Originally Posted by
CropleyWasGod
It's all about separate entities.
1. RFC, as they are just now, agree a CVA. Let's say £20m has to be paid.
2. RFC2, the new company, say... we will buy your assets for £20m. Those assets are the properties, the players, perhaps the SPL membership, and the "brand".
(I know the figures are arguable, but hear me out on the theory)
3. RFC take the £20m, and pay off their debts. They are now clear, and can dissolve themselves. (I say "can", but HMRC would have the right to object to that.)
4. RFC2 have the assets mentioned above, and no debt.
5. the BTC verdict is announced, and HMRC win it. They are owed £49m.
6. HMRC go along to RFC and ask for the £49m. There's nothing there, so they're stiffed.
Now, I know Cav is going to come along and say that some of RFC's debt might have to be transferred to RFC2. We're both a bit unclear on that. The other sticking point is that HMRC might apply to the Courts for any transfer of the assets to be prevented (interdicted?) until such times as the BTC is settled, on the grounds that their position is prejudiced by that transfer.