28 Days Granted

[Snook 10]

but there is the possibility that the bank could recover more of its debts in a winding uprather than carrying on with administration

 

Yeah, that was my poiny, really. It's the same for the board members and investors. If they have the clubs interests at heart then they would enter administration and keep the club going with a chance of rebuilding. However, it seems that they might be waiting to have a chance of getting their investments back.

[Boblet 10]

This of course assumes that if the football club closes down or is kicked out, the council grants the right to change the use of the property. A 40,000 seater football stadium is no use or value to anyone if there is no team to play in it, and there is no permission to change its use to a building plot for houses/supermarkets.

 

And I'm sure there would be a few on the council etc. that would object to it's use being changed - just look how hard Chesterfield found it, and they were still operating as a club.

 

I'm sure Co-op will have taken this into account.

 

Absolutely right - which support's the view that the best return for the bank (and anyone else owed money) will be by way of a sale as a going concern either pre admin if possible, or post admin if necessary - liquidation means the worst outcome financially for everyone

[sixties 10]

should have put them out of there misery......

[DaMan 15]

Hasn't Nick Parker stated that its actually closer to 14 days as there is still the case on 1st December to still be heard? I for one do not want to see the Owls go out of business as I don't believe this would be good for the city. Plus who would us Blades have banter with if it did happen? Not forgetting all the family and friends this would affect. I have friends who work at Hillsborough and they would be made redundant if club is wound up.

Edited November 18, 2010 by DaMan

[Boblet 10]

Hasn't Nick Parker stated that its actually closer to 14 days as there is still the case on 1st December to still be heard? I for one do not want to see the Owls go out of business as I don't believe this would be good for the city. Plus who would us Blades have banter with if it did happen? Not forgetting all the family and friends this would affect. I have friends who work at Hillsborough and they would be made redundant if club is wound up.

 

I suppose it depends what happens between now and the hearing on 1st December - as the Court has adjourned one petition for 28 days it would make sense for it to adjourn the second petition from the same creditor and hear them both at the same time, but you never know with Courts

 

If no real progress has been made by 1 December you could easily see HMRC persuading the Court that they are just delaying the inevitable and the debts are still increasing in the meantime

 

The problem with the adjournment is that there is a danger that the various parties will "relax" and think, "we don't have to bust a gut to get this done, we have another 2/3/4 weeks to sort it" - progress needs to be made now.

[crookesey 635]

To me it means that both the bank and HMRC consider that there is the possibility of a deal being done. SWFC, until of late, have paid a lot of tax, the possibility of zero tax in perpetuity won't fill HMRC with joy. The bank will at least want to see how much they might get back, well I would, wouldn't you?

[Paul Blade 10]

Posted from another thread

While listening to Nick Parker tonight IIRC he said the judge mentioned that wednesday were running insolvent( I can't remember the exact words as i was doing something when he was on) . He was very indignant about it and said it was not true

The dictionary explanation for a company being solvent is

adj.. Capable of meeting financial obligations.

Now I believe paying VAT, PAYE ect are all part of meeting financial obligations so either

1) wednesday are capable of paying it and deliberately are refusing to pay or

2) they don't have the money and ARE insolvent

 

What do you wednesdayites think about it?

[Boblet 10]

To me it means that both the bank and HMRC consider that there is the possibility of a deal being done. SWFC, until of late, have paid a lot of tax, the possibility of zero tax in perpetuity won't fill HMRC with joy. The bank will at least want to see how much they might get back, well I would, wouldn't you?

 

Me too - I would guess they'll also be prepared to wait a bit longer (within reason) if it means they might get a bit more

 

Not so sure about HMRC though - my experience is that they would often appear to prefer a business to close down rather than to incur further debt that they (HMRC) don't know about till its too late - they also don't like businesses which use the tax money to pay other things - and, perhaps as a consequence of this, they also seem to seriously dislike football clubs (or maybe just those that incur huge debts with them)

 

Either way, the fat lady sat down again yesterday - hopefully she won't be clearing her throat again any time soon

[Boblet 10]

Posted from another thread

While listening to Nick Parker tonight IIRC he said the judge mentioned that wednesday were running insolvent( I can't remember the exact words as i was doing something when he was on) . He was very indignant about it and said it was not true

The dictionary explanation for a company being solvent is

adj.. Capable of meeting financial obligations.

Now I believe paying VAT, PAYE ect are all part of meeting financial obligations so either

1) wednesday are capable of paying it and deliberately are refusing to pay or

2) they don't have the money and ARE insolvent

 

What do you wednesdayites think about it?

 

You can determine insolvency in different ways - e.g. you can't pay a debt when it becomes payable, or your total assets are less than your total debts

 

I think SWFC clearly fail on both measures, and any other definition anyone might come up with, which is why the Judge said they are trading insolvently

 

It is an offence to allow a business to carry on trading if you know it can't pay its debts, and this is an issue for the directors.

 

You can, however, justify it if you have a genuine reason to believe that carrying on trading will result in a better outcome for creditors than shutting the doors - so, at the moment at least, I suspect the directors would be protected from any wrongful or fraudulent trading claim, but they have a legal duty to act primarily in the best interests of creditors, and if it becomes apparent that a deal can't be done quickly, they would have no option but to appoint administrators

[happyhippy 11]

Posted from another thread

While listening to Nick Parker tonight IIRC he said the judge mentioned that wednesday were running insolvent( I can't remember the exact words as i was doing something when he was on) . He was very indignant about it and said it was not true

The dictionary explanation for a company being solvent is

adj.. Capable of meeting financial obligations.

Now I believe paying VAT, PAYE ect are all part of meeting financial obligations so either

1) wednesday are capable of paying it and deliberately are refusing to pay or

2) they don't have the money and ARE insolvent

 

What do you wednesdayites think about it?

 

The quote from the judge which I've read is "You are clearly trading insolvently, and very probably with HMRC's money." - from Matt Slater's BBC blog.

[crookesey 635]

Me too - I would guess they'll also be prepared to wait a bit longer (within reason) if it means they might get a bit more

 

Not so sure about HMRC though - my experience is that they would often appear to prefer a business to close down rather than to incur further debt that they (HMRC) don't know about till its too late - they also don't like businesses which use the tax money to pay other things - and, perhaps as a consequence of this, they also seem to seriously dislike football clubs (or maybe just those that incur huge debts with them)

 

Either way, the fat lady sat down again yesterday - hopefully she won't be clearing her throat again any time soon

 

I know what you mean, they are the ultimate control freaks, and tend to use something like this as a warning to all, they have never been popular and have no need to win friends.

[Paul Blade 10]

The quote from the judge which I've read is "You are clearly trading insolvently, and very probably with HMRC's money." - from Matt Slater's BBC blog.

 

Thanks HH as I posted on the above and original I was busy and just caught the bit about how he (the judge) was wrong to say that

It seams to me tho that all the wednesday fans jumping on the 'up yours Blades were safe' bandwagon are noticeable due to their being missing

Are they afraid to answer a question that's not a dig at them but a polite question about their management? without being abusive