This administration malarkey

[Danger Mouse]

Woohoo! My first thread on the new board.

Now, this may be something NHH can help with and apologies if it was dealt with in any of the threads on the old board, but...

Rotherham are in admin for the second time in a couple of years and, obviously, have had the ten point deduction this season.

However, there are now rumours that we may suffer a 15 point deduction next season for not coming out of administration via a CVA.

One, is this correct? If so, why? Say for the sake of argument that we're taken over by someone who has the money to pay all the creditors in full. Would we still have to go through a CVA to ask creditors to approve a deal where they get 100% of what they're owed?

Two, I seem to recall at the time of the last CVA someone saying (not on these boards) that you couldn't have two CVAs within 10 years. Again, is this correct?

Or is it the case that you can have as many CVAs as you like on the basis that the first CVA applied to the first company and as soon as that one was wound up and a new one started then the new company can have a CVA?

In which case, is the "two CVAs in ten years" completely pointless, as presumably you could keep doing this every time you were in financial difficulties?

[My Name Is Ian]

This administration malarkey

Leeds were docked the 15 points, so far as I understand, because of the way that they exited administration rather than because they exited it without being in a CVA (although that in itself is against League rulels) - and there was no way that HMRC were going to accept a CVA with the offers that KPMG were putting forward. As far as I'm aware, there's no hard and fast rule on it, and I would guess that the League and FA would be satisfied that everything was being done properly if all creditors were getting their full debts repaid. Presumably, there is some amount of discretion on their parts.

In answer to the second question, I don't believe there to be a legal limit for the number of CVAs that a company can enter into, but if they fail the first one, getting the second one adopted will prove that much more difficult because one has already failed. That's how it works with IVAs, anyway.

As you say, though, NHH will know more about this than most.

[Guest]

This administration malarkey

Had Leeds come out of Admin with a CVA in place, we would not have been docked points - that is my understanding. NHH or PD are better at all theis than me, even after been subjected to a crash course in all this...

[NHH]

This administration malarkey

I wrote a long post describing the upshot here, but this fucking stupid messageboard logged me out. Cheers for that.

It's now past 1, and time for bed.

It's the wrong thread, but this messageboard migration is kind of basic 101 of how not to treat internet communities. Which wouldn't be a problem if you weren't trying to er, make more of the internet as part of your business. But another thread, for another day. If the bloody system lets me.

[boris]

This administration malarkey

NHH, if you tick the Remember Me box when you log in, then it doesn't kick you out after ten minutes. I only sussed that out myself yesterday, but it's a point worth sharing (as opposed to ten worth deducting).

[David Agnew]

This administration malarkey

Danger Mouse wrote:

However, there are now rumours that we may suffer a 15 point deduction next season for not coming out of administration via a CVA.

One, is this correct? If so, why? Say for the sake of argument that we're taken over by someone who has the money to pay all the creditors in full. Would we still have to go through a CVA to ask creditors to approve a deal where they get 100% of what they're owed?

The administrators would prefer that, yes. By coming out of a CVA, the payments are specifically spaced out over a certain period of time, and have to be paid my certain dates. It also allows the administrators to keep an eye on the club in the meantime.

Two, I seem to recall at the time of the last CVA someone saying (not on these boards) that you couldn't have two CVAs within 10 years. Again, is this correct?

Or is it the case that you can have as many CVAs as you like on the basis that the first CVA applied to the first company and as soon as that one was wound up and a new one started then the new company can have a CVA?

In which case, is the "two CVAs in ten years" completely pointless, as presumably you could keep doing this every time you were in financial difficulties?

I don't know what the law is, but there was certainly a rule change discussed within the football league about a club going into administration twice in three years being expelled. It didn't go through, and if memory serves me correct, it was David Sheepshanks that proposed it, which given at the time we'd been out of administration a whole seven days appears to have been a political statement along the lines of "we're fine, it won't happen again".

[David Agnew]

This administration malarkey

battylad wrote:

Had Leeds come out of Admin with a CVA in place, we would not have been docked points - that is my understanding. NHH or PD are better at all theis than me, even after been subjected to a crash course in all this...

That's correct.

On that subject, I can't help feeling Bates is playing a dangerous game with this arbitration.

His argument is that the other 23 League One clubs voted on the punishment, so there is a conflict of interest.

But... the league's argument was that a new rule needed to be added to the rulebook in order for Leeds to be accepted back into the League. League rules have to be voted on by all members with a 66/75% majority in favour (I forget which of the two). Without the League One clubs, a 75% majority could not be reached. A 66% majority would need all Championship and League Two clubs to unanimously vote in favour. They did not.

It is not outside the arbiter's reach to rule that Leeds should not have been allowed back in the League, and therefore should be expelled.

Of course because the only people that vote on the rules of the League are the 72 chairmen, you could argue that all of the rules have a conflict of interest.

[Gangster Octopus]

This administration malarkey

I see that we're being given a battle in our race to become this season's first non-existent club by Bournemouth...

[noj]

This administration malarkey

A few rumours flying around about Chester going into administration too.

[Gangster Octopus]

This administration malarkey

Administration's for wimps. We're talking about disintegration...

[VTTBoscombe]

This administration malarkey

Gangster Octopus wrote:

I see that we're being given a battle in our race to become this season's first non-existent club by Bournemouth...

Oh Fuck..........

Took my eye off the situation for a couple of days, and it all falls apart.

Trouble is we are already called AFC Bournemouth, will the new incarnation be called (AFC)² Bournemouth?

[My Name Is Ian]

This administration malarkey

They were preparing the obituary on BBC South Today yesterday morning, and that Q&A on the club's website is very concerning indeed. Good luck, VTT.

[EIM]

This administration malarkey

FC AFC Bournemouth of Bournemouth

[David Agnew]

This administration malarkey

Just in case any Leeds fans are looking for a way that they will be the victims if Bournemouth go bust, I can confirm that they would drop to 8th, and be four rather than one point adrift of the playoffs, and 17 rather than 14 points away from the top two.

[NHH]

This administration malarkey

It's all an anti-Leeds plot!

[Gangster Octopus]

This administration malarkey

AFC Boscombe

[boris]

This administration malarkey

AFC AFC Bournemouth (Bournemouth)

[Cavalry Trouser Tips]

This administration malarkey

Christ, I know it's selfish to say this, but we've taken six points off them this season.

46 points and we'll be three points off the relegation places as they currently stand (can't be bothered working out how it will affect the other teams around us).

[VTTBoscombe]

This administration malarkey

Just checked my bank account, and asked the wife if we can mortgage the house, sell children for scientific research, and some old vinyl records and she said no.
- so looking blacker by the second.

[boris]

This administration malarkey

She's right, though. You should keep your vinyl.

[Guest]

This administration malarkey

Apparently Mostyn sounded very upbeat when interviewed at the game today. Seemed to think that there would be some good news announced on Monday.

And after today's utterly fucking ridiculous result I might have to figure out how I'm getting to Carlisle on the last day of the season. It's just about conceivable we could start next season on -15 points in division 3 rather than division 4.

Woo hoo.

[David Agnew]

This administration malarkey

Looking even brighter now.

According to a phone interview with Gerald Kranser on Sky Sports news, he received two written offers two minutes before the CVA meeting today (11am). The CVA has been turned down because the taxman voted against it, so Krasner is now looking at a sale, and will sell based on the best bids by 2pm tomorrow.

Krasner also confirmed that they now have enough funding to see the season out.

[Gangster Octopus]

This administration malarkey

Phoebe Disco wrote:

Krasner also confirmed that they now have enough funding to see the season out.

Which is more than we've got. The administrator said it was vital that we got crowds of 4,000 for our last three matches. There was less than 3,000 on Saturday...

[VTTBoscombe]

This administration malarkey

Sorry about that GO , hope it works out OK.

but from dispair at 1-0 down with sod all left to play for on saturday to now, I think Boscombe are now wobbling on the edge rather than plunging off it.

Little jig around the desk, and subdued whoopie, and hope the gods don't see.

[David Agnew]

This administration malarkey

The takeover has collapsed.

The buyers original deadline was 5pm tonight, but the buyers (EU-UK) asked for an extra ten days for their due dilligence. Krasner okayed this, as long as they lodged the proposed funds, but EU-UK refused, and pulled out completely.

However, Krasner is now talking to another party.