Sippo
Living in the 80s
 Offline
Posts: 15614
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 10:31:24 » |
|
I'm going to be contraversial here.......
They're businessman. Their not stupid. Dunwoody is, from what I gather, a successful company Dunwoody is in CVA again, now in their all-new shiny D460 incarnation. You might like to revise your "gathering" sources. Not so much controversial as just completely misinformed  I don't have sources just presumed. *hangs head in shame* Sorry boss. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #46 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 10:37:58 » |
|
if you read the article, and it seems to be an interpretation of the same letter posted up on here the other day (from another forum) then it says "up to 9 months". if the board don't yet know when the takeover will be complete (if at all) then they aren't really in a position to give a definitive date as to when they CVA can be paid off.
This is exactly the point i was trying to make the other day before i got a bit of a backlash of a few people. Now i am not in any way defending the club on this one but how can you say "Yes we will pay you the money as soon as there is investment" when that investment is not confirmed and a takeover deal has yet to be completed? The board either don't have the investment or they are being sensible. It's one or the other |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
stfctownenda
Offline
Posts: 1818
|
|
« Reply #47 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 10:47:14 » |
|
if you read the article, and it seems to be an interpretation of the same letter posted up on here the other day (from another forum) then it says "up to 9 months". if the board don't yet know when the takeover will be complete (if at all) then they aren't really in a position to give a definitive date as to when they CVA can be paid off.
This is exactly the point i was trying to make the other day before i got a bit of a backlash of a few people. Now i am not in any way defending the club on this one but how can you say "Yes we will pay you the money as soon as there is investment" when that investment is not confirmed and a takeover deal has yet to be completed? The board either don't have the investment or they are being sensible. It's one or the other Yes but the problem is that if your a creditor due to the boards past poor record in negotiations with investors (how many have supposedly fallen through this year) you would be very reluctant to agree to an extension on the back of comments with no real substance than we may be succesful in getting investment or a takeover. Mr Andonikou is either very naive or stupid in not including anything with any real substance in the request i.e either listing the potential investor or detailing how much they may be looking to invest. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dazzza
Offline
Posts: 8265
|
|
« Reply #48 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 10:55:28 » |
|
The problem with up to 9 months is that the CVA will still have to be agreed with the creditors to a specific date x. Unless it’s written into the CVA amendments the club are under no obligation to make that payment until date x in 9 months time and while the money is in the account making interest why would they?
What I find increasingly difficult to believe is that the supervisor is requesting creditors delay without offering any explanation as to who the investor is or even attempt to justify the club in its existing state being able to make the payment without investment. It’s a recipe for disaster given that we’re making an annual loss, which the board are usually at pains to point out, why would a secured creditor wait x months for the club to accrue more debt before making a claim without evidence of the investor even existing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 12320
|
|
« Reply #49 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 10:58:47 » |
|
Quite right. Whoever is investing should now step forward and make their intentions known. make a public statement of intent, confirm their financial viability, give outline plans of their turnaround proposals for the business etc.
It wouldn't take much, but such a step is exactly what is needed to allay any fears from fans and creditors alike.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone taking over the club, provided they can offer up a viable way of running it. It's not that difficult, and suirely does not impede the negotiations given a provisional offer must have already been accepted to get the books handed over in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wokinghamred
Offline
Posts: 615
|
|
« Reply #50 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:03:23 » |
|
It may be that the investor is prepared to give fuller details to creditors under cover of confidentiality agreements.
I assume that it is only the IR and the council that need to agree the extension to get it carried for all creditors?
If so, they may well be in discussions with those two creditors, or be prepared to hold discussions with them.
I agree that we would all love to know the details, but it is very common for potential investors in any business to want to keep all details secret until the deal is done.
By the way, I am not defending the board in any way, to avoid ambiguity!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 12320
|
|
« Reply #51 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:06:56 » |
|
not in football clubs though, they come with emotional baggage and normally end-up being don very publicly from the point of the initial offer being made.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #52 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:17:33 » |
|
if you read the article, and it seems to be an interpretation of the same letter posted up on here the other day (from another forum) then it says "up to 9 months". if the board don't yet know when the takeover will be complete (if at all) then they aren't really in a position to give a definitive date as to when they CVA can be paid off.
This is exactly the point i was trying to make the other day before i got a bit of a backlash of a few people. Now i am not in any way defending the club on this one but how can you say "Yes we will pay you the money as soon as there is investment" when that investment is not confirmed and a takeover deal has yet to be completed? The board either don't have the investment or they are being sensible. It's one or the other Yes but the problem is that if your a creditor due to the boards past poor record in negotiations with investors (how many have supposedly fallen through this year) you would be very reluctant to agree to an extension on the back of comments with no real substance than we may be succesful in getting investment or a takeover. Mr Andonikou is either very naive or stupid in not including anything with any real substance in the request i.e either listing the potential investor or detailing how much they may be looking to invest. Oh yes. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't blame HMRC or SBC for slapping a winding up order in at all. After all they are owed the money and it hasn't been payed. The club are obviously playing silly buggers and have no investment and they are hoping it will sort itself out (which if this is the case it won't) or they have the investment and takeover pretty much sealed and are hoping that this will be enough to persuade HMRC or SBC or both that the money will be paid. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #53 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:20:47 » |
|
It's why I said that the creditors, from their perspective, refuse to vote and wait it out a few more weeks. That way they're not tied in.
Anyone know if they could they do that?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TalkTalk
|
|
« Reply #54 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:25:37 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
red macca
|
|
« Reply #55 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:28:36 » |
|
No chance, im gonna get lynched but it seems a sensible option that they have taken tbh.The key word is UP TO 9 MONTHS. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dazzza
Offline
Posts: 8265
|
|
« Reply #56 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:29:41 » |
|
Sadly I'm already checking every day but it'll be another couple of weeks I'd have thought. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
STFCDude2
|
|
« Reply #57 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:30:39 » |
|
if you read the article, and it seems to be an interpretation of the same letter posted up on here the other day (from another forum) then it says "up to 9 months". if the board don't yet know when the takeover will be complete (if at all) then they aren't really in a position to give a definitive date as to when they CVA can be paid off.
This is exactly the point i was trying to make the other day before i got a bit of a backlash of a few people. Now i am not in any way defending the club on this one but how can you say "Yes we will pay you the money as soon as there is investment" when that investment is not confirmed and a takeover deal has yet to be completed? The board either don't have the investment or they are being sensible. It's one or the other I think why people are annoyed is that the board have had 5 years to pay this off. The board agreed the date 5 years ago, and should have had plans stretching back from 2002 to solve this. It appears they haven't, and ave only just realised. Hence all the talk of a new investor blah blah blah, but without actually specifying any details. The board are held to account, seeing as it was agreed 5 years ago, and nothing has really been done to have a plan in place to pay off the 900,000 by June 2007. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 12320
|
|
« Reply #58 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:33:23 » |
|
In one respect, the letter does officially confirm the view that the current Board are indeed FAILURES.
They have managed to miss their profit projections (that they would have set) by approx £5m in 5 years. Cracking performance chaps.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hansgruber
Offline
Posts: 1606
|
|
« Reply #59 on: Friday, July 13, 2007, 11:44:14 » |
|
On a related issue, are any businesses still transacting with STFC on credit terms? I certainly wouldn't. I'd be asking for cash up front.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
