• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Official Match Thread New HMRC Winding up Petition - Back in court TODAY (should know by around midday)

Status
Not open for further replies.
How much of our money has been spent on these appearances at court. Legal fees, travel costs, court fees. Probably runs into the amount about the same as the season ticket sales.
Indeed and as I said yesterday if you add the tens upon tens of thousands in late payment penalties, interest and surcharges I suspect you are way above the season ticket money. Also don’t forget 20% ot the ST money is HMRCs
 
Perhaps there is some interest in potentially discovering the identity of a prospective purchaser of the club. After all, RM's lawyer may have to be explicit on this issue if the judge is to be persuaded the club is about to be sold.
I have been wondering about that and based on the fact that RM doesn’t own the majority of shares it’s a third party and yes RM is considered a person of significant interest I that company also has their issues I am not convinced
 
What Ron don’t want is an legacy of being a man that killed the club, he and his family’s wouldn’t hear the last of it from SUFC fans for next 50 years.
 
Perhaps there is some interest in potentially discovering the identity of a prospective purchaser of the club. After all, RM's lawyer may have to be explicit on this issue if the judge is to be persuaded the club is about to be sold.

I wonder how any potential NDA's that 'might' be in place during sales discussions (assuming anything is going ahead of course) would stand in relation to the Judge ? I guess potentially any paperwork could be passed to him without divulging anything specific in open court so he can make a more sympathetic decision if a sale looks likely ?
 
Things to look for today

1. The length of the adjournment - this will give us an idea of the expected takeover timeframe. I’m thinking maybe 6 weeks. This would tie in with Ron’s press conference when he mentioned June.

2. Is there a preferred bidder yet? I’m expecting it to just be “a number of bidders”. Ron probably wants to keep them bidding against each other. I’m not expecting any party to be named.


Ron’s bull**** bingo drinking game sponsored by PG Site Services

Two sips for each of

* “advanced talks”
* “concrete offer(s)”
* “a number of” parties wanting to buy the club
* “expressed interest”
* “consortia” or “consortium”
* “instructed leading agents in the field to conduct” a sale

Down your drink for
* “bright future”
* “optimistic”
* “put it behind us/the club”
* celebrity guest appearance from a local MP

Down two drinks if
* he apologises
* one of the buyers accompanies him to Court

Down three drinks if
* PG Site Services tweet
* PG Site Services deletes the tweet

Down four bottles of vodka/lighter fuel
* if ‘Arry Redknapp (or his dog Rosie) is involved

But please drink responsibly and don’t drive
You missed:
Clear line of sight
Due diligence
Covid
And of course he hasn’t mentioned “Peter Clarke”
For a while
 
I am not 100% on this but I think creditors and possibly the company directors can lodge an appeal if the judge puts the company into liquidation. A legal brain on here may have the answer?
 
I'm going to stick my neck on the line here and make a prediction that I desperately hope is wrong. Just after the last hearing and the money paid to HMRC I heard a rumour that TL was negotiating a TTP with HMRC for the remaining money. He was apparently hopeful it would be agreed so the embargo could be lifted in time for KM to sign some players for the run in.

Clearly that didn't happen. So my guess is that the WUP is a result of not agreeing a TTP. My prediction is that Ron is going to argue that HMRC are being unreasonable because whatever SUFC have suggested HMRC have declined. (Who could blame them.) If that is the case then Ron is on very shaky ground.

As I said, I hope I'm putting two and two together and coming up with 23,798,777.0997.
 
I'm going to stick my neck on the line here and make a prediction that I desperately hope is wrong. Just after the last hearing and the money paid to HMRC I heard a rumour that TL was negotiating a TTP with HMRC for the remaining money. He was apparently hopeful it would be agreed so the embargo could be lifted in time for KM to sign some players for the run in.

Clearly that didn't happen. So my guess is that the WUP is a result of not agreeing a TTP. My prediction is that Ron is going to argue that HMRC are being unreasonable because whatever SUFC have suggested HMRC have declined. (Who could blame them.) If that is the case then Ron is on very shaky ground.

As I said, I hope I'm putting two and two together and coming up with 23,798,777.0997.
Not far off of the debt Ron has put against the club in the past 4-6 weeks.
 
I am not 100% on this but I think creditors and possibly the company directors can lodge an appeal if the judge puts the company into liquidation. A legal brain on here may have the answer?
Within 5 days a creditor, a contributory (e.g a shareholder) or the company jointly with a creditor or contributory can make an application to rescind. I think under certain circumstance an application to extend period is possible.
 
I'm going to stick my neck on the line here and make a prediction that I desperately hope is wrong. Just after the last hearing and the money paid to HMRC I heard a rumour that TL was negotiating a TTP with HMRC for the remaining money. He was apparently hopeful it would be agreed so the embargo could be lifted in time for KM to sign some players for the run in.

Clearly that didn't happen. So my guess is that the WUP is a result of not agreeing a TTP. My prediction is that Ron is going to argue that HMRC are being unreasonable because whatever SUFC have suggested HMRC have declined. (Who could blame them.) If that is the case then Ron is on very shaky ground.

As I said, I hope I'm putting two and two together and coming up with 23,798,777.0997.
No. HMRC's approach or competence or reasonableness is irrelevant really to the court. For the court its a matter of whether its there is a realistic prospect of the debt being cleared in a reasonable timeframe.
 
I'm going to stick my neck on the line here and make a prediction that I desperately hope is wrong. Just after the last hearing and the money paid to HMRC I heard a rumour that TL was negotiating a TTP with HMRC for the remaining money. He was apparently hopeful it would be agreed so the embargo could be lifted in time for KM to sign some players for the run in.

Clearly that didn't happen. So my guess is that the WUP is a result of not agreeing a TTP. My prediction is that Ron is going to argue that HMRC are being unreasonable because whatever SUFC have suggested HMRC have declined. (Who could blame them.) If that is the case then Ron is on very shaky ground.

As I said, I hope I'm putting two and two together and coming up with 23,798,777.0997.
It was also confirmed by Ron in the press conference announcing the club being for sale that TL was in talks with HMRC for a TTP.
 
No. HMRC's approach or competence or reasonableness is irrelevant really to the court. For the court its a matter of whether its there is a realistic prospect of the debt being cleared in a reasonable timeframe.
If that is the case, and my assumption is correct, then Ron's on even shakier ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top