Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 51   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Court cases  (Read 154248 times)
Flashheart

« Reply #45 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:27:42 »

Has Kostiuk fapped himself into a coma yet?
Logged
STFC_Manc

Offline Offline

Posts: 1515




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:37:07 »


My thoughts from reading this

Link 1 - Axis

An injunction has been put on to stop a sale without constent from Axis and the issue as a whole will go to the courts to be decided and the club can't be put into insolvency by Power or a third party.

Point 64 in the link
For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting an injunction to Axis preventing a sale of the shares or assets of the Club without Axis' prior written consent. Accordingly, I grant that injunction.

Point 66 in the link
Mr Slade QC, in his skeleton argument, suggested a new paragraph (3) to the draft Terms of Order in the following terms:

    "(3) Until trial or further Order, without the prior written consent of Axis none of Mr Power, [Swinton] nor Seebeck shall do, permit or suffer to be done any act whereby [Swinton], Seebeck or [STFC] may be wound up, or enter into any compromise or arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986."

Link 2 - Standing V Power

This relates to Power taking legal action to claim losses due to the Mr Standing injunction in Nov 19.  The case was dismissed as the sale could of still gone ahead if Power would have included Mr Standing in the potential sale.

I've not seen the injunction details and whether that is going to court again.

Point 63 in the link

For the reasons set out above, I dismiss Mr Power's application for fortification. He has not been able to satisfy me that there is a sufficient level of risk of loss such as to require fortification. Even if I had found that he was entitled to fortification, I would have been unlikely to conclude, based on the only remaining contentious issues before me, that there is any material shortfall between Mr Standing's available assets and an intelligent estimate of the likely amount of the losses that would be suffered by Mr Power as a result of the injunction.

 
Logged
RedRag

Offline Offline

Posts: 3301





Ignore
« Reply #47 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:40:12 »

Oh for happy days of PPG and the Pandemic fallout.

Have I noted that Power is wanting 40% of any sell on in relation to Jayden Bogle from Derby Co?  What would the likes of 50% Barry/Standing (football agent) on the one hand and 15% Morfuni/Axis on the other have to say about that?  It seems there are so many ways to "bend" the outcome of a FC sale.  We so often debate sell-on clauses but STFC do not appear to benefit anyway.

Clem the builder, with his 15%, seems to me to be the straight guy in all of this.

Barry/Standing and Power seem to have been circumventing the no player/no agent ownership rule.  Once again, a la Jed, we therefore have a lot of he said/she said the makes the exact nature of the agreement made difficult to pin down.  Clearly it was a form of 50:50.  Power certainly appears to have shafted or at least lied to Standing/Barry over the Ritchie sale, quite badly imo.

I think Power may well be getting the bulk of any costs order against him this time.

At least under Andrew Black's ownership we had pretty straight (and wealthy) owners.  This seems to be the exception for us and in football generally.

Logged
Dr Pierre Chang
ITK Curran lover

Offline Offline

Posts: 2996





Ignore
« Reply #48 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:44:16 »

Has Kostiuk fapped himself into a coma yet?
Understatement of the year!

Sadly, a lot of goodwill Power has built up this season with the fan base will be well and truly gone for good now.

I’m with RedRag on the Ritchie business, that is inexcusable.
Logged
JBZ
Not as likeable as Reg was, a fencesitting WUM

Offline Offline

Posts: 3264


Allegedly, not a Swindon Town supporter




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:53:35 »

My thoughts from reading this

Link 1 - Axis

An injunction has been put on to stop a sale without constent from Axis and the issue as a whole will go to the courts to be decided and the club can't be put into insolvency by Power or a third party.

Point 64 in the link
For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting an injunction to Axis preventing a sale of the shares or assets of the Club without Axis' prior written consent. Accordingly, I grant that injunction.

Point 66 in the link
Mr Slade QC, in his skeleton argument, suggested a new paragraph (3) to the draft Terms of Order in the following terms:

    "(3) Until trial or further Order, without the prior written consent of Axis none of Mr Power, [Swinton] nor Seebeck shall do, permit or suffer to be done any act whereby [Swinton], Seebeck or [STFC] may be wound up, or enter into any compromise or arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986."

Link 2 - Standing V Power

This relates to Power taking legal action to claim losses due to the Mr Standing injunction in Nov 19.  The case was dismissed as the sale could of still gone ahead if Power would have included Mr Standing in the potential sale.

I've not seen the injunction details and whether that is going to court again.

Point 63 in the link

For the reasons set out above, I dismiss Mr Power's application for fortification. He has not been able to satisfy me that there is a sufficient level of risk of loss such as to require fortification. Even if I had found that he was entitled to fortification, I would have been unlikely to conclude, based on the only remaining contentious issues before me, that there is any material shortfall between Mr Standing's available assets and an intelligent estimate of the likely amount of the losses that would be suffered by Mr Power as a result of the injunction.

 


Without looking back at the documents, I recall that Standing has given a cross undertaking to LP in damages. If you seek an interim injunction (to stop something happening before the substantive dispute comes to trial) you will usually have to undertake to cover your opponent's losses if you ultimately lose at trial. Those losses arise from the fact that your opponent has been prevented from doing something by the injunction which they were in fact entitled to do. LP was asking for some security to back up Standing's cross undertaking.
Logged

Nothing to see here
STFC_Manc

Offline Offline

Posts: 1515




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 22:58:47 »

Without looking back at the documents, I recall that Standing has given a cross undertaking to LP in damages. If you seek an interim injunction (to stop something happening before the substantive dispute comes to trial) you will usually have to undertake to cover your opponent's losses if you ultimately lose at trial. Those losses arise from the fact that your opponent has been prevented from doing something by the injunction which they were in fact entitled to do. LP was asking for some security to back up Standing's cross undertaking.

I stand corrected, but i think my point still stands and is the main reason it wasn't granted.
« Last Edit: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:00:57 by STFC_Manc » Logged
RedRag

Offline Offline

Posts: 3301





Ignore
« Reply #51 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:27:17 »

Power's alleged lie having been that the near £2m. profit from the Ritchie Newcastle sell-on, instead of being shared 50:50 between Power and Standing/Barry, had had to be used to discharge the Andrew Black debenture of roughly that amount.  Black's debenture wasn't discharged at all and Power seems to have taken sole control of the near £2m. sum.

Obviously the above may be wrong or possibly incomplete in important respects.

As a complete outsider to the business of football, it seems that football people have an "honour amongst thieves" that is prone to break down.  Little old me finds it strange that sums in excess of high end house purchases can change hands with little or no written agreement. We see it alleged in this case, that Power has been seeking years later to have a verbal agreement recorded in writing in such a way that less tax will be payable, seemingly even though the written record might not reflect the original verbal agreement.

I may have misread this but I must say that I personally felt much more comfortable about the manner in which Andrew Black conducted himself.  I do credit Power with a certain know how and acumen for the world of football.  The more patient of us have always said that the time to judge Power would be when he passed on STFC's ownership.  Judgement day seems a little closer.
« Last Edit: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:29:06 by RedRag » Logged
theakston2k

Offline Offline

Posts: 5304




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:28:17 »

I’m struggling to give a shit at the moment, no one knows what’s happening with football full stop at the moment.

Ultimately the courts will decide on any ownership issues. My main concern is we’ve breached FA ownership rules in which case I’m sure we’ll have an example made of us.
Logged
RedRag

Offline Offline

Posts: 3301





Ignore
« Reply #53 on: Tuesday, May 19, 2020, 23:34:28 »

There is a history of us being made an example of whilst the big boys get a fine they can easily manage.  Whatever the future holds, I would be confident that STFC, even STFC 2021, would rise once again.
Logged
The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey

Offline Offline

Posts: 19291


?Absolute Calamity!?




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 01:06:55 »

Without stating the bleedin’ obvious, apart from the club itself, how is this going down with Wellens? Can we also kiss goodbye to the CG sale? Was/is the fabled training ground just smoke blown up our collective arses?

Admin seems unlikely as everybody involved would lose their money.

The recent question as to where Power gets his money from is half solved - Standing.

Now what possible reason could there be for a football agent to secretly own half a football club - tough one, that!

Power is just as slippery as Squiddly Diddly.

What makes supposed experienced businessmen to fork out large amounts of money on a purely verbal basis.

Anybody who may have been interested in purchasing the club will now be circling like vultures to pick it up on the cheap.

Is Able still interested or has some deadline date been and gone? Power can kiss £7.5m goodbye.

It was always going to end like this. Deep down we all knew it.
Logged
RobertT

Offline Offline

Posts: 11647




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 02:53:22 »

I am not sure we can be confident that the offer to buy us is even real. 

I don’t think we are exposed on the ownership front with Standing or Barry.  Their insistence was that it was held in trust, and certainly at arms length.  Given that is verbal, Power may well win that argument, especially given they were all mates at the time.  Either way I think Standing would not be seen as having a direct interest in the ownership of the club.

Nobody seems to be against selling, it looks like a battle for the profits should we be sold.
Logged
Oaksey Moonraker

Offline Offline

Posts: 897




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 03:50:25 »

It all seems a repeat of Bill Power vs Wills/Diamandis in terms of whether it's a loan or a share sale.

Clem seems to have the strongest case as the share sale agreement was signed but the stock transfer form not signed.

What was shocking was the actions of Power's solicitors in this with information not passed on to Standings solicitors. Power seemed to have backed down on the £5million at the last minute.

The Andrew Black £2M debenture has sat in the accounts as a contingent liability for years so not sure how Standing thought it was repaid.

I doubt the EFL would do much given ownership disputes at other clubs recently e.g. Bolton. The FA might be interested in the individuals for breaking rules.

Power might look to cut his losses in the short term by releasing players if he has to fund all by himself. Can't see Doyle or Grant retained with no gate money coming in and this hanging over. The plan was clearly to get up this season and for Power to sell up.

The Trust might have to resort to plan A and buy 100% of the ground. Presumably the ground purchase is what made the club worth £7.5M.
Logged
BambooToTheFuture

Offline Offline

Posts: 10081


I'll Tell Ya Now - McGurk Is The New Graham


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #57 on: Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 04:31:29 »

After reading both of them in full with my very limited, knowledgeably lite and melty (it was warm in the UK tonight) view, I conclude;

(1) Clem rightfully owns 15% but for some strange reason Power is delaying/doesn't want to legally register/transfer the shares; even though he and his solicitors do admit that Axis are entitled to own them...It's also fucking sneaky tactics not writing down the correct name of the company the shares are for "Axis SPORTS Investment Ltd" when the name is "Axis FOOTBALL Investments Ltd". Naughty naughty Mr P. Was he hoping that Clem's solicitors wouldn't notice the 'error'. Even if Clem does also own the sports one too, for this purpose, that's terrible form. This is why Clem (Axis) has served an injunction to stop Power selling the club to Able (if that even is a deal that exists/is pending but as a businessman Clem is surely making sure he isn't shafted) under his nose. A deal that Power says isn't happening, yet elsewhere is saying it is. Surely any shareholder (hence not registering them) would want to see details to agree to this?

(2) Standing/Barry (who the fuck knows, even the QC seemed confused but concluded that it must be Standing, yet is unclear due to only being verbal) have a verbal agreement to 50% of any potential sale, on condition that they put up 50% of the ongoing costs of the running of the club for as long as Power owns the club.

Standing is happy for the club to be sold to Able (a deal that Power has told him about, yet for some reason not Clem), so long as he can see the details of the proposed takeover by them. Seems quite reasonable and transparent thing to request, regardless if that is Standing or Barry. Even more so considering he is pumping in 50% of the funds to the club.

~~~~

It appears to me that Mr. Power (for all the good he is/has done) is getting undone a little. I'm not saying he would do anything the put the club in jeopardy - the QC has even stated this as virtually impossible. More so with the injunction added.

Now I don't know much but if the deal with Standing has only been verbal, Power may get away with that one on a technicality but there has to be a footprint of transactions of monies paid (Barry>Standing>Power) so I'd say it would have to be a very favourable judge to lean in favour of Power. What seems very odd is that Power seems to want his cake and eat it, quite literally. He's already seemingly shafted Standing/Barry for £975k (half of £1.8m Ritchie + £75k for 50% Debenture coverage/top up). That's a fucking hustle and a half. We basically are understanding how Power makes his dollar or at least funding the club. Imagine you invested in a club thinking you were due a payment £900k only to be told (lied to) that "nahh mate, thats for the debentcha manney. U need 2 put in £75k fella". Even then, Standing is still willing to keep funding the club!

From what we can see, so far Power has managed to extract;
£1.1m from Clem (Axis)
£6m from Standing/Barry (since 2013)

Retain all of;
£1.8m Ritchie sell-on (there could be others we don't know about yet)
Plus an additional £75k

Potentially willing to sell the club for;
£7.5m (to Able)

Yet doesn't want any invested parties (listed above) to have any say in the sale. Even though they are entitled to (well OTR Standing does, legally though it seems Clem has more entitlement). It looks like Power has tried to negotiate his exit strategy, in somehow wanting to keep all of the £7.5m from the Able sale (if that were to have gone through) by hoping that Standing doesn't have a leg to stand on (no pun. Smells a bit like the whole Jed affair with a battle of everything being based on verbal and nothing in writing) and thinking that he can withhold the 15% of shares that are rightfully Clem's (Axis') until after the sale.

Fortunately the clubs future existence seems pretty nailed on. Like I say, I don't think Power would jeopardise that (he'd end up losing out what "he" has put in, hence trying to claim a Fortification) and it is now pretty much impossible due to Clem's insertion of the injunction stopping any potentially dodgy sale. At least until Clem receives his shares. Publicly, Standing seems very happy to step in and fund the club if Power did somehow have to file the club for insolvency (very unlikely) and/or walk away. Clem definitely is entitled to 15% (as stated by QC) so he, with Power out of the picture, may buy up the 35% and continue an agreement with Standing. Failing all that. All parties come to a legally binding agreement and they sell it to the Yanks or all parties come to a legally binding agreement and continue working together for the foreseeable (Standing said he was happy to look for other potential suitors aside from Able).

One thing; it's all far too dodgy and messy to be comfortable with. It's quite clear that both Standing and Power are shady fuckers. Who would think an ex-agent and an agent would like to keep things off the record and verbal only? "Wire Transfer only please. Western Union will do." It's just one brown paper bag away from some kind of exchange, akin to midnight under the arches.

Power. He's one hustling motherfucker.
Logged


'Incessant Nonsense'

______________________________________________________________

'I'm gonna tell you the secret.
There's a threat, you end it and you don't feel ashamed about enjoying it.
You smell the gunpowder and you see the blood, you know what that means?
It means you're alive. You've won.
You take the heads so that you don't ever forget.'
BambooToTheFuture

Offline Offline

Posts: 10081


I'll Tell Ya Now - McGurk Is The New Graham


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #58 on: Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 04:36:34 »

My main concern is we’ve breached FA ownership rules in which case I’m sure we’ll have an example made of us.

Unlikely, seeing as "legally" Standing/Barry have nothing concrete (which is why in my above post I mention Power getting one over on Standing due to it being verbal only) in terms of ownership. They may be seen as investors by the courts, where as Clem is definitely seen as a shareholder at 15%. The club should be ok in this respect.
Logged


'Incessant Nonsense'

______________________________________________________________

'I'm gonna tell you the secret.
There's a threat, you end it and you don't feel ashamed about enjoying it.
You smell the gunpowder and you see the blood, you know what that means?
It means you're alive. You've won.
You take the heads so that you don't ever forget.'
The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey

Offline Offline

Posts: 19291


?Absolute Calamity!?




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 04:45:21 »

So, does Clem own 15% of STFC or just 15% of Power’s 50%?

If Clem does own 15% of the whole and Standing 50% then Power only owns 35% of the club.

Any future sale of the club surely can’t be to Standing as it isn’t allowed by the FA.

I suppose those rules have been circumvented by Standing/Barry not legally being involved - hence their problem getting anything out of Power.

With Power’s previous, why in God’s name did supposedly sane people chuck so much money at him with no legal cover?

Generally, I think ownership of clubs is very shady. That fella at the piss stains is only a front and nobody really knows where the actual money comes from.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 51   Go Up
Print
Jump to: