Bill Power court case

[wheretherealredsare]

In fairness arriba, surely that's why he insisted on the indemnity before taking the reins. He did his homework and ensured a safeguard was in place that would protect the club. The problem, if there is one, is in the sentence "The Advertiser understands that the Wills family have so far failed to come up with the cash". However, on further reflection since yesterday, this is perhaps somewhat disingenuous as any indemnity against the outcome of a legal case would presumably be dependent on final judgement being reached in that case. As it has not yet been reached, although it seems highly likely Bill and Phil will win, the indemnity would not yet have been triggered. So it may well be that this is little more than that Fitton et al have started to ask about the indemnity in the expectation of losing, the Wills have not been as forthcoming as they would like and Fitton is looking to fire a warning shot across the Wills' bows.

Although the indemnity has probably not been triggered I believe Fitton was reported as saying that it was understood that the case would be run by Wills and co. It seems that this has not happened and the club has been left to cough up the cost of running things.  

[pauld]

So what could be the scenario time wise Pauld in your opinion...months or years?..surely cutting our losses would be our best option...maybe a prompt settlement in the close season.

This is how it works as I understand it - if the judgement goes for Bill and Phil, then the club needs to pay them whatever the court finds in terms of damages and costs. There may obviously be some scope for Bill and Phil to ease the terms of that - ie perhaps asking for payment spread over a number of years instead of a lump sum up front. The club in turn then recover whatever costs they incur by invoking the Wills' indemnity so that ultimately it is the people who incurred this action (and consistently refused to settle it) who pay the costs. So no we absolutely should not cut our losses. The people who's fault it is should pay. I hope the Wills have a similar indemnity clause with Diamandis to indemnify them against the hugely damaging and expensive results of his "advice", which he seems to have done rather nicely out of.

[pauld]

Although the indemnity has probably not been triggered I believe Fitton was reported as saying that it was understood that the case would be run by Wills and co. It seems that this has not happened and the club has been left to cough up the cost of running things.  

Yes, but as I've said about 142 times (maybe exaggeration) in this thread already, although that means the club have to meet the costs up front and I don't minimise the effects of that, ultimately any indemnity clause worth its salt would cover all costs incurred. I don't believe Fitton is so naive as to negotiate an indemnity clause that didn't also cover costs, that would be plain daft

[leefer]

Although the indemnity has probably not been triggered I believe Fitton was reported as saying that it was understood that the case would be run by Wills and co. It seems that this has not happened and the club has been left to cough up the cost of running things.  

You dont go into buisness on the understanding of things...Fitton knew the score from the off,hes just doing his best to get out of it,and why not,he may get lucky....now why not encourage the big money men at the club to take over the debt....then save the club plenty of money by not dragging on court proceedings..as Pauld says Fitton is probably going to see this out...lets hope it works.

[Simon Pieman]

You might have done yeovil but I can assure the Trust board were very wary indeed of the ABD (Anyone but Diamandis) factor. There was no way we were going to just go with the first possible alternative that came along - indeed we discouraged at least one approach made directly to us as we did not believe it would have been suitable for the club. But we talked extensively to Bill and Phil, knew their intentions and motives, discussed what we felt was the right way forward for the club and felt it was a good fit. And I think most people who had some experience of Bill's short time being involved at the club agreed.

Thank god the late nights and scrutinising documents purchased over the internet are now gone eh Paul?

[dell boy]

If you're the same 'dellboy' as used to post anti-Power vitriol at every opportunity, you are a grade A cunt.

History is starting to shed light on what a greedy bunch of thieving cunts the old board were and, from what's being hinted at, there are some unsavoury details yet to emerge. No disrespect to Fitton - I'm glad he won the day and saved the club - but Power would have been a much better option than Diamandis and Wills at that time.

Cunts like Dellboy and Maverick are the ones who should be flogged on the pitch alongside Chinless, the Chinless son-of-Chinless, and the big fat greedy bubble;D

If you're not the same dellboy mate, apologies:-[ 

Thank you for your kind words.
I was so totally wrong in the past and I put my hands up and hold my head in shame, these days I do not post on controversial issues, in the past I was sucked in by propaganda of the old board, blimey I neally gave them my money to boot.

As for a public flogging, you naughty boy, you can always come and try, there will only be one winner and I can assure you, it will not be you!!!

[pauld]

Thank god the late nights and scrutinising documents purchased over the internet are now gone eh Paul?

I don't know, I quite miss the late-night internet and credit card sessions

[pauld]

You dont go into buisness on the understanding of things...Fitton knew the score from the off,hes just doing his best to get out of it,and why not,he may get lucky

I don't think you understand leefer, the indemnity is not just a gentleman's agreement (that really would have been foolish), it's legally binding. So it's not a question of trying it on in the hope he gets lucky, it's a question of calling on the Wills family to honour the legal agreements made at the time of purchase

[wheretherealredsare]

Yes, but as I've said about 142 times (maybe exaggeration) in this thread already, although that means the club have to meet the costs up front and I don't minimise the effects of that, ultimately any indemnity clause worth its salt would cover all costs incurred. I don't believe Fitton is so naive as to negotiate an indemnity clause that didn't also cover costs, that would be plain daft

The point I was trying to make was that the club were not expecting to manage/run the case and therefore finance the costs. From earlier in this thread alleged reporting by the Adver of Fitton's words:

“From the moment we became involved it was agreed that the previous owners would run the litigation.

“But their holding company went into administration so we have taken the bullet and had to run the case.

If the agreement and/or the indemnity was with the previous owners as individuals then it seems that agreement has already been broken. If with the holding company, are either the agreement or the indemnity enforceable frollowing administration?

[yeo]

This is all kinda pointless and now I have to jump off a cliff.

[flammableBen]

The point I was trying to make was that the club were not expecting to manage/run the case and therefore finance the costs. From earlier in this thread alleged reporting by the Adver of Fitton's words:

“From the moment we became involved it was agreed that the previous owners would run the litigation.

“But their holding company went into administration so we have taken the bullet and had to run the case.

If the agreement and/or the indemnity was with the previous owners as individuals then it seems that agreement has already been broken. If with the holding company, are either the agreement or the indemnity enforceable frollowing administration?

I think there's a confusion between too different things here. The club defending the case because the old holding company busted out isn't because of the indemnity, it's just the legal technical defaulty thing that happens in scenarios in this.

The indemnity thing covers that when this happens the Willsiacs are responsible for the costs, but they're not being forward with paying up. This is where the indemnity comes in, but may require us going through the courts to claim it of Wills if he insists on being a cunt.

That's my understanding anyway. I'm sure someone like paul will come along and say where I've got it wrong.

Actually there's a good chance all that is wrong.

[pauld]

I think there's a confusion between too different things here. The club defending the case because the old holding company busted out isn't because of the indemnity, it's just the legal technical defaulty thing that happens in scenarios in this.

The indemnity thing covers that when this happens the Willsiacs are responsible for the costs, but they're not being forward with paying up. This is where the indemnity comes in, but may require us going through the courts to claim it of Wills if he insists on being a cunt.

That's my understanding anyway. I'm sure someone like paul will come along and say where I've got it wrong.

Actually that's a pretty good summary. I see where you're coming from WRRA, but as I understand it the indemnity only comes into play when the case is concluded. You can't even assess costs because it's common for a judge to make a ruling on which side pays who's costs as part of the judgement (e.g. loser pays all costs, loser pays their own costs plus part of the other sides, or both sides pay their own costs) above and beyond any judgement on the claim itself. And the indemnity has always been cited as being on the Wills family in person - as I've said elsewhere it would be insane to get an indemnity underwritten by the Holding Co. I'm pretty sure it's quoted that way in the accounts too.

[wheretherealredsare]

I think there's a confusion between too different things here. The club defending the case because the old holding company busted out isn't because of the indemnity, it's just the legal technical defaulty thing that happens in scenarios in this.

The indemnity thing covers that when this happens the Willsiacs are responsible for the costs, but they're not being forward with paying up. This is where the indemnity comes in, but may require us going through the courts to claim it of Wills if he insists on being a cunt.

That's my understanding anyway. I'm sure someone like paul will come along and say where I've got it wrong.

Two right!

Seeing as what we conjecture isn't going to make diddly squat, IMO we may just as well wait for the (imminent?) announcement and direct all our positive thinking to staying in League 1 this season. And to not being crushed by falling Yeovils and the ilk.

[flammableBen]

I came so close to a massive whoosh moment there.

[chalkies_shorts]

I'm getting a bit confused here. Don't the old holding co (Wills bastards etc ) still own 25% of STFC hence the chinless fucker Wills junior on the board - or are they in administration and own nothnig.  Surely this will have a large part as to how this will play out.