Lee Tomlin - potential sell-on clause

[BartonRaz]

I know this has been mentioned in another thread but i'm really keen to get an answer to this if anybody knows how liquidation processes work.

Was the old company ever officially wound up? Or did it remain whilst clauses like this were still active? I am of course assuming that we weren't stupid enough to sell Tomlin for a pittance without adding a sell-on clause of at least 25%.

The fee for Tomlin was undisclosed, but they had put a £3m price tag on him. So if any clauses were still relevant that might see Rushden & Diamonds receive £500k+ and a lot of companies/people belatedly receiving the money they're due.

[Cotty]

the article in the Peterborough Telegraph says the fee was £1.5 million but that he is on loan until the end of the season when a permanent move will be finalised.

[Diamond White]

IIRC the old company hasn't been fully wound up (ie all matters dealt with and chapter closed) although i think it remains in administration by Carter Clark.

One would have thought that the administrators would be aware of this sell on clause which may be why they have delayed winding it up fully. The process should be that any funds due to the old club are paid to the administrators who use them to pay out any creditors who are out of pocket (less their fees of course).

As much as it would be nice it's not a matter that AFC have any involvement in or call upon.

[BartonRaz]

As much as it would be nice it's not a matter that AFC have any involvement in or call upon.

I'm aware of that I was just thinking purely about creditors getting their money 3 years on.

[sussexdiamond]

Whilst I agree with previous comments that any payment should go to creditors, it is worth noting that somehow Darlington 1883 are due a payment from a sell on clause for Michael Smith (Swindon to Charlton) who was sold by Darlington before they went bust.

Also just a thought Barry Fry is a great friend of non league especially locally and just maybe he will acknowledge the contribution made by Mark Starmer and staff at R & D FC that helped develop Lee.

[SouthRushdenJFC]

I doubt that Barry has much say in it. The owner will make choices like that and, given his track record, I think he's low on compassion.

[Biggles]

I do believe one the largest creditors owed money by RDFC actually now works for the Posh so hopefully should be aware if the sell on clause is still valid and may get a small portion of their money back.

[Sid]

Whilst I agree with previous comments that any payment should go to creditors, it is worth noting that somehow Darlington 1883 are due a payment from a sell on clause for Michael Smith (Swindon to Charlton) who was sold by Darlington before they went bust.

Also just a thought Barry Fry is a great friend of non league especially locally and just maybe he will acknowledge the contribution made by Mark Starmer and staff at R & D FC that helped develop Lee.

But didn't Darlington 1883 pay off the debts to football creditors of the old club in the hope of retaining step 2 status? The FA didn't completely buy into their claim to be a continuation of the old club, but maybe their legal situation is different. We have never made any claim to being the same club as R & D.

[sussexdiamond]

Thanks for that Sid. I did wonder how that happened. I was quite annoyed that they went into Step 5 when we had to start at Step 6.

[Pigman]

I thought KC had confirmed at one of the forums he held that there was no money to come from any future tomlin deal ????