New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[horlock07]

Perhaps it is the possibility that Mrs Parladorio is holding them for Standing that is of interest?

Let's face it, the FA can no doubt see that the whole regime stinks but that probably applies to many EFL clubs.

Why, if Standing isn't an Agent any more I am not sure what FA rule this would be in breach of?

Looking back at the advisory board minutes from 22nd Sep, it states a review was in place for a £2.95m debenture.

So 20% of the club is worth about £3m then?

I understand that the debenture money had to be made quickly, but now it's in the public eye could the club not sell the shares to fans to generate income? That way the club has the money it needs/needed and the fans have a say in the club. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but would seem the most sensible moving forwards (unless there are skeletons in the closet of course).

Its Clem's toy, he can do what he likes, albeit seeing the shit that flies about I can't see him wanting thousands of fans owning shares and getting involved. Plus also worth remembering that fans did own shareholdings until Saint Andrew of Fitton rather fucked them over - in past times this would be the point to hand over to Reg!  

But how long would that take. I understand it the debenture needed paying immediately.

I've always assumed that the debenture needed clearing quickly as I suspect that, understandably, the Eady Trust would not provide the cash for the ground whilst a third party had the opportunity to get their dibs on it (or any asset it purchased) by calling the debt in.

That's not quite true, there might be separate legal agreements allowing Clem to purchase the shares back at an agreed price (or, to look at it another way, allowing other parties to buy more of Clem's shares at an agreed price/under certain circumstances). Those sorts of options wouldn't need to be registered with CH as far as I can tell.

I don't think CH really give a shit about the terms of sale, more where the shareholding is held. Did I imagine it, I only really skimmed it as its getting boring now, but didn't Clems missive of yesterday kind of suggest that this payback/buyback process was already in process to a degree? Yeah 'While most of the money has been repaid and the majority of the shares reclaimed a small minority shareholding remains to these two individuals.' so on that basis it would be interesting to know the respective shareholdings now, not at September last year which is what the CS at CH notes.

[Bennett]

That's not quite true, there might be separate legal agreements allowing Clem to purchase the shares back at an agreed price (or, to look at it another way, allowing other parties to buy more of Clem's shares at an agreed price/under certain circumstances). Those sorts of options wouldn't need to be registered with CH as far as I can tell.

That's true. A good angle I hadn't considered

[Bob's Orange]

Why, if Standing isn't an Agent any more I am not sure what FA rule this would be in breach of?

So 20% of the club is worth about £3m then?

Its Clem's toy, he can do what he likes, albeit seeing the shit that flies about I can't see him wanting thousands of fans owning shares and getting involved. Plus also worth remembering that fans did own shareholdings until Saint Andrew of Fitton rather fucked them over - in past times this would be the point to hand over to Reg! 

I've always assumed that the debenture needed clearing quickly as I suspect that, understandably, the Eady Trust would not provide the cash for the ground whilst a third party had the opportunity to get their dibs on it (or any asset it purchased) by calling the debt in.

technically no breach at all. But if the result of the FA ruling is that Standing is found guilty and banned from being involved in football club ownership for XX years, then we potentially have an issue - that being said one which can probably be resolved easily no doubt?

[horlock07]

technically no breach at all. But if the result of the FA ruling is that Standing is found guilty and banned from being involved in football club ownership for XX years, then we potentially have an issue - that being said one which can probably be resolved easily no doubt?

Can't see why, wahtever the ultimate outcome he wasn't banned at the date of the loan, he only owned a comparatively small % of shares way below the 30% noted earlier, albeit on our history with the FA/Fl we will probably get demoted to the Swindon Sunday League... 

[Mooneyraker]

Can anyone explain what the downsides were to Clem saying, at the point that the debenture became an issue, something along the lines of "In order to secure the CG purchase, the Eady Trust have stipulated that this debenture needs paying off in full (or whatever the exact issue was). In order to do this in the required timeframe I have taken on external investment from X and Y as I believe the ground purchase to be in both the short term and long term interests of the club" or words to that effect? Would fans have had an issue with that?

Alternatively, what were the upsides in the deception route, given the truth was always going to out?

I'm struggling to understand the logic of the lies and can therefore only conclude that it must be part of a bigger, uglier mess.

They could even have buried this message in the PR for the ground purchase itself.

[Robinz]

Surely everyone knew that there were still issues to be addressed after the departure of the power area.
Therefore I ask the question... what could have Morfuni done differently.
Bearing in mind that no other potential purchases were wanting a bar of the club.
Possibly we just need sit back and enjoy the on field football and let this back room crap sort itself out in time.
These type of sharks are in most companies worldwide.
By making a big thing here it is just giving further oxygen and making the situation worse.
 The truth will eventually come out.

[Bogus Dave]

My worry is what happens if either as a result of the court case or the FA case standing is banned from being involved in football (despite no longer being an agent) given his a) proclivity for silently funding football clubs and b) speculated links to Chris keily maybe meaning he may be involved in some of the £2.9m funding

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

Can anyone explain what the downsides were to Clem saying, at the point that the debenture became an issue, something along the lines of "In order to secure the CG purchase, the Eady Trust have stipulated that this debenture needs paying off in full (or whatever the exact issue was). In order to do this in the required timeframe I have taken on external investment from X and Y as I believe the ground purchase to be in both the short term and long term interests of the club" or words to that effect? Would fans have had an issue with that?

Alternatively, what were the upsides in the deception route, given the truth was always going to out?

I'm struggling to understand the logic of the lies and can therefore only conclude that it must be part of a bigger, uglier mess.

They could even have buried this message in the PR for the ground purchase itself.

Exactly my thoughts. It seemed an eminently sensible way to deal with the debenture. All it did was dilute Clem’s claim to be the 100% owner. And who really cares about that.

[Leggett]

Was it Birmingham who got points deducted last season for allowing people other than those who'd gone through the F&PP tests to run the club? Think there was another example as well... I don't think Town will get away scot-free from it if the court case goes the way some are expecting it to.

[JoeMezz]

Can anyone explain what the downsides were to Clem saying, at the point that the debenture became an issue, something along the lines of "In order to secure the CG purchase, the Eady Trust have stipulated that this debenture needs paying off in full (or whatever the exact issue was). In order to do this in the required timeframe I have taken on external investment from X and Y as I believe the ground purchase to be in both the short term and long term interests of the club" or words to that effect? Would fans have had an issue with that?

Alternatively, what were the upsides in the deception route, given the truth was always going to out?

I'm struggling to understand the logic of the lies and can therefore only conclude that it must be part of a bigger, uglier mess.

They could even have buried this message in the PR for the ground purchase itself.

I was thinking this or something along the lines of "As going through the debt, the board has found that they have inherited more significant debt than was first realised. Consequently, the club has had to seek external revenue to rapidly pay off a debenture to avoid XYZ." People would have said Clem was skint but the transparency would have largely been taken on well.

[Robinz]

Ego my friend....ego.
Morfuni is not a team player. He wants to be the knight on the large white charger.
That is a quality and not a criticism of the man.

[Mooneyraker]

What I then find stretches the limits of credulity is the suggestion that both Aberdeen and The Trust, who were intimately involved in both the takeover and the ground purchase, and the financials of both, over a period of years, didn't interrogate the immediate payment of £2.9m past Clem walking into a meeting with a presumably novelty-sized cheque and saying "don't worry folks, I've got the money"...

Did that not raise any red flags?

[Batch]

Can anyone explain what the downsides were to Clem saying, at the point that the debenture became an issue, something along the lines of "In order to secure the CG purchase, the Eady Trust have stipulated that this debenture needs paying off in full (or whatever the exact issue was). In order to do this in the required timeframe I have taken on external investment from X and Y as I believe the ground purchase to be in both the short term and long term interests of the club" or words to that effect? Would fans have had an issue with that?

Alternatively, what were the upsides in the deception route, given the truth was always going to out?

I'm struggling to understand the logic of the lies and can therefore only conclude that it must be part of a bigger, uglier mess.

They could even have buried this message in the PR for the ground purchase itself.

you've got me there. no requirement to, but it's the very essence of open and transparent.

might have made us look financially weak I suppose, but we look like that anyway.

it's all very bizarre to my mind.

I was hoping Clem would take on extra investment to invest in the playing side tbh. But that's probably not a good idea with hindsight until we are self sufficient

[horlock07]

Problem is even if Morfuni had come out and said he needed cash quickly there would have been those who kicked off about it, even if he had borrowed it from Barclays or Coutts!

I honestly don't know what the way forward is to get beyond the toxicity that has been engulfed much of the relationship between the club and a large swathe of the fan base, there is no obvious exit for Clem as it stands so we just have to get on with it, the Trust own 50% of the ground so they aren't going anywhere however much some moan about them on SM, the club seem unable to muster a coherent story whilst there is a fair few within the fan base whose entire shtick on SM is now to criticise everything and anything.

No doubt a decent season and some sort of promotion push would help, but if Clem no longer has a pot to piss in as many are now suggesting I cannot see that happening, fuck me supporting a shite club has been hard enough over the years, but this is going to a new level now.  

[Batch]

I'm still not sure about the 30% thing. that's a "connected person" and would need the FAPP test. clearly not relevant here

but there's also an "associated party" that does need to be declared but having skim read the rules in still not sure if they fall under 106.2

it'll all shake it in the wash I suppose

www.efl.com/documents/efl-handbook.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiOncLV9OWAAxWxT0EAHc5uA8YQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw23DZDjSKFBEqCCy2dO85ay