Leaderboard

After an win away to Morton last week in their first game after the winter break the women are top of the league so lets hope to continue with another good performance this Sunday at home against Renfrew.

And you have to wonder how hard a bargain he will drive on the car parks?

That's not correct. 1. A floating charge places him ahead of unsecured creditors, but behind preferential creditors (and secured creditors, but we don't have any of them). 2. It only entitles him to the proceeds of the sale of assets after higher ranking priorities have been satisfied. Under no scenario is he simply handed the stadium. It doesn't, but the administrator is legally bound to check all these things out. The catch 22 is that if RM is going to get less from any sale of the club/assets as a result of the floating charge being invalid, then he may look to make up the shortfall in any agreement he considers for the car parks.

Let's imagine RM is two people. His loyalty as a Director is 100% to the football club company. The Administrator will check that he was compliant in that respect because if he was not, and ran up debts of say nearly £4m whilst claiming his company was solvent, is quite serious and can lead to disqualification. This would have serious consequences for him. The Administrator will want to satisfy himself that this was the case. Given that the other RM was on the other side is potentially difficult to defend. Now lets look at the other RM and check why he acted the way he did. Given that he was a Director and Chairperson of the football club Company what legitimate argument can he put up that shows his negotiations with the first RM was fair and equitable and did not put the Going Concern position at serious risk ?