Torres

So, soooo small time.

Did hamster sink and drown?

This. If you issue them a writ they will almost certainly settle without contesting it in court unless they are 99.99% sure you are wrong. In addition, add a healthy sum on for your damages and they'll settle on a smaller amount. My father-in-law (to be) is a master at this and has won against a couple of insurance companies, a minicab company an energy company and a couple of others. He takes no shi-te from anyone! Edit - In fact, even the threat of issuing a writ will probably be enough to get your full £800 back.

Makes sweet reading

Yes please. Take it elsewhere.

That's brilliant from Birch In other news, I actually won the lottery the other night, I just didn't buy a ticket.

The whole Nobody parties like the Irish thing really gets my goat. It's total crap.

Cortese out.

A good point well made.

To be fair, nobody outside of Hampshire gives a toss about them.

Deserves a

OK, so how will that work? Will the creditors be asked if they want to accept/reject "Offer A" and then, if rejected, "Offer B"? Because if they do, I'd bet lots on neither being accepted. Creditors who support the trust will have to reject Chainrai's bid and vice versa. That'd be good.

I looked at both when buying last year and I can, hand on heart, say that I prefer and would rather own the BMW. I can't say "it's a better car" because that's entirely subjective.

I don't see any bad news on the horizon, in fact, completely the opposite Oh.....you mean bad news for them.

I don't think you'll get much joy, although I'm no lawyer.

You need to get a post-facelift one as it has the "efficient dynamics" shindig fitted (auto stop/start, some crap with braking etc) and retuned engine management which drops the emissions from the 118d into the £35/year tax band. I think you need to be looking September 2007 onwards.

It's us being asked if we'd like to have our knobs sucked by: a) Scarlett Johanssen b) Kelly Brook c) Natalie Portman

I meant the creditors from CVA1 who have given up all hope. There's no mechanism in place for them to vote on CVA2, it's purely down to BakerTilley. I think.

Let me know when they're all getting together to vote, won't you?

In fact, this whole crappy CVA could be a face-saving exercise for PKF and an additional bit of leverage for Chinny when it (perhaps inevitably and inevitably by design) fails. PKF walk away and say "We tried our best, we proposed a CVA but the creditors rejected it against our recommendations" and have their reputation within the industry intact. Of course, they also get paid. Chinny can turn to the people and, more importantly the council, of Portsmouth and say "I tried to save your club when nobody else did. I offered to pay the small creditors in full. I offered to pay the charities in full. I did everything I could, but those nasty people at HMRC/Baker Tilley stopped me. Now can I have planning permission to build flats on Fratton Park, pretty please?"

Well that's the curious thing Pedg. I posed a question a while back as to whether it would be standard practice in this kind of situation for the administrators to make contact with the major unsecured creditors and put out some feelers as to a figure that might be acceptable to them. There's 3 scenarios, I guess: 1) PKF have had no indication from BT. 2) BT have indicated that this % is satisfactory. 3) BT have indicated this is not satisfactory but PKF have gone ahead anyway because they have no other option. We shouldn't forget that Trevor Birch and PKF have to consider their own reputations in this. Getting a CVA agreed is the best outcome for their reputation - that's their "success". Failure to present a CVA and liquidating straight off is the worst - that's total failure. Presenting a CVA proposal but having it voted down by creditors allows them to then liquidate whilst saying "Well, we tried our best but the creditors blocked it" and at least allows them to walk away with some credit. I wonder....

Pedg - just done the maths too and I concur. The amount they're owed would be reduced by about 16% overall. And they'd get 2% of that.

It's more complex than that FC. In fact, it's a ridiclulous calculation.

Oh n0, hang on So it's only for paying, not for voting? But if so, they have a massively disproportionate vote for the amount they'd actually get paid. I'll admit it, I don't know. If that's the case though, CVA1 creditors would get pretty much nothing at all - a % of a % of a %. It would make almost no difference to them whether it was passed or not, they'd get f-all.