Could someone please let me know if the FA have imposed a name change on the club are they absolving us of the debts of the "old" organisation. If so are we still planning to pay off creditors as before?

We ditched all of the creditors when we bought the assets of the old organisation. There were never any creditors for DFC 1883 to pay.

However under employment law we had to carry over the contracts of the employees to the new company. The new company then became responsible for the remainder of the employee contracts as well as any back pay owed to them from the administration period.

We still have to pay off the debts we inherited; i.e. the football creditors.
The non football creditors (Singh being the major creditor) will recieve whatever Harvey can raise from selling the remaining DFC 2009 Ltd assets (so, not much) as we failed to agree a cva.
Raj Singh wanted certain guarantees (such as a cut of any profits from any further money recieved on the Dan Burn contract) which were, as I understand it, blocked by the FA themselves.

Singh wanted it both ways. He wanted to pull out and not to put "a penny more in" but he also wanted to lurk in the background creaming off any money from possible windfalls.

What a nice person he is what a positive role model for any up and coming business man to follow

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

I really don't understand if we are being treated as a new company in every way, even down to having to have a new name, how can we take over the debts of the old company. The FA have made it most clear that we are completely new & have nothing to do with the old DFC.

It just seems like rubbing salt into the wounds to take everything away from us & then make us pay out for stuff that we can't particularly afford & that has nothing to do with the new club.

Essentially, it's because 1883 have bought *some* of the debts of 2009. The original plan was a CVA, in which everyone who is owed money gets some of it back in return for 1883 getting ownership of 2009; in that situation 1883 is responsible for all of the debt of 2009, but at a reduced rate. When that wasn't possible, 1883 bought the assets - the name, the badge and, importantly, the players. That's just a financial transaction, 1883 are buying part of 2009 off Havery Madden and he uses the proceeds to pay as much of the debt as he can - 1883 is not taking responsibility for the debt.

In a normal situation, that would be that. However, the players hadn't been fully paid by 2009, so had money owing on their contracts. When 1883 bought the players, they became responsible for their contracts, which included the money they were owed from the previous administration. Legally, there's no way of avoiding that - the players need to be paid by someone, after buying them 1883 are their employer, therefore 1883 carry the can. Having bought the players off 2009, if 1883 refused to pay them the money they're owed, the players could take them to an employment tribunal and get the money that way.

From the FA's point of view, this debt to the players doesn't affect whether we're a new company or not because it's essentially discretionary. When we chose to buy the players, we chose to buy the debt which came with them. It's not like a CVA where we're assuming responsibility for everything the club owes, we've picked up the good bits of 2009 and ditched the debt to everyone else. It's only really bad luck that there's any debt at all - if the players pay had been up to date, 1883 would have just got the contracts, the badge and the goodwill and started from a clean slate.

Which is essentially what divas said, but more long winded.

How can a club continue without agreeing a CVA? Surely that's only possible by doing it the way we have?

I thought the rules stated a 1 division relegation for a club failing to agree a CVA?

The only reason I can see for what's happened to us is because of the football share not being transferred.

However I don't know anything about how these things work in reality, so there could well be a different way to continue without a CVA being agreed.

To that point, why did we buy the players? I dont see any reason for that at all?

The rules around dropping a league without a CVA are very grey, it could easily mean that if you're still in admin at the time of the AGM you are relegated a division. It doesn't specifically state the exact conditions.

We had no choice but to take over player contracts, it's employment law when a company buys out another.

I really don't believe the football share was an issue. The FA have to sanction the transfer of the share and as they look down dimly on clubs who come out of admin without a CVA I don't think they'd have sanctioned it anyway. If Raj signing over the share was the problem the FA could easily have upheld our appeal on the grounds that although we never transferred the share they saw us as the same club. The long and short is the FA didn't like what we did and made an example of us. The football share was a convenient get out for them to use.

TBH, I thought we only bought some assets from the original club? It still exists as it still has part ownership of the sell on clauses?

Like I say I dont know enough about the subject, it just seems a little off that we didnt get all the assets, but we had to take the players?

Anyway, I'm not wanting to bulk out threads so questions are hard to find, so I'll leave it