Breaking News RM Speaks..

[palexander]

Just emailed Sky Sports to find out if they are going to be reporting anything...

 

[Firestorm]

has anyone spoke to Chris Phillips ?

 

[palexander]

has anyone spoke to Chris Phillips ?

Yes, about half 9... he didnt know anything about it either, but is "on to it" now...

 

[dloman]

Yes, about half 9... he didnt know anything about it either, but is "on to it" now...

Seriously? very very odd

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

1. The lansbury / Delancey rescue that was dependent on the removal of John Main.

2. i don't think the money involved was as much as this case either, and we don't have the big "backer" to fall back on this time.

3. We also don't know is if there are any other creditors who have joined the petition . Is it a fair assumption that the lack of comment from Ron is an indication that the order has not yet been lifted ? I would imagine that he would be busy trying to get it sorted, and thus not have time to comment.
If it was already lifted I would have thought he would have been crowing on about it.

All correct.

1. Colin Wagman (CFO of Delancey, IIRC) had got into a huge sabre-rattling exercise with John Main where he had got to the stage that he was prepared to let the club slide into administration as a pretext for ousting Main. In lengthy phone conversations with him, Paul Fitz and I persuaded him that that was a daft strategy - not least because, once the administrator is appointed, the directors and shareholders effectively no longer run the company, since the company is now being run by the administrator for the benefit of, principally, the creditors. We persuaded him that the better route was to pay the petitioner (once again, our nemesis, HMRC), call an EGM, and use their block votes to oust Main. This, luckily, they did.

2. The petition in 2000 was for £400k. This petition is, I believe, for £680K. So, it's about two-thirds as much again, at a time when finding any ready cash is much harder.

3. Completely agree with everything you say here. If he'd lifted the petition, he would have said so already.

* * *

My concern - and this is one based entirely on my own supposition, so may be entirely baseless - is that HMRC are being bone-headed about things, as is their wont. Having issued the petition, they're invariably not in the habit of withdrawing them voluntarily, since to do so would result in wasted legal costs - not just their own but also SUFC's. And so, the petition subsists.

In the meantime, Ron is of the view that on the same day the HMRC issued the petition, they also set up the scheme for scheduling tax payments - which is the scheme on which Ron wishes to put the club.

However, as things stand, we have not been accepted onto that scheme - because a petition for immediate payment of the full debt has been lodged in the Chancery Division. So, Ron is going to go to court in order to persuade the judge that it would be Wednesbury unreasonable for HMRC to continue to petition for our winding up in circumstances where a scheme for scheduling payments has now been put in place by HMRC.

My concern, however, is that I do not know the decision-making process that HMRC has to go through in order to accept someone onto the scheduling scheme. The scheme is highly unlikely to be compulsory - I would be amazed if HMRC had to agree to allow a tax bill to be scheduled over a number of months.

That being so, is it really unreasonable (in the Wednesbury sense) for HMRC to present the petition? My gut instinct, given how infrequently courts find that public authorities have acted in a Wednesbury unreasonable manner, is that the court is unlikely to refuse HMRC permission to present the petition just because of the existence of the tax scheduling scheme.

If they do so, then we can only hope that Ron's fall back position is that he has got £680K sitting in his back pocket (as well as the £50K-60K of costs that he'll have to pay for the winder hearing, bearing in mind he'll have to pay HMRC's costs as well as his own). Because, if he doesn't, then it's difficult to know how or why the court would refuse to allow the petition to be presented - which would mean administration and -10 points become all but inevitable.

That's my guess, at any rate. I'd love it to be blown out of the water by a statement appearing on the official website some time soon...

Matt

 

[fbm]

Yes, about half 9... he didnt know anything about it either, but is "on to it" now...

So we're actually creating a major news story when in fact it might all be adjourned in a whimper then...

 

[Suffolk Blue]

...

In the meantime, Ron is of the view that on the same day the HMRC issued the petition, they also set up the scheme for scheduling tax payments - which is the scheme on which Ron wishes to put the club.

However, as things stand, we have not been accepted onto that scheme - because a petition for immediate payment of the full debt has been lodged in the Chancery Division. So, Ron is going to go to court in order to persuade the judge that it would be Wednesbury unreasonable for HMRC to continue to petition for our winding up in circumstances where a scheme for scheduling payments has now been put in place by HMRC.

My concern, however, is that I do not know the decision-making process that HMRC has to go through in order to accept someone onto the scheduling scheme. The scheme is highly unlikely to be compulsory - I would be amazed if HMRC had to agree to allow a tax bill to be scheduled over a number of months.

That being so, is it really unreasonable (in the Wednesbury sense) for HMRC to present the petition? My gut instinct, given how infrequently courts find that public authorities have acted in a Wednesbury unreasonable manner, is that the court is unlikely to refuse HMRC permission to present the petition just because of the existence of the tax scheduling scheme.

If they do so, then we can only hope that Ron's fall back position is that he has got £680K sitting in his back pocket (as well as the £50K-60K of costs that he'll have to pay for the winder hearing, bearing in mind he'll have to pay HMRC's costs as well as his own). Because, if he doesn't, then it's difficult to know how or why the court would refuse to allow the petition to be presented - which would mean administration and -10 points become all but inevitable.

That's my guess, at any rate. I'd love it to be blown out of the water by a statement appearing on the official website some time soon...

Matt

Lets hope then that RM is being well-advised, and/or he has access to the required cash.

One thing's for sure; Tilly and the players don't appear bothered by this and you'd think they'd be better informed than us. Mind you, to be bothered they'd have to both know the facts and understand the implications; is this your average footballer's strong suit?

 

[fbm]

Lets hope then that RM is being well-advised, and/or he has access to the required cash.

One thing's for sure; Tilly and the players don't appear bothered by this and you'd think they'd be better informed than us. Mind you, to be bothered they'd have to both know the facts and understand the implications; is this your average footballer's strong suit?

I bet Tilly's bothered.

 

[Suffolk Blue]

I bet Tilly's bothered.

Maybe he isn't? Maybe he knows and understands more about the club than you or I.

If he is bothered then he's doing exactly the right thing by keeping up appearances and not shouting his mouth off...

except for that damn Golf Course babbling that he really needs to work on of course.

 

[overseas shrimper]

pboreham... nothing like opening up a can of worms or stirring a hornet's nest with the media is there?

And then the forum is all in a tizz when the media jump the gun and report things before there's any real proof of what it is they're 'investigating'.

Oh the irony!