New board press conference thread

[JanTheMan]

I'll answer on behalf of PWP.

The old website crashed, and we lost all our old data. With being only 5 board members, we just have enough time doing what we can.

Hopefully with all that's been going on, we might get some additional board members, who can regularly update the website.

Members total roughly about 120...but are going up on a daily basis.

Regarding accounts, we are doing 2 years on Wednesday, to catch up. We made a deficit in the latest years accounts due to the share revaluation of the shares by the club at the AGM, which reduced our £11k shareholding to £110, after the club split the shareholding into A and B shares, and declared that the B shares were 'valueless' despite being 99% of the value.

121

Thanks 69, much appreciated.  Numbers seem low considering average attendances over the past five years and the fact, like many small/medium size league clubs, we can pull 30k+ for Wembley trips.  Maybe tis was apathy with what was seen as a very well run club.

I know little about business/shares/ownership, but £11k to nothing seems like a dud deal. Whilst £11k is not vastly significant, it would be reassuring to know that every £ paid in was enabling the trust to purchase a voice.  Apologies for my ignorance, but if the board can just devalue shares over night, then presumably that wipes out the previous investments made by the trust....unless they decide to revalue upwards?  Does this mean future money, at least the short term, will not be going towards shares?

Whilst I can add little in the way of getting the website up and running, i'd be more than happy help to out elsewhere if I can.  Would like to attend the AGM next week, but not in the country.

I know PWP said earlier that he didn't want to plug the trust, but maybe this deserves a separate thread

Thanks again 69

[Samdy Gray]

So that it existed must have been highlighted by administration?

Yes, they're usually registered with companies house too.

[Summerof69]

Apologies for my ignorance, but if the board can just devalue shares over night, then presumably that wipes out the previous investments made by the trust....unless they decide to revalue upwards?  Does this mean future money, at least the short term, will not be going towards shares?

Accounting rules say we have to take a loss as soon as we know about it, but cannot take a profit unless you sell them to make a profit. We want to build our share holding. Due to the fact every other share got revalued the same, we hold the exact same percentage, even if it is very small.

Membership in the early days was around 160-200, but did peak around 900 during 2007.

[horlock07]

Would not a debenture from 1957 have possibly been picked up when they entered into the further debenture with St. Mod's in the late 00's that Fitton et al had issues with?

Incidentally Fitton etc are i assume tied under some form of NDA as they have been very quiet post take over having been rent a quote prior to the event.

[wiggy]

Well I'm jiggered.

[Boner]

surely the ex employers will be sueing the old board not the new one?  Or am i missing something?

[wokinghamred]

surely the ex employers will be sueing the old board not the new one?  Or am i missing something?

Surely they will be sueing the company that employed them , that they have a contract with, rather than members of the board.

[RobertT]

How are people finding it so unbelivable that PDC and maybe his team have left the door open to legal action for breach of contract?  I mean, he did say it on TV and it was then again reported in the paper after he left us.

For those saying all clubs would be in embargo's, well they would if their Managers walked claiming a breach of contract.  Reality is, most are sacked, so their claim is limited by an employment tribunal at worst and in most cases it's fairly easy to show poor performance and a club will pay the buggers off to get rid of them.  That's not how PDC left though, is it?  How many Managers have walked and trumpetted legal action?

FL made it clear the embargo was placed on us in Jan due to the immenent threat of administration and our past history.  They can do what they like because they are simply saying they won't allow player registrations, they are not stopping us from trading.  Seems they want complete assurances that any potential debts are covered by having in funds secured in lieu.

As for the hysteria about the owners, and havng money or not.  Well, only one of our owners in the past has had any real money, and he just sold us.  Previously we never had big backers (SSW was backed by secured loans from developers).  And anyway, if they fuck it up, the debts were cleared by Black so a quick ans easy sale should be possible.  Even SSW couldn't rack up enough debt to bring us to our knees in 2 months.

[Simon Pieman]

I'm with you Rob. We finally get the communication we ask for and because it's not the news people want to hear they're still lynching the board.

Obviously there are plenty of issues the fans still want to know about but I think we all just have to accept that the embargo isn't going to be withdrawn by the end of the window now.

[wiggy]

Happy enough that a statement has been made, even though the content takes some digesting. I hope now the lines of communication are open updates will come through more regularly to prevent wilder speculation.

The biggest plus side of all this is that I now have the makings of a plot for a book or tv series!

[RobertT]

Si, I'd imagine the "threat" of legal action is a grey area accounting wise?  My guess is a prudent company would need to lodge it as a liability until such time as it gets written off the accounts should a comprimise agreement be signed or sufficient time has past to make it no longer a material threat?  I'm almost certain Fitton's reign began this way, with debts they disputed owing being on the books.

[RedRag]

PDC may have an action for constructive dismissal.  MacDonalds' employee Jonathan Tehoue may have a claim (if still in time).   Whatever, Jedward not showing his consortium to be the sharpest tool in the box if caught out here.

Debts dating back to 1957    Now Jedward insulting our own credulity.  

Also seem to recall a strong line taken that the club had no unusual creditors other than internally to AB etc

Do we have incompetent (if one is charitable) men of straw out of their depth in charge or do we swallow, hook line and sinker, the alternative scenario of the bogeyman of Paolo or the Football League?

[sonicyouth]

I'm with you Rob. We finally get the communication we ask for and because it's not the news people want to hear they're still lynching the board.

Obviously there are plenty of issues the fans still want to know about but I think we all just have to accept that the embargo isn't going to be withdrawn by the end of the window now.

The communication doesn't begin to cover what we need to know. The details given are vague and bordering on the unbelievable.

[RobertT]

Why is PDC a bogeyman? he publically said he felt the club had breached it's contract.  Why claim that, walk and then not think he feels he is entitled to a pay off?

[Batch]

Would still like to know why the mere possibility of legal action means anything at all, unless proceedings have begun.