benjii

I can't imagine anything more trivial and piffling than this.

Yes, in this case, of course it is. The ground for the appeal (or at least part of it) in this area is that the appellant has been materially prejudiced. IMO they may be materially prejudiced by the FCR but you can see why it's arguable, at least, that they haven't been by the disallowed voting rights as the only options are CVA or bust. I imagine the judgment will offer some dicta around the FCR but say that ruling on its legality is outside the scope of the case. I think it's clear that all unsecured creditors are unfairly and materially prejudiced by the FCR but that's not the Skate's fault. Returning to image rights... I'm sure HMRC haven't shot their load with respect to any wrongdoing... I think that's my third of the day so toodle-pop all! COYRAWM tomorrow!

The key seems to be not that the figures were approved or not but that there was no unfair or material prejudice to HMRC. In other words, there were two limbs they had to satisfy. If that's the case then the judgment makes sense, as the alternative to the CVA seems, in this case, materially worse for HMRC. The bigger question around football creditors and image rights is still open. HMRC seem to have been inviting the judge to look to the future and consider hypothetical insolvencies in light of any present ruling on FCR and image rights in order to assess the extent to which HMRC have been materially prejudiced. I'm not surprised he wouldn't do that. What will be interesting us what the judgment says about the administration and what the consequences of that are.

How quaint. Might make sense if we were all mill-owners. (Legal) tax avoidance is fine. I put in far more than I get out and if I could pay less I would. I am certainly not "rich". And to pre-empt you labelling me a Thatherite or, "me, me, me" or some other nonsense... I am not at all. I am quite generous but I am getting a pretty raw deal from the government IMO.

Article: why bookies don't want you to bet on the favourites...

I think you can rule out lying/being deceptive in court. This is a respected QC. He would not do that. There is a big question mark over what this payment in January was though. At the start of the day they were talking about the parachute payments to come and it was agreed it was the publicised £48m. So what the hell was this January payment and the subsequent ones? Was it an advance of television money due to be paid at the end of the 2009/10 season? I'm not too clued up on this area but I suspect the question before the judge goes beyond determining whether the CVA was procedurally correct or not. I think it is clear that it wasn't as there seems to have been no rebuttal of the point around AA summarily dismissing HMRC's assessment. But, I think the judge, to allow HMRC's appeal, needs to be convinced that any procedural irregularity was unfairly prejudicial to HMRC. Anyway, I'm not really sure, like most of us! F5's everywhere are going to get one hell of a thrashing tomorrow afternoon!

Is this thread really a good idea?!

Basically they're clinging to the myopic News reporting. Ashtead Saint's report seems to indicate a good comprehension of what happened.

That's one selective quote. Don't worry... In any case, this appeal might be nothing to do with the alleged procedural irregularities - those could be another hearing?

If he turned off his PM it's nothing to do with me! I just find the public announcement of that fact laughably portentous.

Maybe we are negotiating with Brentford? Do they have cash flow difficulties? I think it should be a safe bet that he will play 40 or 50 games for Saints so maybe we're offering them, for example, £175k up front instead? Just a thought.

Did you, by crikey!? Lawks a lordy, that's a hell of a pickle and no mistakin'

A bit like FF's "I'll never post a rumour again" thread. EDIT - actually, I don't think he said that exactly; I think he said he'd never post again.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? People are entitled to post rumours and readers are entitled to point out that they don't believe them and they sound like ******** or, on the other hand say thanks, if they like. This dummy spitting is bizarre. You can't expect to post things that don't make any sense, backing them up with allusions to some crusty old hasbeen "upstairs" and not expect people to question it.

Nah, still sounds like ******** to me.

Complete nonsense The football creditors rule has no legal status. They have no "right" to 100% to give up. The obligation to pay 100% is a burden imposed on member clubs by the FL, it's not a right to receive 100% enjoyed by football creditors. Legally they are not secured creditors at all. NB - there are some complex legal arguments around "liens" etc but generally, the point stands - the FCR is a FL rule not a legal one and they would not accept that a club "gave up" its ability to be paid 100%. I think, in any case, if they were invited to vote and voted they could not be penalised if it turns out they shouldn't have been invited to vote in the first place... that would be the fault of whoever invited them to vote who is the expert at these things. And if any club's plan was to sham the football creditors, assuming it was possible, the FL wouldn't let them back in - simples as that! The FCR is a funny thing. I'm sure HMRC will "win" at some point. It just needs the right case. One with a truly hopeless club at the centre of it; one with no prospects and meagre resources; one that can't find a willing buyer... hmm...

That is weird! Maybe a red herring for Plymouth?

It's compensation for the effort put into his development. The idea of including add-on clauses in that is completely illogical IMO. I sincerely hope there are no add-on clauses.

Why are you banging on about Hoddle on a thread about the forum? This is why people think you are, er, "eccentric".

RedStripe was bloody awful. The other two were much better. Edit - actually I might be thinking of something else. I definitely preferred UI and OTM to one other one that was knocking around for a while.

Not quite...

Yes, I agree.

"Working for Lowe is awful, he's a pompous buffoon who thinks he's above everyone"... "Working for Hone is awful, he's a ruthless mercenary".. "Working for Cortese is awful... blah, blah, blah."

This is a question, lacking the "?" right? Not a statement with "will" and "you" the wrong way round?