T&A reports RFL Board meeting today... decision could be tonight!!!!

Doesn't the deal even if the RFL are happy with it, have to be agreed with the Creditors as has been mentioned and that could be after the Catalans match??

Well it has to be agreed by the administrator, so I guess it's his job to sort out how it impacts the creditors - after all it's his job is to get the best deal he can for the them. Maybe he's had meetings with them, or at least the big ones....maybe.

From my own recollections of being an unsecured creditor many years ago, my votes, and even attendance at meetings, weren't worth the bus fare so from my pov I reckon it's largely down to the Administrator.

That's pretty much how I see it, and anyway as the leaked letter simply states that there'll be NO dividend to unsecured creditors, you could say, what difference would ANY deal make? I.e. if whatever happens, they receive Nil, then what could be a worse deal for them than that? If that's the best offer, how could the administrator get a better deal? By definition, he can't.

It would seem that there will be ramifications, for whoever takes over, if sufficient isn't repaid though. It already appears that there will be some financial impediment imposed, reduced Sky money being mentioned as a starter. I guess we'll know more, as and when the details become available, but it's pretty certain that there will be 'consequences' if repayments aren't made.

I think that particular "ramification" relates to our rather unusual relationship with our landlord. With the RFL being both our landlord at Odsal and controlling the central funds that gives them a way of "recovering" part of their debt. I am sure the lawyers who contribute to the forum could give an opinion on whether this could be deemed to be unfair preference but I think it would be safe to say if this is the case creditors who aren't in the same position as the RFL - HMRC for instance - will not be best pleased even if it is legal.

The letter is neither leaked nor confidential. It will have been sent to at least 1200 people (shareholders and creditors, albeit I suspect the postman will have had difficulty delivering a significant number of those to the former). The document is therefore effectively in the public domain. As are all such letters issued as standard practice in such circumstances. I have received any number of them over the years in respect of insolvent customers.

Since I am not a named recipient of the letter, I would suggest that the publication of any specific content of the letter and its attachments (which include the Statement of Affairs and the Creditors List) should be left to someone who was a named recipient. There is indeed much to discuss.

No.

The creditors are entitled to vote on the joint administrators' PROPOSALS, as opposed to specific deals which are wholly within the province of the joint administrators, if more than 10% by value request, by 6 September, that a meeting be convened.

The joint administrators make it clear that they do not expect there to be any prospect of a dividend for the unsecured creditors, and so are effectively telegraphing to them that convening a meeting would be futile. I would expect that the extent to which asset realisations will be applied to paying the joint administrators' fees accrued to date and still to be incurred could have had a significant bearing on the joint administrators' conclusions.

Much could depend on HMRC's view of life. Take the Rangers FC case as an example - HMRC rejected their proposed CVA even though it was a financially better deal than liquidation. They did so because they considered that accepting a CVA would weaken their ability to pursue the directors individually for what they perceived as being illegal actions in respect of tax and disposing of assets. I'm not suggesting that any Bulls directors have done anything wrong but HMRC are getting much tougher and they may wish to look at the transfer of the Bulls' major asset (Odsal lease) shortly before going into administration (as an example). Its all speculation of course but where HMRC is involved then anything is possible.

But
a) how exactly could they do this and
b) unless the lease was transferred at an undervalue, (and I see no reason at all to suspect that), what difference would it make? If we had not sold the lease, then equally we wouldn't have received the purchase price either. We either have a lease, or the sale proceeds of the lease, surely?

a) We don't know what the creditors ratio is - what is being proposed is basically a CVA and you need >75% of total creditors by value to agree to it. If HMRC are owed more than 25% of the total creditor value then they can reject it. The creditors do not have to agree to the administrators proposals - he is there to get the best deal for them as ultimately its they who pay him, not the business involved. Usually in these cases the company's bank and/or HMRC make up the vast majority of the creditors and so smaller creditors get no say. Its difficult to say in this case as we have not seen the creditors list.

b) As I said, I don't know the details of the Odsal deal and it may all be perfectly fine. But if HMRC suspect that any directors have acted illegally then, using the Rangers case as a recent example, they will wish to retain the right to pursue them individually.

I do not beleive any CVA will be on offer, so there will be nothing for HMRC to reject.

The only thing they can object to is the joint administrators' general proposals, which would require them to request a ceditors meeting be convened. If they DID require a meeting to be convened, and a creditors' committee formed, they would have to fund the administrator (or subsequent liquidator) to pursue such investigations. It would seem unlikley they would at the same time seek to stop or delay the sale of the club - what the hell would be in it for them? The net result would most likley be LESS assets proceeds available to meet creditor claims, I would suggest.

HMRC not objecting to the present proposals would not prevent the liquidator - and you will hardly be surprised who is proposing himself for that role - from pursuing any action against directors or former directors - or the RFL, maybe under the auspices of an action for fraudulent preference - if there seemed any realistic prospect of success and the creditors (or maybe at least one shareholder...) were prepared to fund the liquidator to do so.

HMRC is easily the largest named creditor, and well over 25% of the total.

The Joint Administrators propose that the assets are sold and company is wound up. They do NOT propose a CVA.