Search results

I have had this reply from the Football League regarding income that is used in the calculation of the player budget in League 1 and 2 ............. Income generated by a club that forms part of its football activities such as, commercial revenues, gate revenues, solidarity payments...

Of course there will be signings..... accounts will get filed eventually because they have to be...... the budget will be set because it has to be. Just a few thoughts though - the later the signings the less wages to be paid out pre season - AT will have targets but if the budget is as small...

I also suggested a couple weeks ago that the CT might want to enquire about the SBS&L charge still existing but they obviously didnt think it was of interest in their cayman island exclusive :facepalm: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/17299-Telegraph-Investigation-into-ARVO?p=198721#post198721

I am guessing the paperwork just hasnt been filed to cancel the SBS&L charge, cant say for certain though, but in the detailed copy of the ARVO charge the land & property at Leamington Rd (Ryton) is listed wingy. Cannot believe that the filing etc doesnt match up etc ............. but then...

yes ARVO is a secured creditor. This part of the judgement is interesting though "The administrator of a company must perform his functions with the objective of (a) rescuing the company as a going concern, or (b) achieving a better result for the company's creditors as a whole than would be...

If anyone is interested here is the link to the actual judgement. Link provided to me by the Football League http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1372.html It is pretty lengthy and a cure for insomnia. So summary Settlements of Football creditors and other unsecured creditors are...

it is now included as a specific item on the ARVO charge document though

Yes thats the info i have too RoyalScam ...... but it creates a problem..... you cant have two different entities having first charge over the same assets. I assume that the earlier charge has been removed but if it hasn't how can ARVO have a charge at all? Unless someone can tell us...

This may surprise a few ccfcway but got to agree with you ......... i am a bit fed up with talking about the finances too !:thinking about:

found this http://www.pitmans.com/news/the-football-creditors%E2%80%99-rule "The Rule operated by the Football League (“FL”) provides that in the event that a member club of the FL becomes insolvent then unsecured “football creditors,” including (but not limited to) players, other member clubs...

no issue we know of ......... but perhaps there is an arrears payment plan in operation which is why SISU put in 500k per month to hel;p cover that and other bills? It is exactly what the charge does is seperate the assets from all other liabilities...... ARVO could then sell on to satisfy...

if a bank has a charge or personal guarantee they come before any unsecured creditor including the taxman

have sent this to the Football League "Could you please clarify what items are taken to be football creditors as opposed to any other creditor. Also would an asset with a mortgage or charge on it be used to satisfy that debt first or a football creditor thank you" Sent one requesting details...

Its the VAT and PAYE SBJ

but i think you will find that monies coming in from shareholders as loans are classed as football debts. But I still think the charge will come before football creditors. The whole purpose of the ARVO charge is to ensure SISU remain in control of the assets not whilst trading as a going...

I also think people are forgetting who is running CCFC ........ the people involved all have great experience in corporate recovery and will be very well aware of the rules for insolvency...... they are not your usual owners or directors

not saying he gave Prozone to SBS&L Lord S........ it was valued and he got shares, maybe some cash and left some as a loan to SBS&L. Per the notes to the accounts the actual interest charge 2010 was 156k and the balance of the loan outstanding at 31/05/10 1.56m but had accrued 310 k by then...

The whole argument about football creditors arises mainly from the HMRC challenge. Debts to HMRC used to be much higher up the pecking order but now generally rank as unsecured..... the HMRC case is because PAYE forms part of the players wages then either HMRC are a football debt or the players...

Trouble I have with that is that the ARVO charge makes no mention of ranking behind anyone else. It is a first fixed and floating charge over all assets. There is no mechanism to rank it behind any other creditor. The charge would be pointless if it deferred to football creditors ( unless the...

next question then ..... given all assets are charged to ARVO wouldn't that leave nothing to pay the football creditors or any other creditors, if so does that leave ARVO (a SISU entity) in control of any process? This is not the usual situation of owners battling a third party who wants to...