Pre-Match Thread HMRC v SUFC - FINAL hearing on 1st March. DISMISSED

[Tangled up in Blue]

You are not Ron, can I have my fiver now.

I know he's not Ron because I've met him (once).Never met our Chairman though I have seen him at the back of the DB.

 

[fbm]

You are not Ron, can I have my fiver now.

Ha ha


No.

 

[meerkat54]

View attachment 24515

I wasn’t aware Roots Hall had a face lift !

 

[kentblues]

Thats a fair point, but providing we can clear all debt to the point that we can run for a decent period, allowing for any further delays in anticipated income, without being in major difficulty again, hopefully potential delays on income has been factored in

I admit to being unclear what flexibility may exist in bridging loan terms if any, as usually you have to state the time period for the loan and in the main they are not noted for generosity

Also would many loanees happily continue with the loan convinced it would all be paid back in 3 months and if it isnt then the interest would mount up

You could probably negotiate a term linked to a certain event i.e. the release of funds from the development especially if thats the security. The reason these things often have quite a significant up front charge is that the loan period can be very short and wouldn't be worth the lender doing if you were only paying the monthly interest charges and with the ability to settle at any time.

 

[Kat_r]

No more late company accounts
No more cloak and dagger inter company transactions
No more hiding who actually owns the club and RH and FF
No more refusing to even discuss potential additional investment by third parties.
No more refusing to even discuss potential new owners by third parties.
No more late payments of employee wages and bonuses.
No more late payments of suppliers and contractors.
No more refusing to appoint supporter nominated board member.

huh? I thought he owns rh and ff

 

[The Big Dady]

huh? I thought he owns rh and ff

No he does not.

 

[JD]

Totally agree and have pushed for this, it’s the trust hosting this I believe so it’s down to them to implement it and agree, I’m sure other groups have no issue with this

Hoping it was recorded

 

[danbowen]

Hoping it was recorded

be nice if we get the main points tonight rather than waiting for days on end for all parties to agree the minutes.

 

[Kat_r]

No he does not.

Then who does?

 

[pottster]

Then who does?

His son is sole director of roots hall limited who I believe own the ground.

 

[Holy Joe]

His son is sole director of roots hall limited who I believe own the ground.

Need to know who owns Roots Hall Limited to know who the beneficial owner of Roots Hall is. Is is Elounda LLP?

 

[OldBlueLady]

@fbm you may know the answer to this better than I, but doesn't it also rather depend on the sitting judge for the next hearing? If it is the same judge, then I would be less confident of any further time being allowed.

 

[fbm]

@fbm you may know the answer to this better than I, but doesn't it also rather depend on the sitting judge for the next hearing? If it is the same judge, then I would be less confident of any further time being allowed.

Not as far as I understand it. This is just about money and the personalities don't really come into it, or so I gather. It's not like a magistrates court.
A judge isn't going to wind up a company unless there is zero chance of the money being paid. Whilst there is a chance, there will be adjournments, but of course there has to be evidence presented. We had that last time with the letter of course. So, let's say the bridging loan fails to come in. Ron can (and probably will) then say "The project is moving on and the next release of finances is going to be next month (or whenever). The debt will be paid in full then."
The judge isn't then going to wind the company up as that will mean -
Loss of tax revenue
Loss of livelihoods for many people
Possible cancellation of development project in full or in part
Loss of important part of community
Possible disqualification of directors that will affect ALL companies not just the one being wound up

So it will be adjourned. And so on.
Until of course one time when there is no evidence and there is nothing left to develop or sell. But that isn't going to happen here because the project has started.

The colleague I was talking to is also a season ticket holder and isn't the slightest bit concerned that we are going to be wound up on March 1st and he has done hundreds of insolvency hearings (albeit not for a few years).

Now, running the club in the meantime and keeping everyone happy is another matter.

 

[RHB]

Not as far as I understand it. This is just about money and the personalities don't really come into it, or so I gather. It's not like a magistrates court.
A judge isn't going to wind up a company unless there is zero chance of the money being paid. Whilst there is a chance, there will be adjournments, but of course there has to be evidence presented. We had that last time with the letter of course. So, let's say the bridging loan fails to come in. Ron can (and probably will) then say "The project is moving on and the next release of finances is going to be next month (or whenever). The debt will be paid in full then."
The judge isn't then going to wind the company up as that will mean -
Loss of tax revenue
Loss of livelihoods for many people
Possible cancellation of development project in full or in part
Loss of important part of community
Possible disqualification of directors that will affect ALL companies not just the one being wound up

So it will be adjourned. And so on.
Until of course one time when there is no evidence and there is nothing left to develop or sell. But that isn't going to happen here because the project has started.

The colleague I was talking to is also a season ticket holder and isn't the slightest bit concerned that we are going to be wound up on March 1st and he has done hundreds of insolvency hearings (albeit not for a few years).

Now, running the club in the meantime and keeping everyone happy is another matter.

You would say that @fbm, you're just a Ron fanboy (for the benefit of the humourless on here, that was meant to be humorous).

 

[Smiffy]

Not as far as I understand it. This is just about money and the personalities don't really come into it, or so I gather. It's not like a magistrates court.
A judge isn't going to wind up a company unless there is zero chance of the money being paid. Whilst there is a chance, there will be adjournments, but of course there has to be evidence presented. We had that last time with the letter of course. So, let's say the bridging loan fails to come in. Ron can (and probably will) then say "The project is moving on and the next release of finances is going to be next month (or whenever). The debt will be paid in full then."
The judge isn't then going to wind the company up as that will mean -
Loss of tax revenue
Loss of livelihoods for many people
Possible cancellation of development project in full or in part
Loss of important part of community
Possible disqualification of directors that will affect ALL companies not just the one being wound up

So it will be adjourned. And so on.
Until of course one time when there is no evidence and there is nothing left to develop or sell. But that isn't going to happen here because the project has started.

The colleague I was talking to is also a season ticket holder and isn't the slightest bit concerned that we are going to be wound up on March 1st and he has done hundreds of insolvency hearings (albeit not for a few years).

Now, running the club in the meantime and keeping everyone happy is another matter.

That's the issue isn't it (besides obviously the chance the judge takes a disliking to us) if Ron does not settle the tax bill by March 1st, that means the loan hasn't landed and all the day to day problems of people not being paid, bills not being paid, things not being fixed etc will go on ad nauseam. Also for Kev and the football dept that will mean no chance of strengthening the squad and rolling with what we have for the rest of the season.

That is going to **** a lot of people off even further internally and externally. Not wise with a powder keg atmosphere brewing...surely he's not that stupid?...is he?...

 

[fbm]

That's the issue isn't it (besides obviously the chance the judge takes a disliking to us) if Ron does not settle the tax bill by March 1st, that means the loan hasn't landed and all the day to day problems of people not being paid, bills not being paid, things not being fixed etc will go on ad nauseam. Also for Kev and the football dept that will mean no chance of strengthening the squad and rolling with what we have for the rest of the season.

That is going to **** a lot of people off even further internally and externally. Not wise with a powder keg atmosphere brewing...

Well, quite.

But it's also a completely different issue to "Martin Out", which I have never supported and never will whilst his interests are so inextricably linked to ours.

I'm all for doing whatever we can to apply pressure to make him get outside investment, but I think there's too much hatred on here for people to actually focus on that point. Whatever has been done so far isn't working and hasn't created any unity. In fact, it has made things even more divisive and polarised.

 

[fbm]

I should also add that, if we haven't paid the bill by March 1st but present evidence that we can, say, in April and for some reason the judge ignores that and winds us up anyway, then it is appealable and it will be adjourned pending appeal.

Either way, don't be too concerned about March 1st.

 

[Medway Blue]

I should also add that, if we haven't paid the bill by March 1st but present evidence that we can, say, in April and for some reason the judge ignores that and winds us up anyway, then it is appealable and it will be adjourned pending appeal.

Either way, don't be too concerned about March 1st.

I'm glad that some people are eternally optimistic about the hearing in March, but none of that optimism is evidence-based. In the absence of any real evidence that all will be OK, I think people can be forgiven for fearing the worst.

 

[They Call It Madness!!!]

I should also add that, if we haven't paid the bill by March 1st but present evidence that we can, say, in April and for some reason the judge ignores that and winds us up anyway, then it is appealable and it will be adjourned pending appeal.

Either way, don't be too concerned about March 1st.

I hear what you are saying but Macclesfield were wound up for less monies owed, asked for an 8 week adjournment for a takeover and had ‘proof’ of a £1.1m investment due. Maybe the judge took it all as bull, perhaps we are in a better position but the judge also said that ‘they have had plenty of time to settle’.

 

[undercovershrimper]

I should also add that, if we haven't paid the bill by March 1st but present evidence that we can, say, in April and for some reason the judge ignores that and winds us up anyway, then it is appealable and it will be adjourned pending appeal.

Either way, don't be too concerned about March 1st.

Im sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense, there will be no further adjournments, the hearing is listed as final and that is what it means, I listed the 4 possible out comes in post 306 I think it was, these were the 4 outcomes that were given by an expert insolvency lawyer, please stop giving people false hope where there is none