Andrew Dickson, Head of Football Administration

[craig 5,199]

Whilst it's a fair argument that it wasn't designed to fail it certainly wasn't designed to succeed either.

 

The irrevocable fall back of the £5.5m newco option when you consider you get the (reputed) £2.5m SPL prize money and (assume) you get all the players registrations TUPE'd over means the buyers would have no reason for shedding few tears over what could be viewed as simply saving yourself £3m on your initial outlay (and picking up all the assets for effectively £0).

 

I'm not convinced the differing CVA's were compared using equal criteria by Duff & Phelps but that's now a moot point anyway.

 

Even if the CVA's were compared using equal criteria what I think is beyond doubt is whether a CVA would have been successful. I dont think TBK's bid would have been successful either.

 

The only thing we are pretty much arguing right now is whether or not our owners would be Green's consortium or TBK's. What I dont think is in doubt is that we would be newco.

 

None of them were prepared to ante up enough cash to save oldco.

 

It then depends on whether you think that TBK's or Green would be the better owners. And whilst we wont find out about TBK's unless they buy the club at some future point and, equally, whilst there is still suspicion surrounding Green, I think that Green certainly gets pass marks at this stage.

 

I wouldnt fully endorse him right now but there isnt too much he has done wrong thus far.

[craig 5,199]

As for not designed to fail but not designed to succeed..... that is kind of my point. I dont think that it was designed at all, it looks to me that they went with what they had. You could call it "design by default".

 

I dont think that the TBK bid would have been much better, truth be told, when it came to presenting it to the creditors.

[Zappa 0]

As for not designed to fail but not designed to succeed..... that is kind of my point. I dont think that it was designed at all, it looks to me that they went with what they had. You could call it "design by default".

 

Going through with the process of a CVA proposal which is destined to fail (whilst racking up more administration and legal fees) isn't design by default though Craig because there's nothing default about it at all. There was absolutely no need to go through with a pointless CVA proposal and I put it to you that neither Duff & Phelps or Charles Green's group did so in a genuine attempt to get the CVA approved and benefit the club. This has been the crux of my point throughout this discussion.

[craig 5,199]

Going through with the process of a CVA proposal which is destined to fail (whilst racking up more administration and legal fees) isn't design by default though Craig because there's nothing default about it at all. There was absolutely no need to go through with a pointless CVA proposal and I put it to you that neither Duff & Phelps or Charles Green's group did so in a genuine attempt to get the CVA approved and benefit the club. This has been the crux of my point throughout this discussion.

 

They were duty bound to at least attempt a CVA. Doesnt mean it was likely to be achieved, but they were duty bound to put SOMETHING to the creditors. HMRC originally said they could be worked with and changed their mind. It really is kind of simple.

 

What was the point of adding more cash to a futile attempt to save oldco ?

[forlanssister 3,060]

Even if the CVA's were compared using equal criteria what I think is beyond doubt is whether a CVA would have been successful. I dont think TBK's bid would have been successful either.

 

Probably not, but that's not the point I was making.

 

The only thing we are pretty much arguing right now is whether or not our owners would be Green's consortium or TBK's. What I dont think is in doubt is that we would be newco.

 

I think that if a CVA was proposed that made HMRC ask the question then perhaps they may have accepted, but as there was no value (that I could see anyway) in any CVA proposal then it's impossible to argue with HMRC's decision to reject.

 

None of them were prepared to ante up enough cash to save oldco.

 

Sadly that's correct but nonetheless something that still puzzles me.

 

It then depends on whether you think that TBK's or Green would be the better owners. And whilst we wont find out about TBK's unless they buy the club at some future point and, equally, whilst there is still suspicion surrounding Green, I think that Green certainly gets pass marks at this stage.

 

I wouldnt fully endorse him right now but there isnt too much he has done wrong thus far.

 

Green's been open enough about his motives since day one and that's not something he should be criticised for, but he could be far more open about our deliberately opaque ownership structure.

 

We won't know for sure till after he's gone whether Green has been good or bad for us, I'm of the opinion that if he and his "investors" don't get too greedy then his reign and his legacy may be viewed positively (I certainly hope that's the case though I still retain some scepticism).

 

They were duty bound to at least attempt a CVA. Doesnt mean it was likely to be achieved, but they were duty bound to put SOMETHING to the creditors. HMRC originally said they could be worked with and changed their mind. It really is kind of simple.

 

What was the point of adding more cash to a futile attempt to save oldco ?

 

They were also duty bound to work in the best interests of the creditors but can it really be argued they did so by entering into the irrevocable agreement with (the then) Sevco rather than setting a deadline for bids for a straight asset sale? After all once the responsibility of being the one who killed RFC plc was removed it literally becomes a different ball game.

[Zappa 0]

They were duty bound to at least attempt a CVA.

 

I think you'll find that they weren't duty bound to attempt a CVA at all.

 

They were duty bound to try to save the company and duty bound to act in the best interests of the creditors at all times and they failed on both counts because they didn't save the company and the creditors (who weren't football clubs) ended up with nothing.

 

Doesnt mean it was likely to be achieved, but they were duty bound to put SOMETHING to the creditors.

 

If it was in the interests of the creditors, D&P didn't need to attempt a CVA. They could have sold the assets to a newco at a far earlier stage and in doing so, raised more money for the creditors whilst also forcing the SPL & SFA to immediately transfer our SPL member share and SFA membership to newco in order for us to complete the league season.

 

HMRC originally said they could be worked with and changed their mind.

 

There's a BIG difference between HMRC saying that and them saying that achieving a CVA on a limited budget was possible, hence the cute wording from D&P.

 

It really is kind of simple.

 

I don't think it's simple at all to be honest Craig, but we can agree to disagree on that point too if you like.

 

What was the point of adding more cash to a futile attempt to save oldco ?

 

Good point and I personally believe that's exactly why the result of big tax case tribunal was delayed and still to this day hasn't been concluded.

[simplythebest 0]

Going straight for the new company route would probably have resulted in riots (exaggerating to make a point obviously), remember the 'red card to liquidation' display and the response to Bill Miller's 'incubator' company plan.

 

Not speaking for people on here as I don't make a note of everyone's views at a certain time, but for our fanbase as a vast majority not attempting the CVA route first would have been unacceptable.

[forlanssister 3,060]

Going straight for the new company route would probably have resulted in riots (exaggerating to make a point obviously), remember the 'red card to liquidation' display and the response to Bill Miller's 'incubator' company plan.

 

Not speaking for people on here as I don't make a note of everyone's views at a certain time, but for our fanbase as a vast majority not attempting the CVA route first would have been unacceptable.

 

100% correct hence TBK's extreme reluctance to go down the newco ( D&P's favoured option from day one albeit via the non-liquidation liquidation)route as their option of choice, but once the option of the CVA was removed did Duff & Phelps fail in their duties by agreeing to the irrevocable asset sale to (the then) Sevco?

[simplythebest 0]

100% correct hence TBK's extreme reluctance to go down the newco ( D&P's favoured option from day one albeit via the non-liquidation liquidation)route as their option of choice, but once the option of the CVA was removed did Duff & Phelps fail in their duties by agreeing to the irrevocable asset sale to (the then) Sevco?

Well I think that the whole 'bidding war' as it were had to come to an end for the club to start moving on and for administration to finally be left behind.

 

We only got our SFA membership a couple of days before our first fixture so I dread to think what would have happened if more time had been spent on deciding over different 'newco' bids.

[craig 5,199]

Zappa, if they were duty bound to try to save the company yet you say they weent duty bound to attempt a CVA then I am very curious as to how they would have saved oldco without a CVA. Please enlighten me.