who would or could put the club into admin fAO SINCE 62

as no party has more than 50% would it take two parties to make the decision?
did not pmg threaten sam with this course of action?
perhaps since 62 could explain who could put the club into admin.
would the club be there for the malaysians to come back to after admin.

as no party has more than 50% would it take two parties to make the decision?
did not pmg threaten sam with this course of action?
perhaps since 62 could explain who could put the club into admin.
would the club be there for the malaysians to come back to after admin.

Sorry , missed this one yesterday so haven`t replied earlier.

The directors , the shareholders or creditors can apply to put the club into Administration. An application has to be supported by a licenced insolvency practitioner to confirm that , in his opinion , it would give the best return for creditors.There are specific objectives set out in law which he has to say can be achieved.

A 75% approval by shareholders would be required for them to apply.

5 days notice of an application would normally need to be given to what are known as "qualifying floating charge holders" - those that have a charge over the trading assets of the company and any of those can object to the court granting an appointment or to the choice of Administrator.There are a few of these in CCFC`s case and that is likely to cause some conflict of interest between them.

An Administration Order can not be granted whilst there is a winding-up petition is in place so the club could not apply unless and until the HMRC has been formally withdrawn as they also have the right to object.

I can`t see any advantage to any of the parties involved to have an Administration unless it is as an alternative to the even worse scenario of a liquidation (which would have happened if the previous HMRC or the Shire Foods petitions not been withdrawn).

Keith thanks for explaining - assuming we go before the judge on 11th August - what is likely to be the outcome - could we be liquidated or are we likely to be given x number of days to pay - will our previous tardiness count for a more severe treatment by the Judge ?

Keith thanks for explaining - assuming we go before the judge on 11th August - what is likely to be the outcome - could we be liquidated or are we likely to be given x number of days to pay - will our previous tardiness count for a more severe treatment by the Judge ?

If we go before the same judge again without having sorted out HMRC , then I have no doubt whatsoever that we will be put straight into liquidation.

No more time to pay options , we have breached too many similar promises in the past.

But I believe that it has been sorted and that the court hearing on 11 August will just be to confirm withdrawal of the HMRC petition at an earlier date (once booked , the court hearing still has to take place even if the debt has been settled since it was advertised). The Court tends to deal with all the cases that have been settled first , then the ones which are undisputed by the defendent , then the disputed ones.

Keith,

Does any transfer embargo stay in place until the court hearing? Is it only when the winding up order is dismissed that the embargo is lifted? Or is the embargo lifted at the time the agreement is reached with HMRC?

thanks for taking the time to explain the issue.

Do any of the secured creditors take preference?

Keith - I thought we paid one month but still owe for two more - we haven't paid up to date though have we ? So couldn't we still be liquidated on the 11th couldn't we ? When will we know if it's the same judge ?