Bluedell 5,679 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 There are two massive dependencies: 1. HMRC run out of appeals and accept their claim failed. 2. Any material risk from other legal claims over Oldco is removed. As far as I can tell these things could take a while, but are quite likely to come to pass eventually. Beyond those dependencies, it's just a matter of simple arithmetic. Creditors will certainly do a deal for 50-60p in the £, especially as Club Deck Bondholders would form a pretty high proportion of the outstanding debt. I'd actually been wondering about the possibility based on what BDO had been saying in their latest correspondence to Bondholders, so I don't think we should be too critical of DK for mentioning the possibility. You're right that there's no need to say anything now, but it's certainly not just moonbeams. I think that you're mistaken on point 1. As far as I'm aware the liquidation process was nothing to do with the BTC so the appeals don't really come into it. It was more to do with the other amounts due and HMRC refused to accept the deal. I'm therefore not sure how you can claim they will "certainly" accept 50p-60p in the £. HMRC held 38% of the debt which is enough to prevent such agreements. HMRC don't seem to be acting like a normal creditor in this, possibly as a deterrent to others. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 False hope isn't. Do you not think it is viable BD? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 False hope isn't. Only once it's proven false 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I think that you're mistaken on point 1. As far as I'm aware the liquidation process was nothing to do with the BTC so the appeals don't really come into it. It was more to do with the other amounts due and HMRC refused to accept the deal. I'm therefore not sure how you can claim they will "certainly" accept 50p-60p in the £. HMRC held 38% of the debt which is enough to prevent such agreements. HMRC don't seem to be acting like a normal creditor in this, possibly as a deterrent to others. they included the BTC in the nominal debt of the old co. Don't know what HMRC %age is if that's removed...surely not more than Dave King's £20 million 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I suspect they rejected the cva to get their own liquidators in to sort out the mess. I've seen evidence to suggest the blueknights had hmrc backing for their cva. It would certainly seem churlish for hmrc to turn down extra cash just to liquidate a dead company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I think that you're mistaken on point 1. As far as I'm aware the liquidation process was nothing to do with the BTC so the appeals don't really come into it. It was more to do with the other amounts due and HMRC refused to accept the deal. I'm therefore not sure how you can claim they will "certainly" accept 50p-60p in the £. HMRC held 38% of the debt which is enough to prevent such agreements. HMRC don't seem to be acting like a normal creditor in this, possibly as a deterrent to others. HMRC are listed by BDO as an unsecured creditor re £94m, so if they won the EBT case, it would put an end to any realistic hope of resurrecting Oldco. I agree that the Craig Whtye era portion of the HMRC debt (£15m?) might be more of an issue re a creditors arrangement, but I'm sure the vast majority of Ticketus £27m, the Directors £20m, ordinary shareholders £10m, Debenture holders £8m, Trade Creditors £7m and football creditors £3m would all sign up. In fact I'm sure some of them would waive their entitlement. As you know taking companies back out of liquidation doesn't happen often so I'm not sure what % of the outstanding debt HMRC would need to be able to block a deal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,759 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 HMRC are listed by BDO as an unsecured creditor re £94m, so if they won the EBT case, it would put an end to any realistic hope of resurrecting Oldco. I agree that the Craig Whtye era portion of the HMRC debt (£15m?) might be more of an issue re a creditors arrangement, but I'm sure the vast majority of Ticketus £27m, the Directors £20m, ordinary shareholders £10m, Debenture holders £8m, Trade Creditors £7m and football creditors £3m would all sign up. In fact I'm sure some of them would waive their entitlement. As you know taking companies back out of liquidation doesn't happen often so I'm not sure what % of the outstanding debt HMRC would need to be able to block a deal. I thought the football creditors £3m got paid? And the question is without including the BTC could HMRC have blocked the CVA? Ticketus were prepared to do a CVA IIRC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I thought the football creditors £3m got paid?And the question is without including the BTC could HMRC have blocked the CVA? Ticketus were prepared to do a CVA IIRC Good point Rab. BDO had £3m shown against football creditors in their latest report. I suspect they've frozen the totals as at the time of the liquidation, rather than showing what's currently outstanding, because I do recall that NewCo had to pick up the OldCo footballing debts at the time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 I suspect they rejected the cva to get their own liquidators in to sort out the mess. I've seen evidence to suggest the blueknights had hmrc backing for their cva. It would certainly seem churlish for hmrc to turn down extra cash just to liquidate a dead company. HMRC would not go with the CVA because they wanted to go after Whyte. That was their main reason stated at the time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 HMRC would not go with the CVA because they wanted to go after Whyte. That was their main reason stated at the time. Exactly mate and as we now know why tell and green are one and the same. 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.