forlanssister 3,114 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 A CVA was never likely due to the non compliance of Whyte and paying taxes. Plus the fact that by the time Duff & Phelps took their cut and Close Leasing took theirs and the 40 odd TBC's were confirmed there wouldn't have been any value in the CVA, I suspect the proposal was designed to fail. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Plus the fact that by the time Duff & Phelps took their cut and Close Leasing took theirs and the 40 odd TBC's were confirmed there wouldn't have been any value in the CVA, I suspect the proposal was designed to fail. The courts wouldn't approve a proposal 'designed to fail'. Besides, the revenue said at the time of rejection the big reason was wanting to do an investigation, so no amount would have made a difference unless it was practically paying off the debt in full. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 The courts wouldn't approve a proposal 'designed to fail'. Besides, the revenue said at the time of rejection the big reason was wanting to do an investigation, so no amount would have made a difference unless it was practically paying off the debt in full. Where was the value in the CVA? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Where was the value in the CVA? Still more than they're getting from the liquidation asset sale I imagine. HMRC said themselves it wasn't really about value, so i'd say it was getting rejected unless the pot was around the 50 million mark, even then it may have needed more. The CVA proposal was approved by the courts so I don't have any doubt it was genuine, and Duff & Phelps would be finished as an insolvency firm if they put out a CVA intending it to fail for whatever reason. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Still more than they're getting from the liquidation asset sale I imagine. HMRC said themselves it wasn't really about value, so i'd say it was getting rejected unless the pot was around the 50 million mark, even then it may have needed more. The CVA proposal was approved by the courts so I don't have any doubt it was genuine, and Duff & Phelps would be finished as an insolvency firm if they put out a CVA intending it to fail for whatever reason. I don't doubt the CVA proposal was genuine ( I've read the thing often enough) it's the sincerity behind it I'm doubting. Well it seems even the administrators think HMRC will get more from a liquidation than a CVA, perhaps HMRC think the fees claimed by Duff & Phelps may find their way to the creditors if they're found to have been conflicted. Duff and Phelps' joint administrator Paul Clark said. "HMRC believes there will be an enhanced recovery of funds for creditors by pursuing those individuals who they believe are responsible." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't doubt the CVA proposal was genuine ( I've read the thing often enough) it's the sincerity behind it I'm doubting. Well it seems even the administrators think HMRC will get more from a liquidation than a CVA, perhaps HMRC think the fees claimed by Duff & Phelps may find their way to the creditors if they're found to have been conflicted. It's the best that was being offered, we'd have needed a billionaire willing to throw his cash around for it to get much better. Whether they get money from individuals or not is up in the air and will take months of court cases I imagine, as far as the club is concerned they aren't getting more than the CVA offered. Not that I blame them, and i'd love to see some people put in the dock for what they've done to us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't doubt the CVA proposal was genuine ( I've read the thing often enough) it's the sincerity behind it I'm doubting. Well it seems even the administrators think HMRC will get more from a liquidation than a CVA, perhaps HMRC think the fees claimed by Duff & Phelps may find their way to the creditors if they're found to have been conflicted. What prevents HMRC pursuing the same people post-CVA? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 What prevents HMRC pursuing the same people post-CVA? Liquidation gives them much more ability to investigate than a CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 John Bomber Brown@johnbomberbrown Got all the info today. Charles green meet me and answer WHO has 1st Standard security for ibrox park,car park and murray park ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 @johnbomberbrown Green wont meet me as it will be the end game. The last line says THE FANS WIN. 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.