Triple O

Going over old ground here but.... I don't know or believe if the Walton's have or haven't made a bid, or indeed intend to. How could I? Kris said that he wasn't aware of one which is very strange language to use when the word No would have sufficed. No confidence would have been breached as, if they weren't involved, no NDA would apply. The Admins have been very precise and clear in every other statement.

Notice you don't quote what the administrator actually said.

Cuddly bonkers or annoyingly bonkers?

No not hinting at that. Just that due to NDAs they wouldn't know who is involved, therefore anyone not under NDA who they can verify as not involved there is no reason they couldn't explain how they categorically know that. Why can't they put flesh on the bones of a story We're all interested in?

So do you categorically know WHO is involved?

2 more here https://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/343773-norwich-game-lets-get-norwich-sold-out-now/page/106/#findComment-11896390

Could you expand a little. If NAP didn't act to enforce their charge over the stadium and S3 (now in admin) own the stadium does that mean there is no reason to include it in SWFC administration figures. Then any buyer of the club could, in theory, buy the ground debt to NAP at 10% or less?

Well that's killed the mood. Jeez

Wow just insanely fantastic generosity . Sat here welling up. The wife asked what was up. I said I'm just so proud to be a Wednesdayite. Our fans continue to amaze me. Note to self : silly old fool

Yes but company not creditors, and doesn't involve votes only consultation.

No a CVA is Company Voluntary Arrangement which is not what is happening with us.

The Admins are not proposing a CVA or the club to continue without being sold. Therefore, as I understand it, the terms are clear and without a vote. Secured creditors paid in full and unsecured to get 25% to avoid points penalty next season. I stress I'm not experienced in this area but concluded this from reading numerous documents.

Mate this was just stated to be kit sponsorship as a vehicle to get money into the administrators account (SWFC in admin). They then can use it to pay the running of the club including paying staff wages. They stated that this was the most pressing problem at the moment so, in effect, any money paid into the account now definitely goes to paying staff wages. Really hope this makes it clearer.

Don't think it goes to a vote of creditors as a CVA is not being sought. As long as the unsecured creditors receive 25% a CVA is not necessary. Note: I think this is the case but perhaps some of our finance aware members could confirm.

Perhaps one of our experts can correct me if I have misunderstood but I believe that if the administrators find an acceptable buyer for the club as a package, then it would NOT require a CVA as you have detailed and the 75% approval would not apply. The unsecured creditors though would need to get 25% back to avoid the club getting a further 15 point deduction.