Juancornetto 1 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 There are one or two clubs on the brink who may choose to look towards their own precarious future. .....and hell mend them if they do end up being crippled by the rules they vote for. It would be interesting to find out which member clubs proposed which resolutions. We will probably never know. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 We know exactly who is pulling the strings at the sfa and who's who's little puppet! This is the SPL we are talking about here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 .....and hell mend them if they do end up being crippled by the rules they vote for. It would be interesting to find out which member clubs proposed which resolutions. We will probably never know. Paul Clark was at the meeting where possible proposals were discussed, so maybe he can help out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Plain and simple stitch up to keep us in the SPL but toothless. At this moment I would take newco and division 3 and to Hell with the lot of them, let's see how many are left when we get back in the SPL. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 The end of the season was always the cut-off point and we were always struggling to meet that deadline given the way D&P have dragged their feet. The way I see it, they were always going to be forced to drag their feet due to undetermined factors like the big tax case and the purchase/seizure of Whyte's shareholding. None of the bidders in their right mind(with the possible exception of TBK's) would have purchased the club and exited via a CVA before the outcome of the big tax case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 The way I see it, they were always going to be forced to drag their feet due to undetermined factors like the big tax case and the purchase/seizure of Whyte's shareholding. None of the bidders in their right mind(with the possible exception of TBK's) would have purchased the club and exited via a CVA before the outcome of the big tax case. Any CVA will include the BTC, whether the ruling has been made or not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) I appear to be in the minority here(surprise, surprise ), but if these proposed rule changes scare off any would-be purchasers who see a newco as the way forward, then that is very good news for us. It would then be up to the preferred bidder to ensure that they give a fair deal to the creditors. Edited April 11, 2012 by caseyjones 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Any CVA will include the BTC, whether the ruling has been made or not. Agreed that any CVA proposal submitted to D&P by the bidders should allow for the outcome of the BTC ruling one way or another. That's not to say that a CVA would be likely to be agreed upon by the creditors beforehand other than to discount or attempt to settle the BTC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I appear to be in the minority here(surprise, surprise), but if these proposed rule changes scare off any would-be purchasers who see a newco as the way forward, then that is very good news for us. It would then be up to the preferred bidder to ensure that they give a fair deal to the creditors. Not so sure that you're in a minority, but what I will say is that I'm completely disgusted by the proposed rule changes and the timing of them. Also, no matter who the new owner is, they're going to have to be very well prepared for a liquidation event even if we win the big tax case and exit administration via a CVA because if we win the big tax case HMRC will probably appeal it and try again via a future case tribunal which obviously we wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed to win. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Not so sure that you're in a minority, but what I will say is that I'm completely disgusted by the proposed rule changes and the timing of them. Also, no matter who the new owner is, they're going to have to be very well prepared for a liquidation event even if we win the big tax case and exit administration via a CVA because if we win the big tax case HMRC will probably appeal it and try again via a future case tribunal which obviously we wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed to win. All the more reason for the administrators to accelerate rather than stall the process, it's apparent that the interests of all the prospective buyers would be served by bringing a conclusion sooner or later. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.