Rotherham and Bournemouth
Apologies for starting yet another thread on these two. Can someone clarify something for me. Bournemouth and Rotherham have both been told by the FL to pay creditors what was offered at the time of the CVA hearing. Had either of these two agreed a CVA as failing to agree a CVA seems to be why both clubs are being punished. If the creditors do not agree with the FL decision what happens to the two clubs? Do the FL have the powers to tell creditors that they have to agrre to the pittance they will get? Once again apologies as I am very confused by all that appears to be happening.

No, the FL has no such powers. Our CVA had to be agreed in court before a judge, after a vote of over 75% in favour by creditors. It will be interesting to see if any creditors who did not agree the CVAs try to take action to recover their monies. The IR seem the most likely candidate. I wonder then how the "new co."/"old co." con cooked up by the clubs and the FL will stand up in court then.

As has been shown, a large number of the Bournemouth creditors will be "happy" to get the CVA offer, as most of them voted for the CVA. Those that voted against it (inc. HMRC) may well look to recover the debts another way. Rotherham however, the vote was almost the reverse with very, very few of the creditors voting for the CVA.

In which case I have a deal more sympathy for the Cherries, although 2 (perhaps it's 3?) adminstrations in recent times tempers that somwewhat. Any idea what Bournemouth offered for their CVA?

It's 2 - one in about 1995 and one starting last year. There's a link in one of the other threads with the story up to earlier this year. From the Dorset Police report (linked in another thread) I think it was 12p in the pound. That said, it sounds like the administrator's handling of it wasn't great. Plus, the HMRC had 17% and will vote against CVA's on principle because of the League's rule, so they just needed 8% of all other creditors. As I've said, we might have had our CVA turned down had the League rule been in place when we came out of admin, as the HMRC were quite a big creditor then, IIRC.

I've forgotten, and did ask but have not had a reply yet.

Rotherham have effectivley stuck up two finger to the FL, all other teams, the HMRC and anyone else who cares to look. The way their chairman has been going on is arrogant in he extreme. The worst thin in all this will be the way the HMRC will now treat any club who gets in trouble, they will have scant leeway given and I expect the revenue to give one warning, that being pay up in full or we will clsoe you down. Millers should have been thrown out of the league. Incidentally, does anyone know when the guy who scored signed for Rotherham?