Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mick]

Source Northwich Guardian

Vics held their creditors meeting yesterday in an attempt to exit administration........they offered them 25p in the pound, over 5 years, which I guess is much better than what most other clubs have offered recently (although as a creditor you still lose three quarters of what you are owed !).

It seems that the largest single creditor, HM Revenue who are owed £400k+ rejected the offer and are now mulling over an improved offer. There is no other news.

If I were HMR, then I would object to the payment over 5 years. The payment is overdue already and I would not want to wait up to 5 years for just 25% of my money when a) the company has a history of failing to meet payments, and b) the Chairman has already told everyone he is about to buy the stadium for £1.3M

[Paul Cain's Chip Pan]

Is Jim Rushe on drugs or something? How can he possibly expect a derisory offer like that to be accepted when he has made it perfectly obvious that he intends to splash the cash yet again once an arrangement is in place!

The man is deluded!

[Longman]

This is just a conplete farce.

[gazwarrington]

He has put in all that of his own money does he want a medal ? well its not been to pay anyone off that they owed money to is it ... He should have said I have WASTED that money going all or bust (again) to stay in the conference and choosing bust (again).

How long can they get away with this for ??

Reform and start again.

[markecky]

Really don't want to hear Magic Jim and his magic money tree bleating.

If you don't want to put a lot of money IN DON'T PAY DAMIEN REEVES £850 A WEEK PLUS PETROL you mad mad man.

[AltyTunnelSteward]

The point with this deal and others similar is that, if accepted, the creditor is guaranteed, in this case 25% of what they're owed.

If the deal is declined then there is a better than even chance of them getting absolutely nothing

[Darren]

I think the comment on here sums it all up
http://www.northwichguardian.co.uk/vics/4516072.Tax_man_asks_for_more_money/

fredtaxpayer, weaverham says...
6:18pm Tue 28 Jul 09
Good the HMRC are not a charity they are a public service who serve the taxpayer and the taxpayers interests. When a company including a football club gets into trouble the HMRC normally allow them to pay less as it is in the interest of the tax payer to get something rather than nothing and it goves the company a second chance. However when they arrive at a meeting and get the file out to find the ink is still not dry from the last time the company avoided their tax bill then it is no in the best interests of the taxpayer to allow this a company to do this again and again - its sets a precedent and other companies will think they can get away with it and before you know it there is no money to pay for hospitals etc....so i think the HMRC are right and should insist on 100%. If they can afford to a 1.3 million pound mortgage they can afford to pay their debts period.

[Dougals Dad]

If I remember correctly Rushe was due to get funding to buy the ground a short while back - you don't suppose he could use these funds to pay his creditors back.

Then he could fly to Mars, find a cure for cancer and discover a cheap, green solution to all our energy needs

[markecky]

The point with this deal and others similar is that, if accepted, the creditor is guaranteed, in this case 25% of what they're owed.

If the deal is declined then there is a better than even chance of them getting absolutely nothing

If your bird has cheated on you two or three times and each time you decide to have her back because its better than speed dating and pot noodles, eventually you have to realise that she might not be the right one for you and put her stuff in the garden.

[Amsterdam Alty]

The point with this deal and others similar is that, if accepted, the creditor is guaranteed, in this case 25% of what they're owed.

If the deal is declined then there is a better than even chance of them getting absolutely nothing

If your bird has cheated on you two or three times and each time you decide to have her back because its better than speed dating and pot noodles, eventually you have to realise that she might not be the right one for you and put her stuff in the garden.

Bastards been reading my diary

[Paul Cain's Chip Pan]

The point with this deal and others similar is that, if accepted, the creditor is guaranteed, in this case 25% of what they're owed.

If the deal is declined then there is a better than even chance of them getting absolutely nothing

If your bird has cheated on you two or three times and each time you decide to have her back because its better than speed dating and pot noodles, eventually you have to realise that she might not be the right one for you and put her stuff in the garden.

A very Ian Holloway-esque analogy of the situation! 

[AltyTunnelSteward]

I wasn't saying that it was right to accept it merely that, given this scenario, many people/organisations do

[SW]

Huh? I like Pot Noodles.


Except the Beef and Tomato flavour.

[Mick]

I wasn't saying that it was right to accept it merely that, given this scenario, many people/organisations do

To be fair ATS you are absolutely right...........most people when faced with the choice of accepting 25% of what they are owed or alternatively risk receiving absolutely nothing, go on to accept the 25%. It's wrong, but it happens and it is a very very bitter pill to swallow.......especially when assets are hidden in 'the wifes' name and the individual involved spends the whole Summer in the Spanish villa contemplating their next business venture

I think though, that sometimes somebody needs to make a stance. Markeckys analogy just sums it up perfectly.
Problem is though that you can only make a stance if you can afford to lose so much money....most people cannot, but maybe HMR can and they have the opportunity here to send out all the right messages.

I don't want to see Vics go out of business, but the deal they cut with the Revenue should be the best deal for the taxpayer and not a deal that lets Vics continue trading 'business as usual'. They need to restructure their finances to be able to survive as a football club and to be able pay up their debts asap

[Aussie Bob]

From what i read a while back on the Vics forum that when (or if) Jim Rushe and associates buy the stadium it would be leased to Vics for 90k a year (although they would have more opportunity to fund raise through the "facilities").I dont think the stadium deal will go through until after Vics are out of admin.
So if they are going to pay off 300k over 5 years plus lease the stadium they are looking at 150k a year close to 3k a week for debt repayment and use of the ground even before they think about running the football side of things...in the BSN with lower crowds , sponsorship etc...they still would have a few players on full time contracts as well.
Are they still going to be full time ? I havent seen anything saying they will revert to part time ?

To be honest announcing that you can raise 1.3 million for the ground and then telling the taxman you can only offer 25% of 450K tax debts isnt going to impress HMRC too much is it ?