teamsaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/business/local-business/pompey_need_to_pay_1_2m_to_creditors_in_april_1_3334471 Can anyone explain the significance of this? or is it old news? Is gaydamac a secured creditor of the old co? I thought that had been liquidated. Or is the article wrong? o not easy to keep up !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I had to pick up on this direct quote from Lampitt to the BBC: "It's not a decision we've taken lightly. From an ongoing point of view, it's become a necessary decision and one a lot of people anticipated. It's become necessary to protect our creditors and give them the best possible chance of getting a decent return," the Portsmouth chief executive David Lampitt, the former head of regulation at the Football Association, told the BBC. Good luck with that one in Court on Friday, Dave. "So, Mr.Lampitt, can you please give the Court details of the decent return that the creditors have received following the club's last administration". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Surely, in order to be permitted to enter admin they have to declare (and prove?) how it will be funded? I can see that bein a problem if they only have £2m in the bank with Jan and Febs waes to be paid, tax and other bills to be paid (not allowed to accrue more debt whilst in admin) etc. I think it highly likely that the admin application gets refused. AND I BLOODY WELL HOPE IT DOES!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I had to pick up on this direct quote from Lampitt to the BBC: Good luck with that one in Court on Friday, Dave. "So, Mr.Lampitt, can you please give the Court details of the decent return that the creditors have received following the club's last administration". lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 It's funny that all these thicko know-nothing media types keep on saying how fantastic our fans are. Why would they do that? Why do other teams fans also say things like that? It's all just one big conspiracy isn't it? Everyones been fooled, haven't they? Oh yes, for sure Maybe because they don't pay attention to your home attendance? 4 for £44 was the latest "Pack the Park" promo and yet still didn't fill their ground.... Now bearing in mind Pompey need every penny they can get, that hardly makes your lot fans of the year does it? Truth hurts and the truth is Pompey fans don't back their words up with actions... That said, great support at Blackpool... Blackpool would like to thank you for your ticket money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Its valentines day......skates cant attend games as they have to spend time with their sister(s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Can you PM this to Saint Richmond? Mind you, he still won`t believe it. I heard he bought a 50% stake in the burger van at the Chapel end ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 News of PFC has hit Australia with the monies owing to the Western Aussie clubs, however all my colleagues (some who have been in the football industry and may well have played against persons involved in those WA clubs), used to think I was just bitter because the rival team won the FA Cup and that given our recent plight we should be sympathetic (the quote from one of them was "Throwing stones in glass houses James…just remember where your club was at a few seasons back"). I did however think it was my duty to inform the misinformed of the differences between the two (touching nicely on: Our cutting our squad back and playing youth, PFC's buying more players on large wages and releasing their youth; Our paying all taxes, local business and charities, PFC's disregard for monies owed to HMRC, local business & charities; Our paying all debts in full, PFC/AA fiddling their figures to ensure the CVA was voted in and still not yet paying anything of the CVA, to chariteis and local buisinesses. Their comments were "fair point ", "they're f****d then", "sounds like they deserve everything they have coming to them", "roll on Monday". Job done for the day! I do remember ................... no comparison though We did not owe circa £150 MILLION By comparison, we owed Petty Cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Lampitt said last night that they were 'close to breaking even' last year. He didn't mention that the good housekeeping involved £10.8M of external funding and they hadn't paid Ben Haim's wages nor prepared for the CVA. I was pleased to hear on Solent that he sounds like a bloke who would overspend again tomorrow if allowed - he comes across as suicidally ambitious with other people's cash. So someone needs approx £50M to buy the club - how's the 12th man fundraising going? Couple more car boot sales to go methinks. And another £100M to build a ground and infrastructure. For the same money you could buy THREE Premier League clubs. And AA has sown the seeds of a £10.8M debt that he can attempt to utilise for his client to buy wiggle room in a CVA vote. It'll be interesting to see whether the court allows them to protect themselves - they'd better have some new answers on the blatant insolvency this time. The court should have a VERY good look at their projections for the next six months. I still see the court being fooled by AA's claims of deals in 48 hours and yachts in the harbour, billionaires walking out of Southampton Airport etc. Let's not forget how dim the last judge was. And the media need to start telling people exactly how much of the previous debt they have paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzie Saints Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Just a quick question regarding companies who were owed money from the CVA. As i understand it all parties reluctantly accepted 20% of wot they were actually owned. Does each company then right off the other 80% thru their tax. If so as well as stuffing the Tax Office directly they also stuffed them indirectly, DFCSB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: #Pompey have applied for 'small' validation order to get funds for period before admin granted. Needed to fund players' travel to Barnsley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarehamRed Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 RT @solentsport #pompey Chief Executive David Lampitt live on Solent in a couple of mins Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 And AA has sown the seeds of a £10.8M debt that he can attempt to utilise for his client to buy wiggle room in a CVA vote. Now then, you obviously know more about these things, than most on here. So how many times would you have thought, a company in administration, recovered 100% of it's debts from the debtor. Do CSI (in administration) really expect to recover the whole amount of the '£10.8 million', really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 True and not true. Lives in Titchfield now, brought up in Copnor. Oh, and here's a direct quote from Jake Humphrey after the game had finished against you lot at FP- "....and if there was any doubt as to which team Steve Claridge supports, when Joel Ward scored the equaliser Steve nearly went through the window here in the box....." he went to Brookfield School, so not sure about being brought up in Copnor. It matters not. He might be a skate, but he's like your good self: not totally blind to the qualities of SFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzie Saints Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 he went to Brookfield School, so not sure about being brought up in Copnor. It matters not. He might be a skate, but he's like your good self: not totally blind to the qualities of SFC. Me Too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Agreed, so it's just as well we don't have to make those claims ourselves- everyone else apart from you lot says it for us, without prompting, and with genuine affection and respect too in most cases. It's good to know that there are so many people out there rooting for us Delusion treatment still not working I observe...keep taking the drugs...most fans of other clubs detest you and cite TCWTB as the personification of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Now then, you obviously know more about these things, than most on here. So how many times would you have thought, a company in administration, recovered 100% of it's debts from the debtor. Do CSI (in administration) really expect to recover the whole amount of the '£10.8 million', really? Just for the record, with the exception of Aviva and Barclays, Markus paid 100% to all other creditors. Anyway back to the question, No! CSI won't get 100% back, but it does get interesting when you consider than UHY Hacker now own CSI, so what they get from pompey has a direct impact on what money they see. But just a note of caution . Administrators don't take on projects when there is little chance of them getting paid (We were turned down twice I believe) Android or more importantly UHY Hacker have a plan of how they going to see the money, which suggests to me they will get through Fridays little court session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Just for the record, with the exception of Aviva and Barclays, Markus paid 100% to all other creditors. Anyway back to the question, No! CSI won't get 100% back, but it does get interesting when you consider than UHY Hacker now own CSI, so what they get from pompey has a direct impact on what money they see. But just a note of caution . Administrators don't take on projects when there is little chance of them getting paid (We were turned down twice I believe) Android or more importantly UHY Hacker have a plan of how they going to see the money, which suggests to me they will get through Fridays little court session. Is it legally permissible to fund the administrator's through a separate company - assuming that there are funds to finance the administration process from within? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Just for the record, with the exception of Aviva and Barclays, Markus paid 100% to all other creditors. Anyway back to the question, No! CSI won't get 100% back, but it does get interesting when you consider than UHY Hacker now own CSI, so what they get from pompey has a direct impact on what money they see. But just a note of caution . Administrators don't take on projects when there is little chance of them getting paid (We were turned down twice I believe) Android or more importantly UHY Hacker have a plan of how they going to see the money, which suggests to me they will get through Fridays little court session. This is the reality that a lot of people don't pick up on with all this administration malarkey, in that the PRIMARY objective for any adminstrator is to make a profit for HIS employer. That's why anyone is in business - to make a profit. Ergo, AA will do what's best for UHY Hacker. That's his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterside.saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Did anyone hear Lumpy's interview on Solent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Did anyone hear Lumpy's interview on Solent? Nope. I've got the same interview recorded from 2 years ago so will play that at my leisure. It will be almost identical to this morning's interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 What the phew are missing in comparing thier various administrations with ours, is that there's a very good reason we didn't need to exit Administration via a CVA. They might get it some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintalan Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: #Pompey have applied for 'small' validation order to get funds for period before admin granted. Needed to fund players' travel to Barnsley. So I assume this will also pay for the lights tonight? Otherwise why would SE supply electricity, knowing Admin was announced, allow the obvious situation that they won't get paid. After Admin I assume it would be OK as the new bills will be paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ringwood Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Lumpy's answer on 10 points was interesting, blamed financial mismanagement for additional deductions not 2nd admin, hmm time for Bompey, Luton and Leeds fans to be heard, and CVA seems he expects that to be rolled in so basically they get 20% of the 20% of the original debt!!! yes, they are going get away with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 POMPEY face a race against time to meet a deadline to find an estimated £1.2m by April to pay former owner Sacha Gaydamak. The first instalment of the cash owed to unsecured creditors seeking more than £2,500 is due on April 1, 2012, under terms approved in the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) signed to bring the club out of administration last year. An estimated total of £16.5m will need to be paid back in instalments as part of the agreement – but the first £2.2m will go straight to Mr Gaydamak, as he is the club’s only secured creditor. Under the requirements of the CVA, a further estimated £1.2m will need to be paid on August 15 – and again, most of that will go to Mr Gaydamak. Only then will other creditors who are owed more than £2,500 begin to be paid. Around £4.1m needs to be paid in equal instalments on April 1 and September 1, 2013 That must have been some neat wording in the CVA. So nobody gets anything in March 2012..... They just bought another 18 months on CVA payments Why would we be shocked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Thank you for posting the tweets from last night trousers - very interesting and on catching up this morning surprised people didn't make more of it. Looks like Lampitt is going to resign then and I genuinely didn't know that they struggled to get put into admin last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Page 1066.....hmmm.....gotta be some historic battle play-on-words opportunity to be had here.... One in the eye for P*mpey? It's an inventory count for a P*mpey fan, 1 tooth, 0 brain cells, 6 digits on each hand? Battle of Wastings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Do they really think that the court will allow them to enter administration whilst also thinking it so unlikely that they'd be granted a validation order they didn't even apply for one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Situation seems to be that they are applying for a pre admin validation order to release some of the funds! On Friday their application to enter Administration will be heard. There is the risk it will be opposed but Portsmouth FC think they can convince the court it would in the Creditors best interest as the alternative is they would get nothing. I suppose it will all come down to whether they can convince the court that they will have the funds during the Administration period for the club to be "a going concern" after ring fencing the debt. The club will suffer a 10 point deduction as that is the FL rules. Any additional deduction will only be considered if and when they exit Aministration and dependent on a satisfactory CVA. The club will survive in the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I think that the CVA in place now is not worth worrying about as they have no chance at all of servicing it. There seems to never have been any intention to service it, as there seems to have been a **** or bust policy going on. Unfortunately, those in charge seem to have misread the situation and not been able to attract the relevant staff to push for promotion, which leaves the bust scenario that they are currently in. If there had been a modicum of sincerity and even the smallest of attempts to pay off some of their debts, then I am sure that people's opinions might be more sympathetic than they are. It is not just us "bitter and twisted" Saints fans that think it is way out of order, most people who have the slightest inkling on football finance also do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I can see this following a similar pattern to last time. PFC will argue for administration on the basis that it presents the creditors with the best chance of getting some return. HMRC will argue against on the basis that continuing to trade will increase PFC's liability to them. The court will request a further statement of affairs to show how admin will be funded and how creditors could possibly expect any repayment as a result of admin. PFC will be back in the companies court in 3 weeks to present a work of fiction. Alternatively, Lampitt has applied for admin to protect himself from personal liability but knows it's highly unlikely to be granted and PFC will be wound up on Monday. *prays* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shufty Zubrik Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Song for Tuesday? To the tune of "We're coming for you" Balram Chanrai, Balram Chanraaaaiiiiiii, He must be a scummer, he'll let the skates die. To the Tune of the old sea shanty Spanish Ladies: We'll rant and we'll roar like true Saints supporters, We'll rant and we'll roar because we hate Skates, St Mary's to the sh*thole is 25 miles, You're all f***in retards, You're all f***in cheats. Can somebody find the tune? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterside.saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I think that the CVA in place now is not worth worrying about as they have no chance at all of servicing it. There seems to never have been any intention to service it, as there seems to have been a **** or bust policy going on. Unfortunately, those in charge seem to have misread the situation and not been able to attract the relevant staff to push for promotion, which leaves the bust scenario that they are currently in. If there had been a modicum of sincerity and even the smallest of attempts to pay off some of their debts, then I am sure that people's opinions might be more sympathetic than they are. It is not just us "bitter and twisted" Saints fans that think it is way out of order, most people who have the slightest inkling on football finance also do. ^This +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Lumpy's answer on 10 points was interesting, blamed financial mismanagement for additional deductions not 2nd admin, hmm time for Bompey, Luton and Leeds fans to be heard, and CVA seems he expects that to be rolled in so basically they get 20% of the 20% of the original debt!!! yes, they are going get away with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To be fair to Pompey (*cough* *splutter*) they're only doing what a system riddled with loopholes allows them to do. The fact that a system exists whereby a company, in various incarnations, can dilute debt at the press of the administration panic button is the root cause of the problem. Pompey are just playing the game within the boundaries of the law (just) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truckasaurus Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 If i look behind me all i can see are trees,to my right trees,to my left trees. If i look foward all i can see are trees if i take twenty paces forward i pass several trees but all i can see in front of me is trees. What football club am i ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merrimd Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 If i look behind me all i can see are trees,to my right trees,to my left trees. If i look foward all i can see are trees if i take twenty paces forward i pass several trees but all i can see in front of me is trees. What football club am i ? Forrest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 As many people on here have hightlighted, the press and media seem to be glossing over the £100m + debt that Pompey racked up 2 years ago. I recall listening to TalkSport on the day the mega list of creditors was published last time and they spent a whole hour reading through the list of small businesses one by one on air with disgust and incredularity. Maybe the way to highlight to those in the wider footballing community, who are of the impression that Pompey have settled up with all those creditors, is to resurrect that original creditor list and remind the ladies and gentlemen of the media and press that NONE of it has been paid back yet! (or did they pay back the charities as a token PR exercise a while back?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 If i look behind me all i can see are trees,to my right trees,to my left trees. If i look foward all i can see are trees if i take twenty paces forward i pass several trees but all i can see in front of me is trees. What football club am i ? If I look behind me I see a stand that is badly in need of painting and repair, if I look to the left I see empty seats, to the right empty seats, if I walk forward twenty paces I walk pastseveral empty seats and all I can see infront of me is a man who looks like he has special needs waving a bell What football club am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I think that a judge can only grant Admin if they can show that the club's assets are greater than their liabilities, otherwise they are trading whilst insolvent. £50m of debt. How can they invent £50m of assets? TBH worth £5m? Tesco have put in an offer for the ground of £40m? As I understand things, insolvency courts are normally pretty ruthless and the way they were treated last time was unusual. I have read about cases where firms have been liquidated, despite having full order books, which if completed would have allowed for all creditors to be repaid, but the court forced it to wind up, leaving the creditors with much less. A hardball, Immanuel Kant-style judge will not allow admin. The more I think about it, the more it looks like the end, unless Chinny has found some change down the back of the sofa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 will the next parachute payment not be used in their submission to get administration, as part of the short term funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 "A hardball, Immanuel Kant-style jude..." WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truckasaurus Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Forest only one "r" HMRC are gunning for poopey. Toast next week,trust what i say. They won't go into admin, I have a feeling the lovey's that hold the PP's are fowarding it to some other football lovey's(players etc) and B******ks to everybody else that's owed money......ergo Toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 An estimated total of £16.5m will need to be paid back in instalments as part of the agreement – but the first £2.2m will go straight to Mr Gaydamak, as he is the club’s only secured creditor. Under the requirements of the CVA, a further estimated £1.2m will need to be paid on August 15 – and again, most of that will go to Mr Gaydamak. Were the terms of the CVA re-written ? UHY's Completion Report indicated that Gaydamak (as the lone secured creditor) would be paid from proceeds of the sales of other assets - whatever they may have been, or not (as the case may be). And, as I understood it, the schedule of repayments to unsecured creditors stood completely separate from that of the secured creditors. When those mystical assets failed to materialise, was the club then able to shift the burden of reimbursing Gaydamak from the monies earmarked for local businesses, schools, etc ? and.. I suspect that pivotal to what happens next is how their current debts are allocated, and whether HMRC has enough of the vote this time around to effectively block a CVA, assuming another trip into administration is granted by the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 If going into admin is "in the best interests" of the creditors, surely having not yet paid anything towards the 'oldco' CVA, and apparently having no intention of EVER doing so, shows how little the creditors can expect this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 To the Tune of the old sea shanty Spanish Ladies: We'll rant and we'll roar like true Saints supporters, We'll rant and we'll roar because we hate Skates, St Mary's to the sh*thole is 25 miles, You're all f***in retards, You're all f***in cheats. Can somebody find the tune? Great costumes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I think that a judge can only grant Admin if they can show that the club's assets are greater than their liabilities, otherwise they are trading whilst insolvent. £50m of debt. How can they invent £50m of assets? TBH worth £5m? Tesco have put in an offer for the ground of £40m? As I understand things, insolvency courts are normally pretty ruthless and the way they were treated last time was unusual. I have read about cases where firms have been liquidated, despite having full order books, which if completed would have allowed for all creditors to be repaid, but the court forced it to wind up, leaving the creditors with much less. A hardball, Immanuel Kant-style judge will not allow admin. The more I think about it, the more it looks like the end, unless Chinny has found some change down the back of the sofa. You're forgetting one simple difference between those 'normal' businesses and PFC...... the latter is a football club and they get special treatment from the UK legal system.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 As I understand it they may struggle to get a second CVA - think about for a second.... in theory, (as I understand it) Pompey do NOT owe chinney anything - CSI owe chinney 17 mil for their purchase of the club - and as a secure creditor of CSI with a charge over the pompey 'asset' he is due the first 17 mil that CSI raise from any sales etc. But pompey owe CSI 10.8, The current CVA 16mil, HMRC say 2mil, footballing creditors 2 mil (wages and Aussies), other footballing creditors we dont know about + Gaydmark... am I wrong with this... have I missed something? Why is everuone insisting pompey owe chinney 17mil am I being dense? Without that 17 mil owed to chinney, it would be easy to see HMRC and Baker tilley refusing to accept 20p in the £ - thus even if teh golden share was transfered ..again.. to 'pompey newCheating ****s 2012' they would still in effect exist admin without a CVA - huge points deduction to follow.... Thats if someone would by them... Problem is chinney's control of CSI and charge on pompey.... they might be worth a punt to some stupid fecker for a £1 the usual price for a club in admin and with around 25mil of debt - but chinney wants stupid millions... or if a CVA is agreed so debt reduced to around 10 mil with 16 mil PP guarranteed, can see CHinney selling again for a £17m...deferred , but retaining a charge on the club until its paid out over the next 2 years... see there is a logical and cheating bastard way out of this ... and its quite possible that tehy would only get 10 points if CVA is agreed, even with say 15, they could still survive the drop.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 If going into admin is "in the best interests" of the creditors, surely having not yet paid anything towards the 'oldco' CVA, and apparently having no intention of EVER doing so, shows how little the creditors can expect this time around. You know that. I know that. But..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 HMRC are gunning for poopey. As much as they were gunning for Harry Redknapp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I think that a judge can only grant Admin if they can show that the club's assets are greater than their liabilities I'm not sure that's strictly true, because otherwise they wouldn't need to go into administration in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts