foggy dewhurst 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 it would leave duff and phelps looking bad if mr green cant produce the required money . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Seems to me that Green will have to offer more in a CVA than for a newco to make it attractive. Some companies may also not like the publicity of putting us out of business when they will not gain anything by it. It's not good business for them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 These two tweets by David Hillier earlier gave me a real sense of optimism for a CVA. The HMRC info plus the fact that Ticketus seem to be going after Whyte and have said today that they will no further dealings with RFC make it perfectly possible that a CVA can be agreed. David Hillier @DavidHillier Re: HMRC and CVA. I believe they will agree. Key is identity of new owner and whether they are committed to meeting CVA requirements. 1h David Hillier @DavidHillier HMRC CVA policy: when an insolvent firm has new owners, history of nonpayment is not important. New owners are what matters. Retweeted by Juan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 It may be rejected if Green et al can't get the money together they promised. I thought green had lodged the funds with d&p 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,199 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I thought green had lodged the funds with d&p I thought Whyte had lodged the funds too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I thought Whyte had lodged the funds too. Well he did have the money problem was it wasn't his. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guardian Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I doubt the admins would fall for that one. It's a bit old now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) I thought Whyte had lodged the funds too. The big diff is these guys have claimed to have lodged funds with an admin team to see, CW only had to kid on DM that he had money. I dont see the 2 being the same here. But thats just me trying to give these guys a chance. Edited May 15, 2012 by CumbernauldGers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,322 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I'm not sure how all this works mate as the agreement is supposed to be binding. Much more knowledgeable business/football people than me are curious at a variety of connected issues with this deal. Like them, I'm not convinced. I really want to be positive but I'm finding it very difficult to do so. Very unlike you Frankie, and therefore I'm a little intrigued at your concerns on this deal. Care to elaborate? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,322 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 The big diff is these guys have claimed to have lodged funds with an admin team to see, CW only had to kid on DW that he had money. I dont see the 2 being the same here. But thats just me trying to give these guys a chance. And lets remember DM had no option but to sell to CW as LBG told him to. LBG didnt care where the money came from or who it came from, they just wanted their money back. 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.