scarpia wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

Creme Tangerine wrote:

On the subject of rumours, I was just shown a fb post where the chairman of the fed was saying he was informed by a director at Tannadice that should United have any financial difficulty, they would go directly into liquidation bypassing administration. I don't know the ins and outs of business procedures but I always thought admin would be first port of call to protect creditors. Would like to know why this is not the case for United. Very worrying to hear this. Can any fed guys shed more light on this? 

Not a rumour, was actually said. Was a joint meeting between the trust and Fed where administration was talked about. The trusts associate director said there wouldn't be admin it would be straight to liquidation.

It was me that posted it on fb btw.
 

The normal process would be admin and then and only if no buyer could be found would liquidation result - also tbf it's rather hard to see any advantage to the Thompsons in going straight to liquidation - might depend on when this was said - if it was before the bank debt was cleared then even more unlikely as they would have been calling the shots.


 

I'm only saying what he said. It wouldn't be admin it would be straight to liquidation. 
 

scarpia wrote:

bowers wrote:

B&t is correct.
100% fact and not a rumour we got told this

 
Not doubting what you were told - only it's accuracy - I can't think of any business I've run across going straight to liquidation and have a feeling the decision would lie with the administrators who would have a duty to secure the best return for creditors - hard to see how anyone could know that decision in advance?

im assuming had sat round the table with the directors previous to this and told them this is what would happen.

hence the trusts associate informing the 2 fan groups this a few weeks back which came as a shock tbh
 

Last edited by bowers (25/8/2015 1:19 pm)

scarpia wrote:

bowers wrote:

B&t is correct.
100% fact and not a rumour we got told this

 
Not doubting what you were told - only it's accuracy - I can't think of any business I've run across going straight to liquidation and have a feeling the decision would lie with the administrators who would have a duty to secure the best return for creditors - hard to see how anyone could know that decision in advance?

 
Maybe the administrator's would have a look at the books and say  jesus fuck lol

Last edited by blackandtangerine (25/8/2015 1:26 pm)

Shareholders and creditors have to be informed if administrators are called in, have they not?

There are many shareholders of the DU Football Company, including Dundee United Supporters' Society Ltd, who own 2.82% of the company. If they (us by proxy) haven't been informed of any potential administration, then someone is breaking the law.

That's what I thought Scarpia. When was this said?

Perhaps the bank told United they wouldn't entertain administration? Which, as you say with them calling the shots, would have left United with little option.

Since the bank debt has gone though, our debt has in the main been to 'friendly creditors'. Given that the line has been that there is little pressure to pay this all back anytime soon, I can't see how administration would even be an option, never mind bypassed.

Edit: Scratch the first part of that, I've just read the rest of the thread!

Still though, seems an odd thing to have come out with. Can only guess there's been a misunderstanding at some point along the line.

Last edited by Trap_6 (25/8/2015 1:52 pm)

blackandtangerine wrote:

Trap_6 wrote:

That's what I thought Scarpia. When was this said?

Perhaps the bank told United they wouldn't entertain administration? Which, as you say with them calling the shots, would have left United with little option.

Since the bank debt has gone though, our debt has in the main been to 'friendly creditors'. Given that the line has been that there is little pressure to pay this all back anytime soon, I can't see how administration would even be an option, never mind bypassed.

Edit: Scratch the first part of that, I've just read the rest of the thread!

Still though, seems an odd thing to have come out with. Can only guess there's been a misunderstanding at some point along the line.

Maybe yes, maybe no but he definitely said it and whole room was in shock.
 

Sorry mate, not doubting it was said. I'd be pretty shocked if I heard that too.

For reasons others have outlined though, going straight to liquidation couldn't happen. There must have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.
 

bowers wrote:

The only misunderstanding must have been what he had heard from ST and others when they discussed it and then told us we would be liquidated.

If the guy had a business head at all, he would have known such hasty steps were impossible.
 

PatReilly wrote:

bowers wrote:

The only misunderstanding must have been what he had heard from ST and others when they discussed it and then told us we would be liquidated.

If the guy had a business head at all, he would have known such hasty steps were impossible.
 

The boy is a Business Studies teacher.  I'm pretty sure he understands.
 

Having looked at things in more detail a Creditors Voluntary Liquidation would have been possible - however it's hard to see why the Thomsons would have gone down that route as they would have no financial advantage for them and they would likely have come out with less than they would in a CVA.

If as, IIRC, this dates back to when we had bank debt it would more likely to have been an attempt to put the wind up Lloyds.

It is possible at that time that the board could see a scenario where they were unable to meet outstanding payments and would have to declare the company insolvent but the best outcome for the Thompson's (as creditors) and the company would have been through a CVA (administration).

I think it likely as well that the bank would have opposed a CVL in the courts.

Fucking really depressing thread this

huntedbyafreak wrote:

Fucking really depressing thread this

It is. That's because theres a lot of depressing things going on at our club just now.
 

BennyBoy wrote:

blackandtangerine wrote:

PatReilly wrote:

Shareholders and creditors have to be informed if administrators are called in, have they not?

There are many shareholders of the DU Football Company, including Dundee United Supporters' Society Ltd, who own 2.82% of the company. If they (us by proxy) haven't been informed of any potential administration, then someone is breaking the law.

No one is saying it's imminent. Just the route the club would choose. The fed are also shareholders. Unfortunately the club won't answer financial questions. Should maybe see if we can get enough support for an egm.
 

 Evening, B&T. I don't know the breakdown of the percentages of share ownership at United these days, but I think, don't quote me, I remember it being 15% of shareholders needed legally to force an EGM. As mentioned, ArabTRUST own around 3% as 3rd largest shareholders, do you happen to know what the approximate breakdown is? The Thompson family own about 75%-80%, I think. I'm just curious to know if, hypothetically, there would be enough to get 15% support for an EGM. Anything like that would probably need ArabTRUST's backing to succeed.

I don't think its as much as 15 %. I believe it's only 5%