GP, Swale, Andy......

... might this be something for you accounting buffs to mull over?



Having just noticed this is in the rules regarding Administrators duties, I was curious if it was applicable.

"The liquidator or administrator can also apply to court seeking an order to restore any disposition of company property which contravenes the relevant provisions of the IA 1986, being IA 1986, s 127 (only in a compulsory liquidation) and IA 1986, ss 238, 239, 240 and 423—these are generally referred to as antecedent transactions. Therefore, a liquidator or administrator can make an application to court to unwind transactions entered into before the company was wound-up or entered into administration. Whether the particular transaction will be unwound will depend on its own circumstances".

Could Quantuma repossess Pride Park and leave Mel with the £20M charge on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

... might this be something for you accounting buffs to mull over?



Having just noticed this is in the rules regarding Administrators duties, I was curious if it was applicable.

"The liquidator or administrator can also apply to court seeking an order to restore any disposition of company property which contravenes the relevant provisions of the IA 1986, being IA 1986, s 127 (only in a compulsory liquidation) and IA 1986, ss 238, 239, 240 and 423—these are generally referred to as antecedent transactions. Therefore, a liquidator or administrator can make an application to court to unwind transactions entered into before the company was wound-up or entered into administration. Whether the particular transaction will be unwound will depend on its own circumstances".

Could Quantuma repossess Pride Park and leave Mel with the £20M charge on it?

---

The charge attached to the asset and the ownership change would not unwind the charge.

I believe the provision you refer to can only go back 6 months and then only under very specific circumstances, so unlikely to be doable. Anyway if the transaction was reversed we'd be back in FFP problems again and have another EFL points deduction!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

... might this be something for you accounting buffs to mull over?



Having just noticed this is in the rules regarding Administrators duties, I was curious if it was applicable.

"The liquidator or administrator can also apply to court seeking an order to restore any disposition of company property which contravenes the relevant provisions of the IA 1986, being IA 1986, s 127 (only in a compulsory liquidation) and IA 1986, ss 238, 239, 240 and 423—these are generally referred to as antecedent transactions. Therefore, a liquidator or administrator can make an application to court to unwind transactions entered into before the company was wound-up or entered into administration. Whether the particular transaction will be unwound will depend on its own circumstances".

Could Quantuma repossess Pride Park and leave Mel with the £20M charge on it?

---

In short no!

However I don't see the ownership of Pride park being an issue, Mel Morris is supposed to have said he would waive what he is owed, but in any case is unlikely to make himself more unpopular by being difficult over its use and any proposal for taking back ownership. That is something that can be done at a later date.

In normal circumstances the legal claims, such as they are would also not be an issue - its only the EFl insisting they be treated as "football debt" that is causing a problem.

That they are doing this for unsubstantiated claims that refer to matters dealt with by the EFL's own processes is not only bizarre but a worrying precedent.

.... even more so when you realise that they are considering rule changes so that claims such as that of Boro and Wycombe (although WWFC fans are telling me they haven't put a claim in yet) can't be made in future.

Very worrying that they're considering removing that rule only after they've finished with us - what a surprise, of course it would have to go to vote but I think most if not all clubs would agree having seen how any club can sue another if they felt wronged or cheated, if the EFL don't remove it then they're about to set a precedent

MA, I can't add anything to what Geep and Swale said. However, I think EFL are in a bit of a pickle regarding the Boro and (rumoured) Wycombe actions. Litigation in sport is a disease, and EFL may find themselves as superspreaders if they don't sort it pronto. American sport is full of it, right the way down to school level - my friend's high school American Football team were in danger of having to give back a state championship (and associated funds) months after a game was played, and after (its rumoured) $millions were spent in the courts - and the issue was the American Football equivalent of a fourth official error