Pompey Takeover Saga

[BigShadow]

tbf, I have said all along, that HMRC will have more to say on the subject. Lets hope that this is now, the fat lady's final performance;)

 

Hmmmm - I wonder.....if the CVA gets approved - could HMRC apply to the court to have the CVA postponed pending the outcome of their case against the PL and FL football creditors rule?

 

This would surely run beyond the start of the August and therefore PCFC have to accept -17 if they want to start the season.

 

Wishful thinking????

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Telegraphs take;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/7797884/Premier-League-and-Football-League-issued-writ-by-taxman-to-oveturn-creditors-rule.html

 

tbf, I have said all along, that HMRC will have more to say on the subject. Lets hope that this is now, the fat lady's final performance;)

 

It has also been my belief and hope. I still cannot fathom how the FL and PL have managed to set themselves out, over and above all other creditors when a club goes into administration/bankruptcy. The simple question ( already asked) is if they can do it then why can't any individual do it?

[NickG]

just seen headlines that boateng sold to Man C for £10.5m..

 

 

 

 

but its Jerome the brother!

 

thought fee was high!

[slickmick]

http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2263990/hmrc-lines-football-creditor

Breaking news: HMRC tackles Premier League football creditor rule

 

Rachael Singh, Accountancy Age, 02 Jun 2010

Taxman issues writ against Premier League, aiming a kick at the controversial football creditor rule

 

The taxman is taking the Premier League to court in what is another attack by HM Revenue & Customs against the controversial football creditors rule.

 

Accountancy Age has learned that HMRC filed a legal writ against the Premier League on 18 May.

 

Currently if a club enters administration they are bound by the football creditors rule, meaning some creditors such as players and managers will be paid in full from the administration and the remaining payments divided between the unsecured creditors including HMRC.

 

The tax office said that due to the duty of confidentiality it could not comment on individual cases, but made no secret of its disdain for the football creditors rule, labeling it "unlawful".

 

"HMRC‘s view is that there is nothing in insolvency legislation that provides for unsecured debts due to “football creditors” to be paid in preference to other unsecured creditors such as HMRC.

 

"Our view is that the practical application of the so called 'Football Creditors Rule' may be unlawful. We have nothing further to add at this stage."

 

In the Portsmouth administration the football creditors are expected to receive their full repayment of £22.4m funded by the Premier League’s deductions in the club's allocated TV revenue. However, unsecured creditors who are owed an estimated £83m are expected to be repaid around £16.5m over the lifetime of the CVA - usually five years.

 

In the CVA proposal document administrators claim that HMRC is taking action against the unfair advantages by football creditors.

 

"It is understood that a separate action is being initiated by HMRC against the football creditors rule, it is therefore not intended that a challenge to the football creditor rule will be undertaken by the future liquidators of the original company," it said.

 

The Premier League declined to comment on the details of the legal case.

 

How come that man of all knowledge, Corp Ho, didn't tell us about this.

[rallyboy]

unlike the harbour stadium this is a development.

 

If HMRC overturns this then there could be no debt written off - the football debts have to be paid for them to compete, wouldn't all other debts have to then be paid at the same rate - 100%?

 

Even if the real debt is £100M the figures are nowhere near adding up, Chanrai is firing up his Hertz Focus just at the thought of it, and the creditors must now be planning to wait before approving any CVA.

 

A victory for HMRC would surely leave this blatantly insolvent business dead in the water?....

[Gorgiesaint]

If HMRC overturns this then there could be no debt written off - the football debts have to be paid for them to compete, wouldn't all other debts have to then be paid at the same rate - 100%?

 

The flipside to this is that football creditors don't get paid at 100%, they get the same as everyone else. Now at the moment, the FL would deal with that by withdrawing the clubs FL share - meaning Pompey would be out of the FL. Suppose the question that is then asked is whether that is too much of a punishment? Perhaps they may compromise and just relegate all clubs in admin by 2 divisions.

 

Whatever happens, this should keep this fred going for a little while longer. Well played HMRC :smt038

[tony13579]

How come that man of all knowledge, Corp Ho, didn't tell us about this.

 

Lol, no special inside knowledge.... I would like to claim a nose for the right places and words to google, newsnow. And a compass to sniff out the story. But on this occasion my colleage Mark spotted it.

[Dark Munster]

Pompey don't have the first two years of the parachute money. It's being distributed directly to the creditors

Which include Chainrai and the rest of the motley crew of ex-owners. :cool:

 

And don't forget years 3 and 4 of parachute money.

[EBS1980]

Telegraphs take;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/7797884/Premier-League-and-Football-League-issued-writ-by-taxman-to-oveturn-creditors-rule.html

 

Some journalist on SSN just said that he thinks creditors might wait for the outcome of this and reject the current offer as they believe they might get more if HMRC get this rule overturned.

[hutch]

2 things strike me.

 

The first is that, if the HMRC challenge succeeds, then the "football" creditors would only be entitled to the same slice of the pie as all the other unsecured creditors, i.e. 20p in the £. The "football" debt is quoted as £22.7m. If only 20% of that is paid (£4.54m) then that leaves another £18.16m either "in the pot" for distribution among the unsecured creditors, or straight into Chainrai's pocket. It was reported that 20p would cost £16.5m, so if £39.2m (£16.5m + £22.7m) is actually available for the unsecured creditors on an equal footing, they would then receive 37p in the £ (adjusted to add the "football" creditors alongside the ordinary unsecured creditors). On that basis, AA, whose principal duty is to get the best return for the creditors, cannot (and should not already have) proposed a CVA until the matter has been determined by the Courts.

 

The second is that I think it was reported (by AA) that HMRC would not vote against the CVA. That is not the same as voting to accept it. It requires approval by 75% of the unsecured creditors by value, and 50% of the unassociated unsecured creditors. If HMRC simply didn't vote either way, that would make life interesting, to say the least.

 

 

It is my understanding, and I could well be wrong here, that the way the "football creditor's rule" gets past the insolvency legislation is that the insolvent Company pays the same dividend, 20p in the £ or whatever, to the football creditors as to everybody else via a CVA. The incoming new owner then pays the balance of the football debt from his own resources, not the Company, in order to get the playing licence back. That seems to be distasteful, but legal. As I read the CVA proposal, the insolvent Company is proposing to pay 100% to the football creditors (via deductions by the PL from parachute payments in the future) and only 20% to the other creditors. I think HMRC are on to something here.

Edited 3 June, 2010 by hutch
sums

[tony13579]

Now why didnt I work that out .... great one Hutch

 

With the writ, an added bonus that all the PL/Pompeys dirty washing will be washed in court and they will blame Pompey

Edited 3 June, 2010 by tony13579

[positivepete]

2 things strike me.

 

It is my understanding, and I could well be wrong here, that the way the "football creditor's rule" gets past the insolvency legislation is that the insolvent Company pays the same dividend, 20p in the £ or whatever, to the football creditors as to everybody else via a CVA. The incoming new owner then pays the balance of the football debt from his own resources, not the Company, in order to get the playing licence back.

 

You are quite correct, which is why the football authorities claim it is a separate issue from the administration

[Saint_John]

My calcuations mean that the toal unsecured debt would be (£16.xM + £22.4M = £38.xM ) of the total (£105.4M) which would mean about 36.9p in the pound if HMRC won the case, which is better than the 20p in the pound on offer with THIS cva.

 

I posted this blog last week

http://insolvency.mercerhole.co.uk/

which has the following quotes

Many commentators (from CRITique via The Lawyer and accountingweb to The Daily Mail and The Telegraph) are now questioning whether the football creditors rule can survive, especially as its abolition has been proposed by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Football and questioned in parliament

.

 

and

More recently in the Lehmans and Woolworths insolvencies, the courts have considered the deprivation principle ("an anti avoidance principle designed to prevent parties agreeing in advance provisions which better [a] party's position in the event of insolvency" according to the Woolworths judgement). One could imagine HMRC running an argument that the football creditors rule puts the football authorities in a better position than they would otherwise have been

[trousers]

From today's Charles Sale column:

 

"The legion of unsecured creditors at Portsmouth might have a long wait - administrator Andrew Andronikou has only just wrapped up his work at Swindon after eight years. Those owed money since 2002 finally received a fraction over 20p in a pound."

[HK_Phoey]

2 things strike me.

 

The first is that, if the HMRC challenge succeeds, then the "football" creditors would only be entitled to the same slice of the pie as all the other unsecured creditors, i.e. 20p in the £. The "football" debt is quoted as £22.7m. If only 20% of that is paid (£4.54m) then that leaves another £18.16m either "in the pot" for distribution among the unsecured creditors, or straight into Chainrai's pocket. It was reported that 20p would cost £16.5m, so if £39.2m (£16.5m + £22.7m) is actually available for the unsecured creditors on an equal footing, they would then receive 37p in the £ (adjusted to add the "football" creditors alongside the ordinary unsecured creditors). On that basis, AA, whose principal duty is to get the best return for the creditors, cannot (and should not already have) proposed a CVA until the matter has been determined by the Courts.

 

The second is that I think it was reported (by AA) that HMRC would not vote against the CVA. That is not the same as voting to accept it. It requires approval by 75% of the unsecured creditors by value, and 50% of the unassociated unsecured creditors. If HMRC simply didn't vote either way, that would make life interesting, to say the least.

 

 

It is my understanding, and I could well be wrong here, that the way the "football creditor's rule" gets past the insolvency legislation is that the insolvent Company pays the same dividend, 20p in the £ or whatever, to the football creditors as to everybody else via a CVA. The incoming new owner then pays the balance of the football debt from his own resources, not the Company, in order to get the playing licence back. That seems to be distasteful, but legal. As I read the CVA proposal, the insolvent Company is proposing to pay 100% to the football creditors (via deductions by the PL from parachute payments in the future) and only 20% to the other creditors. I think HMRC are on to something here.

 

The other thing that strikes me is if this is upheld, The PL have no justification for holding on to parachute monies and would have to pay them directly to the club.

[hutch]

The other thing that strikes me is if this is upheld, The PL have no justification for holding on to parachute monies and would have to pay them directly to the club.

I agree. That's the nub of it.

 

The proper way to do it would be that parachute payments go to the company and are distributed equally. After all the creditors financed the PL run which earned the parachute payments in the first place. The new owner then has the choice of separately paying the football debt if he wants a licence to play football.

[rallyboy]

Perhaps AA had forgotten to include the £48M income in his CVA calculations, he will be pleased HMRC has corrected him and allowed him to improve the deal for the creditors he is so obviously working for.

 

I'm sure the Prem can easily find a loophole for controlling the distribution of the parachute payments if they feel the club owners are likely to trouser it.

 

 

And just to cheer them up further I guess lovely uncle Avram will now start to rip the remaining heart out of their feeble squad in the style of Redknapp and take the last assets to West Ham - even though he loves the fans and their spirit will never be broken!

 

What a legend.

[OldNick]

Perhaps AA had forgotten to include the £48M income in his CVA calculations, he will be pleased HMRC has corrected him and allowed him to improve the deal for the creditors he is so obviously working for.

 

I'm sure the Prem can easily find a loophole for controlling the distribution of the parachute payments if they feel the club owners are likely to trouser it.

 

 

And just to cheer them up further I guess lovely uncle Avram will now start to rip the remaining heart out of their feeble squad in the style of Redknapp and take the last assets to West Ham - even though he loves the fans and their spirit will never be broken!

 

What a legend.

things are looking up this morning. Perhaps the HMRC have been formulating a plan afterall

[Foxstone]

things are looking up this morning. Perhaps the HMRC have been formulating a plan afterall

 

I think the situation at Poopey has really beefed up their hand in going after the football creditors rule, and as this has been their bugbear since 2004 it has given them a golden opportunity to challenge it again.

 

Wonder what the Android is thinking of all this ?

 

Perhaps the "Great Sage Ho" can enlighten us

[Under Weststand]

Cunning move from HMRC today, the last thing Android wants is to go back into court, as he has too many questions about the debt that can't be answered IMHO. at the moment HMRC hold sway over the CVA, with their claimed 38-million, so Android to dispute this he needs to go to court which he wont. And even if by some means he gets a CVA agreement though with some careful management of figures (cough cough). HMRC goes to court the day after wins (as looks increasingly likely) gets the full 48-million for the unsecured creditors, then why would you agree the 20p in the pound the day before.

I've always felt that HMRC were just waiting & timing there responses for the cheats down the road, I feel this is just the first salvo. Today has proved that they are not going to accept 20p in the pound they want their full pound of flesh.

[Gorgiesaint]

Well, it looks like the skates attempts to raise £15m from player sales are off to a slow start....

 

...if they get Ben Haim off the wages with a freebie to West Ham then at least this offer actually would put money in the coffers, although it's a long way to £15m Andy!!

 

http://www.express.co.uk/football/view/178810/Pompey-dismiss-300-000-Gers-offer-for-Smith

[ottery st mary]

Interesting that it is the agent of Smith making the offer/testing the water..

Me thinks this is a ploy by the agent to market his player....

 

Rangers are they really interested....Smith is past his best and the legs are going...

 

Then again the Administrator can't be trusted with his press releases....Suggest this is NOT how this business was originally stated.

 

Come on you HMCR.

Edited 3 June, 2010 by ottery st mary
spellin rubbish as usual

[rallyboy]

Rangers offering Pompey money for Smith??

 

Two penniless tramps fighting over a sock.

[hypochondriac]

I agree. That's the nub of it.

 

The proper way to do it would be that parachute payments go to the company and are distributed equally. After all the creditors financed the PL run which earned the parachute payments in the first place. The new owner then has the choice of separately paying the football debt if he wants a licence to play football.

 

Yeah or the Prem could pay the football debts on their behalf and the new company is then in debt to them for the amount owed. A percentage of all future earnings go to pay off the debt?

[Matthew Le God]

Also, the nickh conspiracy theorist in me wonders why they have chosen the 18th of June when the CVA meeting is on 17th

 

Are you confusing the writ being issued on the 18th May with them taking Pompey to court on the 18th June?

 

At no point in the article does it say when the court case will be. Yet alone the day after the CVA vote.

 

http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2263990/hmrc-lines-football-creditor

[hypochondriac]

“If clubs think that because Portsmouth are in administration we will accept any old offer, then they are mistaken.

 

Erm do you want to tell him or shall I?

[hutch]

Yeah or the Prem could pay the football debts on their behalf and the new company is then in debt to them for the amount owed. A percentage of all future earnings go to pay off the debt?

Nope. That would still be the Company paying the extra dividend to the football creditors, but not to the others. That's not the way it's meant to work.

[hutch]

Erm do you want to tell him or shall I?

You can, and at the same time remind him that if Pompey are liquidated and the player registrations go back to the FA, he will get nothing. He will then be personally liable to the creditors for what he could have got if he'd sold them while he still could.

[Matthew Le God]

Erm do you want to tell him or shall I?

 

I think its more fun to let him work it out for himself, if he hasn't already. He really is very much like the Iraqi Information Minister.

[slickmick]

things are looking up this morning. Perhaps the HMRC have been formulating a plan afterall

 

 

Are things though ?

 

If HMRC win this, creditors will get more in the pound.

More twists and turns to come yet.

[Wes Tender]

Are things though ?

 

If HMRC win this, creditors will get more in the pound.

More twists and turns to come yet.

 

And Corporate Ho wondered why we are still carrying on with this thread. There's still plenty of meat on this particular bone yet.

 

But a lot of the interest in the Skates is because the state of our own well run and well financed club is a bit yawn-making in this between seasons lull.

 

There is the same excitement and nervous tension, recriminations, dashed hopes and worry about liquidation that we suffered at this time a year ago. We can now relive it by proxy with our main rival's situation, happy in the knowledge that the worse their situation becomes, the more thankful we can be that we were never as badly run as them and that there is little or no hope that they will have an owner like ours to rescue them.

 

Oh what a joy is our schadenfreude.

[tony13579]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Taxman-sues-Premier-League-for.6338476.jp

Taxman sues Premier League for £35m

Date: 03 June 2010

The taxman is suing the Premier League in the wake of Pompey's financial meltdown.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has launched legal action against the league over its football creditors rule, which ensures teams, players and managers get paid back in full if a club goes into administration.

 

'We believe the football creditors rule is fundamentally unfair to HMRC and other creditors and we will be going the whole hog to try and overturn it,' said a HMRC source.

 

It is not yet known if the legal action will have a bearing on how HMRC will vote on Pompey's proposals to offer unsecured creditors 20p back for every pound they are owed.

 

HMRC has issued writs against both the Premier League and the Football League on the basis it thinks it is unfair clubs, players and managers are repaid in full, leaving taxpayers and the rest of the unsecured creditors out of pocket.

 

In Pompey's case, HMRC is owed £35m but will only receive around 20 per cent of the cash back if it accepts the club's Company Voluntary Agreement proposal on June 17.

 

However, football creditors will be paid the full £22m owed to them out of future TV revenue and parachute payments. HMRC said it was taking legal action to 'protect the integrity of the tax system.'

 

Last night, a Premier League spokesman said: 'The league will robustly defend its position.'

 

HMRC previously challenged the football creditors rule in 2004 as part of a case involving Wimbledon, but that attempt failed.

 

However, HMRC believes it has a better case on the back of Pompey going into administration.

[tony13579]

'We believe the football creditors rule is fundamentally unfair to HMRC and other creditors and we will be going the whole hog to try and overturn it,' said a HMRC source.

They are going to put Pompey on the spit roast and not take them off till they have a nice bit of crackling :smt038

[Gorgiesaint]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Taxman-sues-Premier-League-for.6338476.jp

Taxman sues Premier League for £35m

Date: 03 June 2010

The taxman is suing the Premier League in the wake of Pompey's financial meltdown.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has launched legal action against the league over its football creditors rule, which ensures teams, players and managers get paid back in full if a club goes into administration.

 

'We believe the football creditors rule is fundamentally unfair to HMRC and other creditors and we will be going the whole hog to try and overturn it,' said a HMRC source.

 

It is not yet known if the legal action will have a bearing on how HMRC will vote on Pompey's proposals to offer unsecured creditors 20p back for every pound they are owed.

 

One question - if HMRC do not vote against the CVA, how will that be viewed by the court in the subsequent case to overturn the football creditors rule?

 

IMO they now have to vote against the CVA or delay the vote. Either way, this is not good news for the few down the road. Wonder how long it will take them to realise the implications. So far, 3 comments in on that piece in the news & they ain't got it yet!!

[toofarnorth]

One question - if HMRC do not vote against the CVA, how will that be viewed by the court in the subsequent case to overturn the football creditors rule?

 

IMO they now have to vote against the CVA or delay the vote. Either way, this is not good news for the few down the road. Wonder how long it will take them to realise the implications. So far, 3 comments in on that piece in the news & they ain't got it yet!!

 

Two more comments and they seem to think Pompey already have HMRC in the bag for the CVA vote. I cant see how HMRC can justify taking 20p when they have insisted on full payment from every other club and are trying to break the hold the premiership have on full payment to football creditors. Things just get more complicated.

[dronskisaint]

How come that man of all knowledge, Corp Ho, didn't tell us about this.

 

It's not a man....

[dronskisaint]

Rangers offering Pompey money for Smith??

 

Two penniless tramps fighting over a sock.

 

Poetic!:smt038

[SuperMikey]

P*mpey have today turned down a 'derisory' offer of £300k for Tommy Smith from Rangers.

 

I didn't think they were in a position to be negotiating over transfers (or offering contracts to players either). Surely the money from this transfer could go some way to paying back the creditors? Would've thought it'd be in the best interests of AA's superiors to get as much of their money back as possible, and £300k is certainly better than £0 if P*mpey end up going bust.

[Gemmel]

One question - if HMRC do not vote against the CVA, how will that be viewed by the court in the subsequent case to overturn the football creditors rule?

 

IMO they now have to vote against the CVA or delay the vote. Either way, this is not good news for the few down the road. Wonder how long it will take them to realise the implications. So far, 3 comments in on that piece in the news & they ain't got it yet!!

 

As the clock ticks on, we are heading towards the business end of this whole shambles. HMRC have played a blinder to date and the use of a 6 month old law to fine them another 10 million, spells out their intentions.

They are fooked off with pompey and fooked off with football clubs.

 

I really dont know how HMRC will vote with regard to the CVA, they apparently agreed in principle last time and if they sign it will almost certainly go after the directors for the shortfall, but as you say, it appeas to weaken their hand if they do ahead of the court case.

 

Whatever happens they are in still in a whole world of trouble and I will bare my arse on the townhall steps, if they don't get more points deductions.

[RonManager]

'Great club with great fans'

 

Avram Grant just now on SSN talking about Portsm... oh! sorry WEST HAM!

[Whitey Grandad]

One question - if HMRC do not vote against the CVA, how will that be viewed by the court in the subsequent case to overturn the football creditors rule?

 

IMO they now have to vote against the CVA or delay the vote. Either way, this is not good news for the few down the road. Wonder how long it will take them to realise the implications. So far, 3 comments in on that piece in the news & they ain't got it yet!!

Isn't 'not voting' in effect the same as voting against? Doesn't the CVA have to be approved by 75% of the creditors in total, not just those who voted?

[Gorgiesaint]

Isn't 'not voting' in effect the same as voting against? Doesn't the CVA have to be approved by 75% of the creditors in total, not just those who voted?

 

It is in terms of the CVA, but when in comes to the big court case to overturn the football creditors rule it's a different matter. If they don't vote against and abstain, how will that look later in court when the PL say that they had the chance to vote against but didn't take it in the Pompey case.

 

There is still plenty of mileage to go in this and I'm not sure how it will play out - but there is a good argument to say that HMRC will now reject the CVA. However plenty of twists & turns to come - and I wouldn't be surprised by anything!!

[Boris Karloff]

One question - if HMRC do not vote against the CVA, how will that be viewed by the court in the subsequent case to overturn the football creditors rule?

 

IMO they now have to vote against the CVA or delay the vote. Either way, this is not good news for the few down the road. Wonder how long it will take them to realise the implications. So far, 3 comments in on that piece in the news & they ain't got it yet!!

 

Logically, you would think so, but pragmatically, if it's 20p or nothing, they may still think the 20p is the best option.

 

The court case shouldn't really ave any bearing on the CVA as they are operating under existing rules. They are just challenging those rules.

[benjii]

Logically, you would think so, but pragmatically, if it's 20p or nothing, they may still think the 20p is the best option.

 

The court case shouldn't really ave any bearing on the CVA as they are operating under existing rules. They are just challenging those rules.

 

I think you're right, but...

 

If the case is resolved in HMRC's favour before the football debts are paid in full, however (ie when PL parachute money earmarked for football creditors has yet to fall due), then the whole thing would get rather messy indeed.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC attempt to stay the CVA in some way.

[Wibble]

Seems the Football League's AGM is very soon - a jolly jaunt to Malta 6-8th June

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/latestnews/20100603/malta-partnership-announced_2245681_2063057

 

I hope Nick Jones, Customer Services Officer remembers his words to me of 11th May

 

We are certainly aware of the issues surrounding Portsmouth FC at this time and we will be considering their position once the club are officially a Football League member after June’s AGM.

[OldNick]

Seems the Football League's AGM is very soon - a jolly jaunt to Malta 6-8th June

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/latestnews/20100603/malta-partnership-announced_2245681_2063057

 

I hope Nick Jones, Customer Services Officer remembers his words to me of 11th May

i assume that AA will use the 'If you penalise us , you will be responsible for the club folding' card

[stevegrant]

I think you're right, but...

 

If the case is resolved in HMRC's favour before the football debts are paid in full, however (ie when PL parachute money earmarked for football creditors has yet to fall due), then the whole thing would get rather messy indeed.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC attempt to stay the CVA in some way.

Isn't there a 28-day period after the vote for objections to be raised?

[RonManager]

i assume that AA will use the 'If you penalise us , you will be responsible for the club folding' card

 

To which they may reply "no, it is the massive debt knowingly accrued and the subsequent insolvent trading that's done that".

[OldNick]

To which they may reply "no, it is the massive debt knowingly accrued and the subsequent insolvent trading that's done that".

If they had the balls, but it will take men of steel to actually say 'no you are goners'

These are football people who will do their utmost not to see clubs go to the wall. I think at best they may well give a large points penalty, but i doubt they will be brave enough to be the people to cause the clubs liquidation. In this Im torn, sometimes id love to see them gone forever but then I see decent fans who cant help where they were born who don't deserve to lose their club.

A long spell in the backwaters again would be justice for all the good days they have had after the cheating and overindulgences of the last few years.

[benjii]

Isn't there a 28-day period after the vote for objections to be raised?

 

Yes, I think there is.

 

So I suppose they vote "yes" or don't vote at all for expediency then at some point in the following month say, "Er, we object now as we've had a claim issued in the High Court that goes to the heart of this proposal and the defendants do not admit the claim". I'm not sure what happens if someone objects... presumably AA has to get a court order to get the CVA approved or maybe the objector has to apply for an order to block it?

 

Either way, I can't see HMRC willingly compromise their claim without any future recourse when this action is already underway.