rbr 1,247 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Press Release: ‘Following inaccurate media reports, the Blue Knights/Brian Kennedy Consortium wishes to clarify its position. Firstly, on Saturday evening 28 April 2012, we submitted a materially increased offer which will be confirmed by the administrators, Duff & Phelps. Secondly, and for the avoidance of doubt, our offer is conditional on a CVA and the delivery of Craig Whyte’s shares. If successful, this will retain the SPL membership share in RFC 1899. Dave Swanton Twitter @swannymediaman 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Press Release: ‘Following inaccurate media reports, the Blue Knights/Brian Kennedy Consortium wishes to clarify its position. Firstly, on Saturday evening 28 April 2012, we submitted a materially increased offer which will be confirmed by the administrators, Duff & Phelps. Secondly, and for the avoidance of doubt, our offer is conditional on a CVA and the delivery of Craig Whyte’s shares. If successful, this will retain the SPL membership share in RFC 1899. Sorry already posted, delete please. Dave Swanton Twitter @swannymediaman Edited May 1, 2012 by chilledbear some smartass beat me to it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Secondly, and for the avoidance of doubt, our offer is conditional on a CVA and the delivery of Craig Whyte’s shares. Not sure how D&P can name them preferred bidder then. Same goes for Miller obviously. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I don't see how we are going to exit administration anytime soon. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Is there anything to prevent D&P simply allowing them BOTH access to the hitherto inaccessible elements of the club ? I dont really see the need for exclusivity - just let them BOTH have access to the same info, same people etc - let them do their due diligence on it, let them re-assess their offer - and then pick the best one. This is ludicrous - I dont see any reason that there even NEEDS to be a preferred bidder. There are only two left at the table - let them have the same damned access, then let them decide what they want to do. Sure, they may still have conditions attached, but at least the process is moved along in the sense that the due diligence will have been completed. All turning into a farce, in a hurry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Been a farce since the Admins first commented on Whytes shares. Now to insist on unconditional bids, when no one in their right mind would do so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Is this conditional/unconditional thing simply semantics? Seems to me, as stated: Bill Miller is offering a bid based on the conditional assurances of the SFA/SPL. Blue Knights/Brian Kennedy are offering a bid based on the condition of an acceptable CVA to creditors and the delivery of CW's shares. Both bids are structured in different ways (if we are to believe what we are told) and neither bid has to be accepted by creditors. So why are we getting so hung up on bids being conditional when it is the creditor group (or >75% thereof) that makes the decision? Seems to me that D&P can and should allow both bids to progress and for creditors to appraise the options that suit them best. Everything else is delaying tactics from D&P. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Is this conditional/unconditional thing simply semantics? Seems to me, as stated: Bill Miller is offering a bid based on the conditional assurances of the SFA/SPL. Blue Knights/Brian Kennedy are offering a bid based on the condition of an acceptable CVA to creditors and the delivery of CW's shares. Both bids are structured in different ways (if we are to believe what we are told) and neither bid has to be accepted by creditors. So why are we getting so hung up on bids being conditional when it is the creditor group (or >75% thereof) that makes the decision? Seems to me that D&P can and should allow both bids to progress and for creditors to appraise the options that suit them best. Everything else is delaying tactics from D&P. Stalling tactics indeed. No news on SFA appeal. No certainty of an SPL vote on Monday either. However, I don't expect the SFA sanctions to prevail or the SPL rules to be voted through. Add in the problems over Whyte's holding and Ticketus' probably opposition to a CVA, all signs are pointing to newco. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Stalling tactics indeed. No news on SFA appeal. No certainty of an SPL vote on Monday either. However, I don't expect the SFA sanctions to prevail or the SPL rules to be voted through. Add in the problems over Whyte's holding and Ticketus' probably opposition to a CVA, all signs are pointing to newco. Reluctantly I would agree. If true then so much for Brian Kennedy's promises to be a stopgap that prevents liquidation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 What legal recourse do we have regarding the appointment of D&P? Could the RFFF QC raise a motion to the Court of Session to challenge this? What evidence is there to prove that D&P are stalling? 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.