TrustSTFC - direction & AGM

[Batch]

Don’t think interested parties need to go full on public but would be well served to make themselves known to the Trust at this point…

As mentioned in the pod, they'd have to do that some point through the JV if there was a change of representation. I guess that's 'after the fact' ?

[DiV]

Probably a better option, yeah. Even if it comes with NDAs. At least The Trust can confirm there have been offers publicly at that point.

I’ve said time & time again - some more people will wake up to goings on if they is a known viable alternative.

That part of problem with regards to ownership; as far as we know are options are Clem (and gang) or the gang (and Clem) and we can do whatever we want from chanting to sacrificing pigs on the pitch during a game but that won’t help a change of ownership if there isn’t anyone buying.

I know it was a different time (and he never actually bought the club in the end) but Bill Power was there, was visible, face was on the Adver, he was at games, he was at Trust meetings - the fanbase (even the ‘only interested in the football’ parts) knew who he was - that he existed - what he wanted.

We need an alternative (not shit Sherlock) but we need a known alternative to get behind (which again ironically is exactly what Clem did to win over people on the first place) people liked Clem because he wasn’t Power (at the time!!)

[UTR]

I’ve said time & time again - some more people will wake up to goings on if they is a known viable alternative.

That part of problem with regards to ownership; as far as we know are options are Clem (and gang) or the gang (and Clem) and we can do whatever we want from chanting to sacrificing pigs on the pitch during a game but that won’t help a change of ownership if there isn’t anyone buying.

I know it was a different time (and he never actually bought the club in the end) but Bill Power was there, was visible, face was on the Adver, he was at games, he was at Trust meetings - the fanbase (even the ‘only interested in the football’ parts) knew who he was - that he existed - what he wanted.

We need an alternative (not shit Sherlock) but we need a known alternative to get behind (which again ironically is exactly what Clem did to win over people on the first place) people liked Clem because he wasn’t Power (at the time!!)

Agree with the premise but it’s sadly not how credible buyers move nowadays, at least until latter stages at the earliest. They remain in the shadows.

[RobertT]

The problem we are facing is that any potential buyer is seeing a myriad of risks when thinking about purchasing the club.  Going public does not mitigate any of those risks and puts pressure on them to complete a deal that they are likely backing away from anyway.

Who buys a business when a court case is still hanging over who the past owner was, which in turn could have serious implications on who owns the shares as things stand?  Plus even those shares were diluted by two further interested parties and a loan deal that is at best opaque.  On top of that, the outcome of that legal effort could very well influence an FA charge, that could seriously impact the league we play in.  Basically we are asking buyers to part with cash without knowing whether they end-up owning the business properly, or what their revenue is likely to be.

I imagine these are the very things that Bathford's Accountants and Lawyers have warned about.

[RobertT]

And I forgot to mention that there is the issue of triggering pre-emption rights in the Holding Co.

[Bob's Orange]

Is the ownership court case likely to happen this year?

[ThreeDrawsMentality]

I really struggle to fathom how the civil case between Power and Standing can have implications on the club bar penalising due to an Agent fund the club. The case is civil and not against STFC. The shares potentially at risk have since been sold. I feel the case is purely Standing trying to recoup funds from Power.

[Batch]

implications on the club bar penalising due to an Agent fund the club.

Isn't agent owning the club is an outcome (for the period in question). One says loan, the other says for shares?

Had a 2 mnute look, but can't find the edxplicit ownership rules. But they are there.

Did this get resolved, or is this the current charge awaiting court descisions?
https://www.thefa.com/news/2021/apr/07/intermediary-regulations-breaches-070421

[Nemo]

It's not so much that the court could find "against" the club - the club isn't a party to the court case, it's Standing v Power, but that information could emerge in the course of that case that leads to the FA charging the club separately.

The club's best case scenario is probably Standing/Power settling out of court.

[Wobbly Bob]

It's not so much that the court could find "against" the club - the club isn't a party to the court case, it's Standing v Power, but that information could emerge in the course of that case that leads to the FA charging the club separately.

The club's best case scenario is probably Standing/Power settling out of court.

As in an additional charge or charges over & above the exist one on the books against the club, Power, Standing & Barry?

Always the chance of some very dirty washing being aired if it can't be settled out of court I guess.

In a way it might be better if all of the details around the "loan" do come out into the open.

[RobertT]

I really struggle to fathom how the civil case between Power and Standing can have implications on the club bar penalising due to an Agent fund the club. The case is civil and not against STFC. The shares potentially at risk have since been sold. I feel the case is purely Standing trying to recoup funds from Power.

Given all deals were initially verbal, any buyer would have a risk alerted to them of that previous handover of ownership possibly creating some messy future civil claims.  If Power didn't have the right to sell the other 50%, he didn't have the right to set the price, and while that may be at arms length, it still creates questions.  We also cannot know why Standing allowed the sale to occur at the time - he had an injunction that meant he could have blocked it.  There could be a side deal hanging around.

The bigger issue of course is around the FA charge that remains hovering above us - which is unlikely to be decided until the ownership situation is legally settled.

Who buys a business with so many unanswered questions.  Not to mention the potential contracts we have signed up to with "friends".  Karachi for example - nobody really knows what STFC is on the hook for.  It's in, it's out, it's shaking all over the fucking place.

[STFC_Manc]

I really struggle to fathom how the civil case between Power and Standing can have implications on the club bar penalising due to an Agent fund the club. The case is civil and not against STFC. The shares potentially at risk have since been sold. I feel the case is purely Standing trying to recoup funds from Power.

It won't have implications for the shares or who owns the club, as it is Power vs Standing and neither have ownership of the club. 

[Nemo]

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd80ApZ8raQ-cExy1pOWYQwr-vgV_JziotbXs8Gcby4xN7IEg/viewform

The trust are pushing this end of season supporter survey. All supporters, not just members.

[Steak supper]

Is the ownership court case likely to happen this year?

I commented a few days ago that we couldnt find any info on progress - I have been told that info on cases can be looked at on the internet . we need someone who knows about this sort of thing to look into it .  I assume the trust could actually do something and get a lawyer to find out more

[RobertT]

It won't have implications for the shares or who owns the club, as it is Power vs Standing and neither have ownership of the club. 

Ownership, in a legal sense, no.  Ownership in a verbal backroom deal that could exist, nobody knows.  As mentioned, Standing had an injunction to prevent Power from selling, he provided the OK for Clem to purchase the business even though he continued to seek redress with Power (think they were suing each other at one point, but pretty sure it is the Standing vs Power case that remains).  If Standing believed he owned 50% of the club, why did he not seek to block a sale and ask for some money?  That is the type of question that would hang around when a potential buyer is assessing risks.