If Holt had been sold to Rangers

[Dave 0]

We would not yet be safe

And we would be fighting to get our transfer money and in the end would probably have received 10% of it

[William Darby 0]

If aunt had balls she''d be my uncle.

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

If bryan gunn was never made manager we probably would have not signed grant Holt. All ifs and buts. If we had beaten colchester and started league one really well then Lambert probably would.not have been brought in

[Kathy 746]

And I would be miserable [st]

[K Lo 235]

If we''d''ve sold him to Rangers we could have bought him back at half price.

[Jacko 0]

We would never have sold him so it was all academic really. But it does leave a very bitter taste in the mouth should we have any future dealings with Rangers. From a company law perspective they would certainly have been guilty of wrongful trading because  "They knew, or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation"; and they did not take "every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors". But I think there is a strong argument that they would have been guilty of fradulent trading (which carries a higher burden of proof) because Rangers must of known we were barely going to see a penny of the money we were offered should we have accepted the bid. Thus it would have been a blatant attempt to defraud Norwich City. In reality the whole thing was just a PR stunt to attempt to make Rangers fans believe there still was some money there.

[TIL 1010 4,826]

[quote user="Jacko"]

We would never have sold him so it was all academic really. But it does leave a very bitter taste in the mouth should we have any future dealings with Rangers. From a company law perspective they would certainly have been guilty of wrongful trading because  "They knew, or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation"; and they did not take "every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors". But I think there is a strong argument that they would have been guilty of fradulent trading (which carries a higher burden of proof) because Rangers must of known we were barely going to see a penny of the money we were offered should we have accepted the bid. Thus it would have been a blatant attempt to defraud Norwich City. In reality the whole thing was just a PR stunt to attempt to make Rangers fans believe there still was some money there.

[/quote]

Blimey anybody know an accountant who could confirm all this ? Obviously somebody who knows company law.

["""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0]

Bryangunnshairline - That''s actually not true. Even if Bryan Gunn didn''t sign him we would shave still been after Grant Holt under Lambert. As in fact Lambert tried to sign Holty for Colchester the summer we went for him, just we out bid them.

[Dave 0]

No need to get all defensve with me

 

I was just pointing out that it was a wise move, as we would still have been in trouble and way out of pocket.

 

Holty too would have been out of pocket as his wages would have been cut not long after arrival

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="Dave"]

No need to get all defensve with me

 

I was just pointing out that it was a wise move, as we would still have been in trouble and way out of pocket.

 

Holty too would have been out of pocket as his wages would have been cut not long after arrival

[/quote]

They couldn''t have sold him anyway, I mean not enough to give the intrest back to the  donating season ticket holders like myself who very kindley chipped in a few quid.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Ben "]Bryangunnshairline - That''s actually not true. Even if Bryan Gunn didn''t sign him we would shave still been after Grant Holt under Lambert. As in fact Lambert tried to sign Holty for Colchester the summer we went for him, just we out bid them.[/quote]That''s not what he said. He said if Gunn wasn''t made manager. Therefore somebody else would have been.  And that person may not have bought Grant Holt.  All ifs and buts, but Gunn (like it or not) was an important part in the butterfly effect on how it''s turned out in three short years.

[CDMullins 455]

[quote user="Jacko"]

We would never have sold him so it was all academic really. But it does leave a very bitter taste in the mouth should we have any future dealings with Rangers. From a company law perspective they would certainly have been guilty of wrongful trading because  "They knew, or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation"; and they did not take "every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors". But I think there is a strong argument that they would have been guilty of fradulent trading (which carries a higher burden of proof) because Rangers must of known we were barely going to see a penny of the money we were offered should we have accepted the bid. Thus it would have been a blatant attempt to defraud Norwich City. In reality the whole thing was just a PR stunt to attempt to make Rangers fans believe there still was some money there.

[/quote]

 

True story, they also had a bid for Francisco Sandaza accepted on deadline day, St Johnstone rang Sandaza who was in Spain to tell him they had accepted a bid and to get ready to fly back to Scotland. Rangers were supposedly arranging a flight for him. Hours went by and Sandaza rang Rangers, who said they were still trying to get him a flight. More time went past and Ragers rang Sandaza ad told him ''not to worry'' about coming over to Scotland for talks.