Bluedell

It's a law. The Pensions Act 2004.

No, I didn't see it. I've got a friend who I believe is one and I recognise a lot of similar traits..

I don't think he ever recovered from making that statement.

1. "Do we just sit on it and allow the club to face more fines etc." - the RFFF was set up with specific aims. The rules were set out clearly. If the cash has to be paid then it could easily be done by the club. It should not have been done by the RFFF. 2. "Do we allow another club to go into admin on the back of us?" - I'm more concerned about our future than any other clubs and that was why I and many others contributed to the RFFF. 3. "Do we allow another club to go into admin on the back of us?" - what about all the other small creditors who may be in an even worse situation than Dunfermline? Was there any assessment of which creditor needed it the most or was it purely done as a GIRUY to Dundee Utd? 4. "The single biggest concern everyone had was the Administrators were not paid or legal fees, from the fund" - that may have been your concern but it's wrong to say that it was everybody else's. People were concerned that their cash was going to go into a "black hole" (a term I saw used on numerous occasions) and end up getting used to pay off the creditors. We were assured that this would not be the case and yet that is what has been done. I'm genuinely surprised at how few people have a problem with the RFFF committee breaking their own rules and diverting cash away from our club when we are still in so much financial trouble. Do we have enough cash to meet the running expenses of the club over the next 2 months? If yes, then why continue to ask for cash? If no then why give away cash when every penny counts to try and avoid liquidation?

I'm convinced he is a sociopath.

The trustees of a pension scheme are not able to use the pension scheme cash to pay off debts of the company, just because the company are a bit short of cash.

Good for him for doing so.

The issue of whether Whyte can be removed is definitely worth debating and is potentially one of the most important issues at the club. However all we seem to know is that the administrators say that he probably is not an issue but explaining why, whyte saying that he still has influence and nobody firmly refuting that with any legal precedence that I have seen, and the issue that many players have built into their contracts that they can walk if whyte is still involved in the club, possibly at 1st June, which is very worrying. It's difficult to say much more at this stage due to lack of knowledge which is frustrating and worrying.

Disagree Ian. I don't agree with much of what he has to say but it's still a discussion point, which is the whole point of forums.

I'd say that your third and possibly the second paragraphs were speculation and not fact.

The bottom line is that we were told that the donations would not be used to pay creditors but they have done. This has already put some contributors off and some have stated on another forum that they will not make further contributions because of that. However you will not see at least one of the threads due to censorship, which is also quite disturbing for obvious reasons.

You asked I don't know what ALL the running costs are, but I could certainly detail what a lot of them are, but don't see the relevence. I guess that you still don't see the difference between a running cost and a creditor.

From November 2006

I guess that the bid would specify what they were buying (shares or assets) but ultimately the administrators decide what bid to accept. AFAIK the bid wouldn't be accepted and then the bidder decide which way to go.

The administrators have been giving plenty of unoffical press briefings, and it's quite possible that they have revealed who the highest bidders are to try and encourage others to up their bids.

And maybe you don't understand the difference between running costs and creditors.

How would I know that? What I do know is that a pre-administration creditor is not a running cost of the club.

Yes, it does. I've already explained why it does.

No it's not to be used as we want it to be used. The uses of the cash were set out quite clearly.

It's paying an existing creditor that will be dealt with under the CVA. Running costs of the club are costs incurred to keep the club going now, not meeting debts incurred pre-administration.

Agreed. that was my first thought. It's specifically forbidden under the rules of the fighting fund. We are told that our club is at risk and we need to contribute to the Fighting Fund to meet running expenses and meanwhile the Fighting Fund Committee are spending the cash on areas prohibited by its own rules. I guess the cash is not actually needed by the club if the committee can use it for other things. I wonder if they actually assessed which of our creditors needed the cash the most, or whether it was just the populist one that would make the most headlines?

That'd be the administrators that would decide that.

Surely that's not his call?