Football Creditors judgement (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

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 considered after the settlement of secured creditors.

Football creditors rank before any other unsecured creditor

Football creditors are defined (section 19) in the document and are required to be paid in full to maintain the share/registration each club has in the League

"Football Creditors" are defined by articles 2.1 and 80 as the following:

"80.1.1 The League, The FA Premier League and the Football Association;
80.1.2 any of the Pension Schemes;
80.1.3 any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League;
80.1.4 any holding company of The League and any subsidiary company of that holding company;
80.1.5 any sums due to any full-time employee or former full-time employee of the Member Club by way of arrears of remuneration up to the date on which that contract of employment is terminated. This excludes for these purposes all and any claims for redundancy, unfair or wrongful dismissal or other claims arising out of the termination of the contract or in respect of any period after the actual date of termination;
80.1.6 any sums due to the Professional Footballers Association in repayment of an interest free loan together with such reasonable administration and legal costs as have been approved by the Board;
80.1.7 The Football Foundation;
80.1.8 The Football Conference Limited;
80.1.9 The Northern Premier League Limited;
80.1.10 The Isthmian League Limited;
80.1.11 The Southern League Limited;
80.1.12 Any member club of the League or organisations listed in articles 80.1.8 to 80.1.11 inclusive;
80.1.13 Any County Football Association affiliated to The Football Association; and
80.1.14 Any Leagues affiliated to The Football Association and any clubs affiliated to any County Football Association recognised by The Football Association."

Judges final comment ....

"The FL should not regard the result of this case as an endorsement of its approach to football creditors. It is, as I said at the start, a decision on a challenge brought on a particular legal basis"

Looks like it will be challenged at some point in the future

 

---

[wolfie]

That's the summary!!! Bloody hell

 

[TheRoyalScam]

:thinking about:Would you agree, OSB58, that ARVO are classed as 'secured' creditors because of the debenture?

 

[oldskyblue58]

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 likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration), or
(c) realising property in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors."
Paragraph 3(3) provides that the administrator must pursue the objectives in sub-paragraph (a) unless he thinks either that it is not reasonably practicable to achieve it or that the objective in sub-paragraph (b) would achieve a better result for the creditors as a whole. Paragraph 3(4) provides that the objective in sub-paragraph (c) may be pursued only if achievement of the other objectives is not reasonably practicable and it does not unnecessarily harm the interests of the creditors as a whole.

 

[wingy]

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 likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration), or
(c) realising property in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors."
Paragraph 3(3) provides that the administrator must pursue the objectives in sub-paragraph (a) unless he thinks either that it is not reasonably practicable to achieve it or that the objective in sub-paragraph (b) would achieve a better result for the creditors as a whole. Paragraph 3(4) provides that the objective in sub-paragraph (c) may be pursued only if achievement of the other objectives is not reasonably practicable and it does not unnecessarily harm the interests of the creditors as a whole.

OSB at the tail end of the financial info thread yesterday i made an observation in the wording of the two seperate charges ,there are referrences to property in both ,but in the ARVO charge there is no mention of buildings where there is in the other,also while the SBS&L charge was introduced there was a mortgage on RYTON so who would get first call in that scenario?

 

[oldskyblue58]

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 again perhaps i can :thinking about:

 

[oldskyblue58]

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

 

[Disorganised1]

I did hope common sense might rule at this hearing and football creditors be assigned like in any other case - still I'm sure the taxman will pursue it.