Pages: 1 ... 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 ... 148   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Jed mccory  (Read 506915 times)
Berniman
Sits in front of JFW

Offline Offline

Posts: 10612


Miserable cnut (AKA Happy Clapper)




Ignore
« Reply #1860 on: Tuesday, July 8, 2014, 16:47:52 »

Underground, overground...
Logged

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” ― Marcus Aurelius

When somebody shouts STOP! I never know if it's in the name of love, if it's HAMMER TIME, or if I should collaborate and listen...
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER

Offline Offline

Posts: 12507




« Reply #1861 on: Tuesday, July 8, 2014, 17:02:40 »

Cock wombling free
Logged
fatbasher

« Reply #1862 on: Tuesday, July 8, 2014, 18:41:15 »

Could be worse. I had a gas head in my car all day.
Logged
kerry red

« Reply #1863 on: Tuesday, July 8, 2014, 18:43:05 »

Fraternising with the non league crowd, eh?
Logged
Summerof69

Offline Offline

Posts: 8598





Ignore
« Reply #1864 on: Tuesday, July 8, 2014, 18:49:45 »

Could be worse. I had a gas head in my car all day.

I assume you asked them how they are looking forward to their local derby at Forest Green !!
Logged

BAZINGA !!

Join the Red Army Fund and donate at www.redarmyfund.co.uk

Join the Football Supporters Federation for FREE at www.fsf.org.uk/join.php
fatbasher

« Reply #1865 on: Tuesday, July 8, 2014, 19:02:37 »

Potential new employee, couldn't take the piss toooooo much. Mind you he did a pretty good assasination job of rovers himself.
Logged
manc_red

Offline Offline

Posts: 349





Ignore
« Reply #1866 on: Wednesday, July 9, 2014, 07:25:59 »

The judgment has now been reported on Lawtel for anyone who's interested:

Quote
SWINTON REDS 20 LTD v (1) GERARD MARTIN MCCRORY (2) SEEBECK 87 LTD (2014)

[2014] EWHC 2152 (Ch)
Ch D (N Strauss QC) 01/07/2014
COMPANY LAW - SPORT - CONTRACTS
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP : CONDITIONS PRECEDENT : ESTOPPEL : FOOTBALL CLUBS : SHAREHOLDERS' AGREEMENTS

An application for rectification of a company's register was granted as, although the period for the satisfaction of conditions precedent in a share subscription agreement had not been extended and the agreement had therefore ceased to exist, the parties had entered into a new agreement on the same terms but with an extended period for satisfaction of the conditions.
The claimant company (C) sought rectification of the register of the second defendant company (D2).

D2 owned 98.5 per cent of the shares in a football club. C's owner (P) claimed to have acquired 99 per cent of the shares in D2 from the first defendant (D1) under a share subscription agreement (SSA) dated April 11, 2013, which would have given P effective ownership of the football club. The SSA was subject to certain conditions precedent which had to be satisfied within 14 days. It was common ground that they were not satisfied by April 25. P claimed that the parties had agreed through a series of texts and emails that there would be an extension of the period from 14 days to three years, and that such an extension was within the absolute discretion of the defendants. He said that although both parties would have referred what had been agreed to their respective solicitors, that was simply to implement what had been agreed, without being subject to approval. D1 stated that there had been discussions between him and P, but there had been no question of extending the compliance period. He said that the reference to a three-year extension was related to P's position of Director of Football at the club. An email exchange between the parties' solicitors on May 1 referred to agreement to a three-year extension to the SSA. The principal issues were (i) whether the period for satisfaction of the conditions precedent had been extended; (ii) if not, whether the parties had subsequently entered into a new agreement on May 1 on the same terms, but with an extended three-year period.

HELD: (1) D1, in common with everyone else involved, knew that what was being extended was the period for compliance. There was no limit to P's position within the club which required formal extension. The issue was whether, accepting P's evidence, when the parties agreed to refer what they had decided to their respective solicitors, that was implicitly on the basis that the agreement was subject to their approval. The basis of the reference to the solicitors was not spelled out in the conversation between P and D1; the question was what reasonably objective inference could be drawn from those circumstances. Applying that test, the conclusion was that the agreement was subject to the approval of the parties' solicitors. The SSA was a complex agreement which had been drawn up by the solicitors and, on any sensible view, either party's solicitors might well have had reservations about the effect of extending the period for so long in respect of certain obligations, most obviously the restrictions relating to conduct of the business, on what C could do without P's written consent. The period for satisfaction of the conditions precedent had not been extended by April 25, and the SSA had ceased to exist on that date (see paras 24-27 of judgment). (2) The parties had, however, reached a clear agreement to revive the agreement with a new period for completion. The terms governing the parties' rights and obligations were clear and certain. All that was wrong was the legal designation of what was agreed. However, agreement as to its legal designation was not a necessary ingredient of a contract; the contents of the contract had to be certain but the parties could call it whatever they wanted, Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 applied. The defendants' argument that there was no new agreement because the parties thought they were varying the original SSA, which they could not do as it had ceased to exist, if correct, would defeat the plain intention of the parties regarding their respective rights and obligations and would have a troubling effect in many cases. Whether an agreement was a new contract or a variation in terms was often a difficult question, and was not straightforward in the instant case. There had been a reasonable argument that the agreement remained in existence, in which case the May 1 emails would have been a variation, because of the change in the starting date for the three-year period. It would be absurd if the existence of a contract depended on whether the parties were able to categorise correctly the agreement they had made. There was no evidence that P no longer thought of himself entitled to his rights under the agreement and, in any event, the issue was whether he did have such an interest (paras 29-36). (3) If the May 1 agreement had been ineffective, there would have been a clear case of estoppel by convention. The parties had proceeded on the basis that they had revived the agreement and that their rights and obligations were governed by it, subject to the alteration in the period. Alternatively, the May 1 exchange of emails incorporated a representation by the defendants that they would continue to honour the agreement, with the altered period for completion, and there was ample evidence of detrimental reliance on C's part. Clearly, if D2 had said at that time that there was no effective agreement to revive the SSA, P would have ensured that a new and binding SSA was prepared and, given the good relations at that time, it would have been completed. C was entitled to the relief it claimed (para.37).

Application granted
Counsel:
For the claimant: Hugh Jory QC
For the defendants: Charles Douthwaite

Solicitors:
For the claimant: St John Law Ltd
For the defendants: CJ Jones LLP

http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/Documents/AC0142548
Logged
tans
You spin me right round baby right round

Offline Offline

Posts: 24886





Ignore
« Reply #1867 on: Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 16:43:46 »

Appears to have deleted his twitter.

Probably had the mobile bill and broadband cut off Cheesy

Chancing cunt
Logged
kerry red

« Reply #1868 on: Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 16:46:39 »

Can we not purge The Jedster from the entire forum so that he never existed
Logged
Power to people

Offline Offline

Posts: 6385





Ignore
« Reply #1869 on: Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 12:25:33 »

When did he have to pay his court costs by, so we can watch out for the bankruptcy hearing
Logged
steveg

Offline Offline

Posts: 152





Ignore
« Reply #1870 on: Wednesday, July 23, 2014, 12:49:41 »

Don't worry about?! There will be a clause that we have to pay it that's for sure!
Logged
pauld
Aaron Aardvark

Offline Offline

Posts: 25436


Absolute Calamity!




Ignore
« Reply #1871 on: Wednesday, August 6, 2014, 14:10:23 »

And here's what we could have been:

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11389069.Hereford_United_fail_to_secure_ground_safety_certificate/?ref=mr
Logged
Bob's Orange
Has brain escape barriers

Online Online

Posts: 28443





Ignore
« Reply #1872 on: Wednesday, August 6, 2014, 14:36:18 »

Poor Hereford Sad

Their new chairman doesn't exactly sound squeaky clean either.

http://www.herefordtimes.com/sport/11386532.Hereford_United_s_new_chairman_Andy_Lonsdale__We_have_done_all_we_can_to_satisfy_criteria_for_new_safety_certificate/?ref=ar

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/feltham-arenas-monitoring-not-good-5964257
Logged

we've been to Aberdeen, we hate the Hibs, they make us spew up, so make some noise,
the gorgie boys, for Hearts in Europe.
horlock07

Offline Offline

Posts: 18726


Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost




Ignore
« Reply #1873 on: Wednesday, August 6, 2014, 14:53:23 »


That is a truely horrifc jumper in that photograph unless the photograph was taken in the late 1970's?

Logged
horlock07

Offline Offline

Posts: 18726


Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost




Ignore
« Reply #1874 on: Wednesday, August 6, 2014, 14:54:14 »


Do we actually know for certain whether Jed is actually involved at Hereford, is Mr Agombar still involved or has he passed it to this new bloke?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 122 123 124 [125] 126 127 128 ... 148   Go Up
Print
Jump to: