Sol Campbell backs winding up order against Macclesfield

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date


I think what he has done is disgraceful...yes he deserves the money to be repaid back to him( 180 thousand ) but he is basically putting another nail in the coffin of the club..if I was a multi millionaire like him...I would declare I want the admin staff/ people behind the scenes paying first...

He’s a Tory. This is no surprise. Heartless c.unt
 
The admin staff and other employees will be paid before creditors, but they need the big creditors to vote for a winding up order to start the process. Am i missing something here?
Yes. Any individual creditor owed more than a certain amount can ask for a winding up order in the High Court. All support does is as another name to the motion and increase its weight.
 
Yes. Any individual creditor owed more than a certain amount can ask for a winding up order in the High Court. All support does is as another name to the motion and increase its weight.

Him supporting the motion doesn't mean he's more likely to get paid though does it? Once a winding up motion is ongoing that's it?
 
Him supporting the motion doesn't mean he's more likely to get paid though does it? Once a winding up motion is ongoing that's it?

Very true. Macclesfield file as little information as is allowed by law (they're classed as a very small company), but their balance sheet is pretty disastrous. They also have outstanding charges from lenders that make SBC look like a high street bank, despite the owner putting some cash in by way of shares. My assessment is that they're a basket case whose winding up would be a formality but for them being a football club. Campbell and HMRC have no chance of getting much at all, I'd have thought.
 
There is a buyer waiting in the wings, I'm sure Campbell doesn't want to see the club fold, he's just cranking the pressure up on the owner
 
It suprising how charitable people are when they have imaginary money.

"Let me explain our revolution to you, comrade. First we find a man with two houses, we take away one of his houses and give it to someone with no house."
"Yes! Yes!"
"Then we find a man with two cars, we take away one of his cars and give it to someone with no car."
"Yes! Yes!"
"Then we find a man with two chickens, we take away one of his chickens and give it to someone with no chickens."
"No! No!"
"Comrade, I thought you understood our revolution?"
"I do, I do. But . . . I actually own two chickens!"
 

Back
Top