Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:43 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Surely, the provision of our future service [watching the games] has a monetary value? If not, how can they get away with charging on the gate?

It has a monetary value but the ticket holder is not owed money. The holder is owed admission to watch RL games. In technical accounting terms the holder is not a cash creditor. They would only become one if the club reneged on the original contract and if they were entitled to a refund.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:05 am  

I can appreciate there are different kinds of debt [and I'm sure, under the technical differences you cite, you're correct in what you say] but, however it's looked at, the ticket holders cash was paid to the old company and the service is going to be provided by the new company. In any logical train of thought it's clear the 'debt' of the old company is being 'paid off' by the new one.

Even in law, I'm pretty sure the new company could have said the tickets were invalid for future games [which, presumably would have left us as creditors], so it seems somewhat illogical that it wouldn't be seen as paying off a 'debt'.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:51 pm  

Derwent wrote:

It has a monetary value but the ticket holder is not owed money. The holder is owed admission to watch RL games. In technical accounting terms the holder is not a cash creditor. They would only become one if the club reneged on the original contract and if they were entitled to a refund.

The club did renege on all season tickets. And everything else. It went into administration and was then sold. Thus there can be no dispute at all that the seller of the tickets, the company we are discussing, OK Bulls, has failed to honour the season ticket contracts. Therefore why would we not be technically entitled to a refund from them?

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:08 am  

Think people are getting hung up on legal definition of creditors tbh. RFL aren't just looking at financial creditors, they will also consider moral creditors which is category season ticket holders undoubtedly fall in. Also consider any remaining debt to safeguard security. Pretty easy for new owner to transfer money into club to cover any such amount outstanding and then pay it back hence satisfying another creditor, whilst in reality just shuffling money between companies he owns.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The club did renege on all season tickets. And everything else. It went into administration and was then sold. Thus there can be no dispute at all that the seller of the tickets, the company we are discussing, OK Bulls, has failed to honour the season ticket contracts. Therefore why would we not be technically entitled to a refund from them?

I must have missed something: has money been demanded from season ticket holders for greenco?

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:54 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

I must have missed something: has money been demanded from season ticket holders for greenco?

yes, you missed my whole point, which is the reason money is not being demanded by greenco is because greenco is,in effect, for every season ticket holder admitted, paying off a part of the debt of oldco, and clearly should get RL brownie points for doing so, just as it should for any other creditors.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

yes, you missed my whole point, which is the reason money is not being demanded by greenco is because greenco is,in effect, for every season ticket holder admitted, paying off a part of the debt of oldco, and clearly should get RL brownie points for doing so, just as it should for any other creditors.

Just a genuine request for information FA. My interest is in Mats comment. I am sure it is not written in the laws relating to administration bankruptcy etc that any buyer of oldco assets also takes on any season ticket liability, but as Mat says there is a moral one, however I would also have thought that the RFL when examining bids and their suitability do take into consideration not just the players and hmrc but the fans too, so any bid with a hint of charging season ticket holders again would get nowhere, that liability has to be taken on with the assets. So yes, in my opinion, you dont need to do any more meldrewing about this, its already been noted by the RFL that their preconditions have been met. So the real question is about the unsecured trade creditors and what payback they get.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:17 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Just a genuine request for information FA. My interest is in Mats comment. I am sure it is not written in the laws relating to administration bankruptcy etc that any buyer of oldco assets also takes on any season ticket liability, but as Mat says there is a moral one, however I would also have thought that the RFL when examining bids and their suitability do take into consideration not just the players and hmrc but the fans too, so any bid with a hint of charging season ticket holders again would get nowhere, that liability has to be taken on with the assets. So yes, in my opinion, you dont need to do any more meldrewing about this, its already been noted by the RFL that their preconditions have been met. So the real question is about the unsecured trade creditors and what payback they get.

I must say I'm not sure why you always seem to be so chippy. Still, each to his own.

Your faith that "any bid with a hint of charging season ticket holders would get nowhere" is one I'm afraid I don't share. I do know that this was not a requirement of accepting the OK Bulls bid. OK had to agree to a whole bunch of shiit but that ain't one of 'em. I don't see any obvious reason why it would suddenly be added to the mix.

I think "the real questions" would be about our distribution (nobody has said); followed by repayment to RFL of advances on Sky money made to administrator. I would think as a matter of good sense the new owners would come to some arrangements with some trade creditors, especially if they want to maintain a relationship. I have not heard anything about a penny of the HMRC debt being paid. Personally I assume there is no chance of any points back unless trade creditors and HMRC were paid substantial sums, but I don't personally expect HMRC will get anything, and I never did expect, (for whatever it's worth) once the points had gone, we would ever get them back.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:10 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Your faith that "any bid with a hint of charging season ticket holders would get nowhere" is one I'm afraid I don't share. I do know that this was not a requirement of accepting the OK Bulls bid. OK had to agree to a whole bunch of shiit but that ain't one of 'em. I don't see any obvious reason why it would suddenly be added to the mix.

big difference between when OK took over and current takeover is timing though. OK had only one home game remaining in the season, so loss of income was less relative to potential loss of goodwill. Green has 10 home games remaining so could bring in a siginificant sum by not honouring the existing tickets.

Be nice if we got some definite statement from club before friday as to whether tickets will be honoured or not rather than just turning up assuming and hoping for best.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:19 am  

mat wrote:

big difference between when OK took over and current takeover is timing though. OK had only one home game remaining in the season, so loss of income was less relative to potential loss of goodwill. Green has 10 home games remaining so could bring in a siginificant sum by not honouring the existing tickets.

Be nice if we got some definite statement from club before friday as to whether tickets will be honoured or not rather than just turning up assuming and hoping for best.

Depending on who you believe on the number of ST's sold, but say 3500, 10 games, £20 per ticket - £700,000, so yes big money.

As a ST holder I am in two minds, yes not good to pay twice, but then £20 for each of the remaining games I can get to this season is going top help the club's finances. Perhaps a half way house would be for ST holders to get in for £10 a game?