Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:33 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

if HMRC are owed more than 25% of all debt you need their approval of any buy out bid that does not pay off creditors in full. They might except less than what they are owed and write off some of the debt, but then again who knows......

more importantly, reading between lines of what RFL have said or alluded to in various statements, in order to retain our SL status we need to either all or a very large portion of debts. Anything less and we're in championship.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:56 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

if HMRC are owed more than 25% of all debt you need their approval of any buy out bid that does not pay off creditors in full. They might except less than what they are owed and write off some of the debt, but then again who knows......

I really dont think there is any chance that HMRC will accept a lesser value it will be all or nothing for them being a statutory and public body.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:13 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

I really dont think there is any chance that HMRC will accept a lesser value it will be all or nothing for them being a statutory and public body.

possibly not but they may accept payment under the terms agreed previously which was announced as 5 months for the VAT from sale of Odsal and 3 years for the image rights settlement. That totals about half million pounds that doesn't have to be put in up front.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:15 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

if HMRC are owed more than 25% of all debt you need their approval of any buy out bid that does not pay off creditors in full. They might except less than what they are owed and write off some of the debt, but then again who knows......

Or, more properly, for a CVA to be approved you need approval of at least 75% of the creditors. WHich in this case means HMRC and probably a few others.

All previous payment plans are null and void. What we would be talking about here is what % in the pound HMRC and others would accept.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:25 pm  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19244500 "Ideally in the next few weeks we'll have a deal" (Guillifoyle , 2012) Anyone reckon it will be sorted for Rio 2016?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19244500 "Ideally in the next few weeks we'll have a deal" (Guillifoyle , 2012) Anyone reckon it will be sorted for Rio 2016?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:26 pm  

Adey - PM sent

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:22 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

Adey - PM sent

And received.

And concur 100%.

Reply soon as I get a min!

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:47 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Or, more properly, for a CVA to be approved you need approval of at least 75% of the creditors. WHich in this case means HMRC and probably a few others.

All previous payment plans are null and void. What we would be talking about here is what % in the pound HMRC and others would accept.

Adey, does that mean if one creditor is owed 75% of the total debt he decides our fate, or is it a 'democratic', each creditor has one vote 75%?

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:58 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

They did say it was 6 points "for going into Administration"

It's a maximum of six points, just as it was with Wakey, but you can have the penalty reduced if you pay a lump of the owed money back, a la Wakey.

You may remember that Wakey were docked only 4 points, that was because the RFL waited until the deal was sorted before jumping in with the iron fist. If it turns out that we also pay back a significant amount, a big if, quite possibly, but if that happens, I can't see, in all fairness, why the decision shouldn't be re-visited. In fact it damn well ought to be. Truth is there was no need at all to make the decision when they did.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:27 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

It's a maximum of six points, just as it was with Wakey, but you can have the penalty reduced if you pay a lump of the owed money back, a la Wakey.

You may remember that Wakey were docked only 4 points, that was because the RFL waited until the deal was sorted before jumping in with the iron fist. If it turns out that we also pay back a significant amount, a big if, quite possibly, but if that happens, I can't see, in all fairness, why the decision shouldn't be re-visited. In fact it damn well ought to be. Truth is there was no need at all to make the decision when they did.

Without ploughing over old ground and getting hung for it, Wakefield came out of admin very quickly had no funding from the RFL and sold a number of players leaving us very weak, now thats not happened here and players could have been sold to ease the pain weeks ago (emphasis weeks not days) in addition you have had massive support from the governing body, dont think you will reduce the 6 points now.