Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:59 pm  

In the case of liquidation, the players will walk and the only assets left will be about 15 2nd hand PC's. And the Coral stand.

Rangers offered something derisory like 5 or 6p in the pound and were made an example of.

If HMRC hold out for £400k, they will force liquidation and get back (for the taxpayer) about £500 total. Not a good deal for the taxpayer.

If they were offered 20 or 25p that would be about £100k. They might accept that. Not great for the taxpayer but better than SFA.

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:02 pm  

M@islebugs wrote: What? You want to meet me? The thing is it's only a year or so ago that you and Adey were in a large part in agreement, if not in the solution, and also with the benefit of hindsight both being quite prophetic, as it turned out. For example see http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=494527&tsmp=1341498187 I think you were (sorry if I am paraphrasing too bluntly") in essence proposing "sack the board", and Adey was saying "but what then?", and you were saying "something will turn up". On another thread at the same time, Adey said: I have seen you call for the BOD to resign, and for the shareholders to appoint a new board presumably. But the shareholders can do that at ANY TIME - just convene an EGM and, if they have the majority, sack the board and appoint - themselves again??? Good move, that... Well, we did sack the board, an EGM was convened, the majority shareholders did in effect reappoint themselves, and the rest is history. It only remains to be seen whether a Caisley consortium, or some other consortium, rises from the ashes of the debacle that has ensued (although to be fair not by any means an unusual or even out-of-the-ordinary debacle in an administration). But we have at least established that indeed there was no big money man to be flushed out by the process. These seemed like reasonable and informative exchanges. Do we really need stuff about "coteries of acolytes" and the ad hominem shoite?

M@islebugs wrote: What? You want to meet me? The thing is it's only a year or so ago that you and Adey were in a large part in agreement, if not in the solution, and also with the benefit of hindsight both being quite prophetic, as it turned out. For example see http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=494527&tsmp=1341498187 I think you were (sorry if I am paraphrasing too bluntly") in essence proposing "sack the board", and Adey was saying "but what then?", and you were saying "something will turn up". On another thread at the same time, Adey said: I have seen you call for the BOD to resign, and for the shareholders to appoint a new board presumably. But the shareholders can do that at ANY TIME - just convene an EGM and, if they have the majority, sack the board and appoint - themselves again??? Good move, that... Well, we did sack the board, an EGM was convened, the majority shareholders did in effect reappoint themselves, and the rest is history. It only remains to be seen whether a Caisley consortium, or some other consortium, rises from the ashes of the debacle that has ensued (although to be fair not by any means an unusual or even out-of-the-ordinary debacle in an administration). But we have at least established that indeed there was no big money man to be flushed out by the process. These seemed like reasonable and informative exchanges. Do we really need stuff about "coteries of acolytes" and the ad hominem shoite?

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:28 pm  

Highlander wrote:

In the case of liquidation, the players will walk and the only assets left will be about 15 2nd hand PC's. And the Coral stand.

Is that right? Wouldn't the players contracts vest in the liquidator, and couldn't he sell them?

Isn't our lease with the RFL an asset?

As for the Coral Stand, I never quite got the principles of that. Clearly, the Bulls built it with their own money. But they did not buy the land on which it is built, which of course is just part of the land leased from the RFL. So who "owns" the building? My understanding is that as it is affixed permanently to the land, the freeholder (Council) owns the building. I would therefore presume that prior to spending the money, the Bulls must have entered into some sort of deal with The Council, whereby they were not in effect donating the construction cost to them.

Whilst we might be able (for example) to sublet the building during our lease, we certainly couldn't ever sell it, and we can never own it either. Therefore except to the extent that it may produce a net income (if income from functions etc exceeds the usual maintenance etc) it doesn't seem to me to be in any way an asset.

Highlander wrote:

Rangers offered something derisory like 5 or 6p in the pound and were made an example of.

If HMRC hold out for £400k, they will force liquidation and get back (for the taxpayer) about £500 total. Not a good deal for the taxpayer.

If they were offered 20 or 25p that would be about £100k. They might accept that. Not great for the taxpayer but better than SFA.

I am very dubious as to whether HMRC would sanction any deal. I reckon they are more likely to play hardball. The only saving grace may be that our case is a long way away from the Rangers basket case, but I fear it will be very hard for anybody to strike a %age deal with them.

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:41 pm  

I'm hardly about to take advice on 'ad hominem shoite' from the bloke who posted a picture of a sinking ship and 'that's your credibility that is'.

Anyway moving on, I did argue both that the board should be sacked and crucially, that they should resign as the shareholding was dysfunctional and administration was inevitable. My position then and now was that the here and now was a totally predictable outcome of a board not supported by it shareholding. Looking from the outside the game has been up for years. I believe (an nobody has to agree) that this message board has been used by certain people to divert attention from the real issues.

I've never posted this before but I'm pretty much done with rlfans now so here goes. A very good friend of mine was telephoned by a person who worked for the club and told things about critical posters both on here and on the T and A and why they held 'agendas' against the club. He gave them their name and other details (which I've no idea were true or not). He also told him things about Chris Caisley and that he knew posters on here and the T and A to whom he told the 'true story' .

I gradually started reading the board and then long after signed up because I could see that a certain narrative was becoming dominant and strongly suspected where it came from. I think this has been unhelpful and divisive on a number of issues. Had the fans seen the true picture maybe they would have galvanized years ago and we'd have been through this period now. Maybe.

More recently what I struggle with and genuinely find annoying is the idea that what's happened has been a planned takeover by a group of conspirators when it is almost certainly an inevitable consequence of a years long total fiasco of which CC was a significant part. This endless fog weaving about CC, Guilfoyle's, Coulby's motivations feels wrong to me.

Anyway that'll have to do. I'm still convinced someone/group will come forward and that we're still the greatest club in the comp.

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:44 pm  

Highlander wrote:

In the case of liquidation, the players will walk and the only assets left will be about 15 2nd hand PC's. And the Coral stand.

Rangers offered something derisory like 5 or 6p in the pound and were made an example of.

If HMRC hold out for £400k, they will force liquidation and get back (for the taxpayer) about £500 total. Not a good deal for the taxpayer.

If they were offered 20 or 25p that would be about £100k. They might accept that. Not great for the taxpayer but better than SFA.

I bet I could get you more than £500 for the Coral Stand, and that's after taking my commision from the scrap merchants on dick lane.

Surely, they will need to offer creditors at least scrap value to stop HMRC saying well we'll take possesion of the building and they holding an auction on site to any dealers for fixtures and fittings.

As it is, I still think someone will step in before liquidation. The meeting seams to have opened some daylight on matters regarding people who are interested in investing.

[Bullseye]

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:46 pm  

When was the last time HMRC accepted a CVA from a sports club? Could there be a zero tolerance policy now?

Shame they weren't so tough with Vodaphone and Goldman Sachs.

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:51 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

When was the last time HMRC accepted a CVA from a sports club? Could there be a zero tolerance policy now?

Shame they weren't so tough with Vodaphone and Goldman Sachs.

Does anyone have the phone number of the HMRC guy that was reported you have to take to lunch to get your tax written down?

Anyway I think it is more a case of - If you owe £400k they own you, if you owe £400m you are "too big to fail".

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:54 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

When was the last time HMRC accepted a CVA from a sports club? Could there be a zero tolerance policy now?

Shame they weren't so tough with Vodaphone and Goldman Sachs.

I think we're unlucky to be the next relatively high profile sports club after rangers. After being so tough with them they don't want to be accused of inconsistency. Doesn't matter how much more blatant rangers were than us. They've sent out a message and will not want to be seen to be backing off from that

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:09 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

I'm hardly about to take advice on 'ad hominem shoite' from the bloke who posted a picture of a sinking ship and 'that's your credibility that is'.

Wow! I wouldn't have done it if I thought you were that thin-skinned, all that was was a joke at you having no clue about the makeup/length of service of the board! Goodness me.

M@islebugs wrote:

More recently what I struggle with and genuinely find annoying is the idea that what's happened has been a planned takeover by a group of conspirators when it is almost certainly an inevitable consequence of a years long total fiasco of which CC was a significant part.

Why "conspirators" though? Caisley with other shareholders openly forced a takeover. Whether he had or has the aim of ultimately owning the club remains to emerge but I wouldn't see that as much different from any other consortium wanting to do so. It's business. Well, in most respects, except the "wanting to make money" part. Did Caisley have a plan or plans? Well obviously he did, he hardly took a blind punt one morning, what shall I do, oh I know, call an EGM. Is the plan still playing out? Who knows. No reason to think it isn't, but maybe he got it all spectacularly wrong and has given up. I personally doubt that very much, but that's just my opinion.

Would I expect a highly paid specialist that I instructed and was paying to try to do his best, within professional boundaries of course, for me? Too bloody true I would. That's normal. It doesn't involve conspiracies either.

M@islebugs wrote:

Anyway that'll have to do. I'm still convinced someone/group will come forward and that we're still the greatest club in the comp.

I think we all are sure some group will. We may have ended up a basket case, but still have too many attractive elements to be left on the shelf. and amen to the final bit.

[Bullseye]

Re: Is it time for the RFL... : Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:12 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I think we're unlucky to be the next relatively high profile sports club after rangers. After being so tough with them they don't want to be accused of inconsistency. Doesn't matter how much more blatant rangers were than us. They've sent out a message and will not want to be seen to be backing off from that

I think we're in a different universe to Rangers in terms of the situation and in terms of the level of profile. Outside West Yorkshire it's only in RL circles that this will be big.

I do however think you've a point in terms of consistency and if I know government I don't think there will be any backtracking if a policy decision has been made on high - unlike warm pasties and caravans we don't rate very highly.