Sale of the Club

[Samdy Gray]

They will be shareholders of some description, most likely in the new holding co, so it should be possible to fathom who they are from companies house.

[pauld]

They will be shareholders of some description, most likely in the new holding co, so it should be possible to fathom who they are from companies house.

Not always. Ask Leeds fans who's owned them for the most of the past decade.

[iffy]

We always knew it was Black, Arbib, Fitton, Wray etc.

I would expect the new consortium to identify themselves in the same way. "Anonymous backers" are an absolute red flag for any football club.

[Paolo69]

huh? the Adver were right about the Ritchie transfer from the start.


Sam Morshead ‏@SamMorshead_SA
Watkins suggested Jed McCrory's consortium consists of around five members, some of whom will be silent partners.
https://twitter.com/SamMorshead_SA/status/296969118463188992

can anyone clarify if silent partners can be anonymous?

There was definitely a tweet from Morshead at some point late in the afternoon along the lines of - The adver understands the new owners do not want to sell Richie.

[welshred]

There was definitely a tweet from Morshead at some point late in the afternoon along the lines of - The adver understands the new owners do not want to sell Richie.

I don't think anybody wanted him to go. Was just an unfortunate necessity.

[Bogus Dave]

huh? the Adver were right about the Ritchie transfer from the start.


Sam Morshead ‏@SamMorshead_SA
Watkins suggested Jed McCrory's consortium consists of around five members, some of whom will be silent partners.
https://twitter.com/SamMorshead_SA/status/296969118463188992

can anyone clarify if silent partners can be anonymous?

Nah, Mimes.

[pauld]

There was definitely a tweet from Morshead at some point late in the afternoon along the lines of - The adver understands the new owners do not want to sell Richie.

Which was probably a piece of misdirection from Jed the Double Glazing Salesman. i.e. "We don't want to sell Matt Ritchie (but [several hours later] we understand why the current board feel they have had to)"

[hobnob]

We always knew it was Black, Arbib, Fitton, Wray etc.

I would expect the new consortium to identify themselves in the same way. "Anonymous backers" are an absolute red flag for any football club.

How can the FA do their checks if the people they are checking up on are anonymous silent partners?

[Batch]

How can the FA do their checks if the people they are checking up on are anonymous silent partners?

 

They probably released the names to the FA under confidentiality/NDA

[Simon Pieman]

Silent partners just means they are investors but will not manage the running of the business.

It doesn't mean they have to or wish to remain anonymous.

[iffy]

How can the FA do their checks if the people they are checking up on are anonymous silent partners?

Because the FA are jokers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15241344

[Simon Pieman]

I may seem to, but it's just a good impression I assure you. Basically though the difference is that the secured debt is secured against something, like your mortgage is secured against your house. So if you default on your mortgage, you lose your house. Same thing here, except the debt is secured on the ground. Not sure though whether it's owed to the Holding Co (I think it is) or directly to individuals (Arbib and/or Black). SiPie's a better man to ask, he does actually know his stuff on this

I feel there is a lot of conjecture in the press, which may or may not accurately reflect the situation as it stands but I get the feeling snippets of information are getting read/fed to people and muddying the reality. For example, the figure of £3m in secured debts which is currently being thrown about – it’s not the correct amount as far as I can see and is also causing confusion as to what it is and whether it’s on top of £9m/£12m or whatever amount people are quoting.

I also think the majority of debts which are to be written off lie in the holding company and not in the football club. i.e. £9m has been borrowed by the holding company (money probably from Black but can’t tell) which has been used to buy shares in the football club and also lend it around £7m.  The reason this makes sense is so that the only related-party debts (owed to and from companies/people with an interest in the club) at the very point of purchase should be between the football club and the holding company.

I’m going to post a complete summary of company ownership, structure, debts due to and from for both the holding co and the football club. I’ll try and do it in as non-technical as possible so people can actually understand it.

I won’t be able to post this until later this evening as it takes some time.

[Paolo69]

Which was probably a piece of misdirection from Jed the Double Glazing Salesman. i.e. "We don't want to sell Matt Ritchie (but [several hours later] we understand why the current board feel they have had to)"

Neither of us have any idea where it came from in reality. All i know is i went home from work relieved when Richie when in actual fact Richie was in his motor on his way to Bournemouth.

For that i'm entitled to be a little pissed off with the adver, although i realise none of this is actually their fault.

[Bumpkin]

If anyone wants to ring Jed -- his number and email address is on his LinkedIn page

[Samdy Gray]

Can't even spell his own fucking name.