A query regarding the cash injection of short-term director Bill Power was met with the response that the cash remained with the holding company, as this had been a share purchase rather than a loan.
Just scanning through the Adver’s write up on the AGM and the above snippet struck me as being a little anomalous (word of the day).
Maybe I’m reading that a little to literally but does that mean the cash is sat for the best part unused, presumably minus King's payoff in the holding company or is referring to Power’s overall investment?
While the loan/share purchase issue is contested by the Power camp from the perspective that it was a shareholding, what benefit would there have been in an issue in the holding company rather than the club itself?
In terms of a loan I can understand the logic that the investment is then protected from the subsidiary’s debts. But for a minority shareholding in a holding company in terms of influence wouldn’t that equate to a big fat 0 and make the shares almost worthless?
