Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:07 am  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Couldn't put it better myself

This is a point that those who keep saying that they 'expect Green to get it' have yet to explain

I think my own pessimism in expecting Green to get it back has no basis whatsoever in fact. It's purely a "worse case scenario" which as Bulls fans, we've almost become conditioned to expect in recent years. It's not because he's a creditor or because he's made this or that noise, it's because I expect to be disappointed again.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:23 am  

I don't think Green has a chance of getting it back. If we do have wealthy bidders and Green gets it the whole process will look like it is fixed in some way.

The story in the TandA does concern me a little where it says the decision is down to the creditors.
I don't trust them to make the right decision - other than for themselves and not for the long term future of the club.

I do think they should get all money owed to them as I would want it if I were a business being owed by them.
Lets hope the administrator has told all bidders they must pay off debts to have a good chance of winning.
Then give it to the person who has the cash to run the club for many years.

[Bullseye]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:37 am  

If I was a creditor that had been messed about and maybe gone as far as getting a CCJ against the club I’d be going for the best deal I could get and the long term prospects of the Bulls would be the least of my concerns.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:40 am  

To be fair if the creditors decide. Wouldn't that mean they would go for the best deal anyway? Or at the very least the one with the most cash (which wouldn't be a bad thing for the club)

If you were owed money, you wouldnt choose Richard Lamb who doesnt appear to be that wealthy?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:46 am  

Bull Mania wrote:

To be fair if the creditors decide. Wouldn't that mean they would go for the best deal anyway? Or at the very least the one with the most cash (which wouldn't be a bad thing for the club)

If you were owed money, you wouldnt choose Richard Lamb who doesnt appear to be that wealthy?

But for example:
Buyer A might offer to pay back 25p in the £1 but invest £10 million a year into the club guaranteed for the next 10 years.
Buyer B might offer to pay back 80p in the £1 but only have 20p a year after that to spend on the club.

Option B is better for the creditors, but not for the club. If you were owed money, what would you choose?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:54 am  

debaser wrote:

But for example:
Buyer A might offer to pay back 25p in the £1 but invest £10 million a year into the club guaranteed for the next 10 years.
Buyer B might offer to pay back 80p in the £1 but only have 20p a year after that to spend on the club.

Option B is better for the creditors, but not for the club. If you were owed money, what would you choose?

That should be where the RFL get involved and not pass the deal as the club would end up back in admin again within
12 months,
In theory and this is only in theory a balance should be struck between what is best for creditors and what is best for the club,
As the RFL allow a licence to play Rugby League to whom the deem fit..

However given past form I don't hold any hope of anyone doing their job correctly, so expect admin 4 around this time next year.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:04 am  

I can not see how Mr Green will get the club back as he won't be able to pass the so called "fit and proper persons test" as he did not pay HMRC and put the club into Admin!

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:06 am  

Not complicated. Administrator's job is to get the best deal for the creditors, end of. The proposal will be put to creditors and needs a 75% majority or else its a no, and the company is liquidated.

Where "the club" comes in is simply that (to state the bleedin obvious) you are always going to get far more money from selling a business as a going concern, than you ever are if the business closes and is liquidated, in which case the creditors will be lucky to receive a carrot to share between them.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:18 am  

Bullseye wrote:

If I was a creditor that had been messed about and maybe gone as far as getting a CCJ against the club I’d be going for the best deal I could get and the long term prospects of the Bulls would be the least of my concerns.

How would you get a CCJ against the club if they are in admin?

But yeah agreed it's not up to the creditors to get the best deal for the long term of the club.

However, given the RFL have to ratify the choice - as its not a going concern without membership of the league - it's in the interest of the administrator to make sure that anyone put forward has a likely chance of ticking all their boxes.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:25 am  

debaser wrote:

But for example:
Buyer A might offer to pay back 25p in the £1 but invest £10 million a year into the club guaranteed for the next 10 years.
Buyer B might offer to pay back 80p in the £1 but only have 20p a year after that to spend on the club.

Option B is better for the creditors, but not for the club. If you were owed money, what would you choose?

Fair but if i won the euro millions the first thing i'd want to do is pay off the creditors as that is just as important as investing in the future. Most importantly it might earn back some trust from the very disillusioned supporters.

I'd struggle to understand the logic of someone who wants to invest in the club to think its a good idea to start on -12 points this season in trying to get supporters back.