Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:27 pm  

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.

As I quoted a former player who was compensated out under Ferres and Green, his main priority is getting the money the club owe him and he'll vote accordingly along those lines at the creditors meeting.

When they are struggling to pay bills and no help is forthcoming from the RFL you can't blame them for having this stance.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:30 pm  

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?

With the debts at £1.6 million (see Richard Lamb), the big question is just who exactly is going to even come close to clearing Marc Green's debt?

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:31 pm  

And we have to clear ALL the debt to get a 6 point penalty instead of 12?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:42 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

And we have to clear ALL the debt to get a 6 point penalty instead of 12?

Nigel Wood has said a high percentage of the debt - with agreement to be paid within a timeframe of weeks, not months. So definitely not like the Koukash repayment schedule at Salford.

The problem now is that even if you offer 50p in the pound, that's £800,000 to clear Marc Green's debt.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:50 pm  

But presumably the very positive noises that keep being released by the administrators leads you to believe that a good proportion of debt can be paid doesn't it? Otherwise what exactly are they positive about given debt repayment is their primary function?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:52 pm  

£1.6m debt? That is some going for somebody who preached about living within the clubs means.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:53 pm  

MicktheGled wrote:

I honestly can't see anything happening for the next 10 days.

...which takes us towards the point where it will spill over into the New Year

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:05 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

But presumably the very positive noises that keep being released by the administrators leads you to believe that a good proportion of debt can be paid doesn't it? Otherwise what exactly are they positive about given debt repayment is their primary function?

I have my doubts the club could survive a 12-point deduction on the basis year one would basically be a battle to avoid relegation to League One.

The RFL were keen to stress 'weeks' rather than 'months' on any repayment agreements with HMRC and the unsecured creditors.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:08 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

...which takes us towards the point where it will spill over into the New Year

In 1997 Hull Kingston Rovers were in administration for 9 months. The key is along as money is coming into the club then the administrators can continue to pay the bills. I would hope something is concluded before the new year but no one knows how long this will take. It's extremely complicated.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:16 pm  

When you buy something, there is obviously a cost involved. Even though there will be little in the way of tangible assets, maybe the cost involved in buying the Bulls is to pay off all of the creditors. Or is that just wishful thinking?