ship as soon as the job's done with £2m worth of shares. What %shareholding does £2m get you? That's the question.

Well if that's anything like their big investigation down south involving Redknapp that cost many £millions of 'taxpayers money' then you've got to wonder why. From what I've gathered, they're assuming that they can get a better return from pursuing those who are culpable for our situation and consequently don't think that D&P's case against CB is going to offer similar (if any) compensation ...No idea what could have given them that impression

Back when Bill Miller was was declared PB with his short term newco - long term CVA proposal, BK claimed he had made Miller an offer to join forces and get the CVA across the line. For the sake of clarifying, I'm suggesting something similar is required here - Not hijacking the bid but enhancing it.

Paul Clark also claimed to have been given assurances from HMRC that uncertainty over level of debt (due to the BTC) wasn't an issue. What he didn't claim was that the offer itself wasn't an issue and that HMRC would have turned down any CVA offer.

I'd like to see that quote as well. Are you possibly referring to D&P today claiming that HMRC had assured them that the party involved wasn't the issue?

Maybe now's the time if any for TBK's or any other interested parties to be approaching Green with an offer to increase the CVA pot before Thursdays meeting. Whether Green would accept or not is another story, but at the same time I can't see it going down to well if we go newco and then for the likes of BK to start making statements to the press of how he made one (more) last ditch effort to rescue the club via CVA only to be turned down by CG.

The way I see it, it's more a case of making an offer that would persuade HMRC to accept for the benefit of the other creditors. I believe this along with not wanting to kill the club was why they were always willing to entertain a CVA proposal. However, the CVA proposal is offering a paltry return to creditors - very possibly much less than the 8p in the pound offer they blocked in Leeds situation when they proposed a CVA while owing over £7.5m in unpaid taxes. The shortfall in the CVA proposal combined with the club's newco escape route is what's led them to this decision imo.

After having taken some time to digest all of this, I'm left wondering if HMRC's decision is final or if there's still some leeway. If by whatever means the CVA were to be revised to offer significantly more to creditors than it currently does, would HMRC still vote against? Despite CG and D&P claiming this is a policy decision, the statements from HMRC seem to suggest otherwise and that it's in fact the offered return to creditors which is insufficient for them to give it their backing ...in turn losing the opportunity to take certain individuals to task.