Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

As Secondary Preferential Creditors, in law, they can demand to be paid in full after Primary Preferential Creditors (MSD & Employees) for all debts comprising VAT, PAYE, NICs etc. Of course, the Football Creditors rule means that, if the club is sold as a going concern, they slip back further in the ranking, unless they want to fight another court case. What may focus their minds is that, were the club to be liquidated, they're unlikely to see a penny after MSD have had their cut. The nay-sayers have alleged all along that HMRC won't compromise but, of course, that's what the nay-sayers want to believe and they MAY end up being disappointed.

Of course. But my point was, they don't have the same ability to (e.g.) repossess the stadium if we don't pay in full, that MSD have.  So they have no security. So by definition they are unsecured (even if they are a higher preference of unsecured etc etc), and the EFL rules over 25% and 35%/3 apply etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appleby is the best we can hope for in our situation. 

He’s known to us, worked with good people last time and is a steady if uninspiring option………which is exactly what we need right now!

Ashley and CK are/we’re so risky and Morgan could be a good option, but the noise around his bid seems to have faded a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

How was the original value arrived at? An investor would look to the future potential surely. 

Replacement cost I believe but would have to look back.

If based on future potential, most grounds would be valued at £0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

So, according to the companies house document- thanks @G STAR RAM, Gellaw  owes £123.4m to Mel who is listed as an unsecured creditor. 

So the questions are:

Does Gellaw count as part of the club - it's part of the cross-security arrangement for the MSD loans.

If so, doesn’t that give Mel a veto over any deal?

Happy to be corrected here but my belief is that, unless security is in place, you cannot claim down 'the tree' as it were, only upwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Of course. But my point was, they don't have the same ability to (e.g.) repossess the stadium if we don't pay in full, that MSD have.  So they have no security. So by definition they are unsecured (even if they are a higher preference of unsecured etc etc), and the EFL rules over 25% and 35%/3 apply etc.

Gotcha - I see what you were getting at now. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

My only concern with Appleby is where the money is coming from - has he got serious backers who are in it for the long-term?

I also have this concern but we're getting pretty desperate now. Pre season in two weeks, season starts in 43 days. This needs sorting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...