craig 5,199 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 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. As I said in my other post, if they werent duty bound to attempt a CVA but WERE duty bound try to ave the club how were they going to do that without the CVA ? Straight asset sale ? Wouldnt have saved the oldco, would have been a sale of assets to newco. I dont know how you reconcile these two points Zappa. 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. How do you know they would have got more money in a straight asset sale ? Ibrox, whilst priceless to us, is in an area which has worthless land all the way around it. It also wouldnt have forced the SPL & SFA into anything. Do you think they were forced into giving us our SFL membership ? Seems to me that we had to capitulate for that to happen. I dont think they would have been forced into anything more than they already did. 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. Zappa, it matters not whether it was cute wording from D&P, the reality is that given the offers on the table NOT ONE OF THEM would have been accepted by HMRC. So it really is a moot point. 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. Maybe I was a tad overboard, this has never been a simple process.... yet, funnily enough, plenty are suggesting this should have been easy for D&P to either achieve a CVA or for them to get far more money in an asset sale or far easier to get HMRC approval or that the administration process was far easier than their fee suggests.... yet funnily enough here we are agreeing that it wasnt a simple process... 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. I dont agree - surprised ? The bids for oldco would not have made any difference to the judges determining the outcome of the EBT case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 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? I didnt respond to your previous post to me FS, primarily because you kind of agreed with a lot of what I said, but the above is the one element where you rebutted my post so I will respond on here. I would agree with this. What really should have happened is that there were two bids put on the table by each party, one for an attempted CVA and one for an asset sale. The problem it seems was exclusivity. But I dont see any reason why that would have posed a problem - each party could have been given access to the ful records, there was no need to have exclusivity IMO. All that should have mattered is interested parties having all the information and making their own determination of a CVA value and asset sale value. SO I agree, I think they failed in their duties to allow other interested parties the opportunity to bid on a straight asset sale. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 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. That's why I disagree that it was all very simple because the Insolvency Act and how it can be interpreted, worked and/or manipulated is anything but simple. I read the whole thing dozens of times during our administration and it wasn't easy reading, but my interpretation (and extrapolation) of it is that while D&P were duty bound to try to save the company, if they had at any time felt that selling the comapny assets to a bidder with an appropriate "newco" plan would be the most beneficial thing to do on behalf of the creditors, then that's what they should have done and they could have done it without any CVA proposal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 That's why I disagree that it was all very simple because the Insolvency Act and how it can be interpreted, worked and/or manipulated is anything but simple. I read the whole thing dozens of times during our administration and it wasn't easy reading, but my interpretation (and extrapolation) of it is that while D&P were duty bound to try to save the company, if they had at any time felt that selling the comapny assets to a bidder with an appropriate "newco" plan would be the most beneficial thing to do on behalf of the creditors, then that's what they should have done and they could have done it without any CVA proposal. In which case I refer you to STB's post. It would have been a very unpopular route to go down and could have resulted in less income for the club if fans saw that there was no attempt to save the club at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 In which case I refer you to STB's post. It would have been a very unpopular route to go down and could have resulted in less income for the club if fans saw that there was no attempt to save the club at all. Yes and that's why the futile attempt at a CVA was advantagous for Charles Green's group and D&P in terms of popularity stakes, but it was a sideshow and a sideshow which also happened to benefit them financially. It didn't benefit the PLC though and it didn't benefit the creditors either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 d&p went with green as he guaranteed them their fee. no matter what. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 d&p went with green as he guaranteed them their fee. no matter what. They would have got their fee with TBK too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Yes and that's why the futile attempt at a CVA was advantagous for Charles Green's group and D&P in terms of popularity stakes, but it was a sideshow and a sideshow which also happened to benefit them financially. It didn't benefit the PLC though and it didn't benefit the creditors either. plus every delay made d&p more cash. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 They would have got their fee with TBK too. only if a cva was agreed. that's why I say no matter what. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 Administrators are always guaranteed their fee, even if there isn't enough money from the business they get paid from elsewhere. 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.