New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[RobertT]

Here is a layperson's question:

If you are entering into a JV like the the one that the Trust have with the Club, where the money has been gifted by the Eady Trust, could there not have been a mechanism whereby each side is mandated to share their full accounts with each other annually and if they don't the property reverts to the Eady Trust? Or something like that.

As I say, I have zero, literally zero, understanding of this world but I'm curious what safety mechanisms were put in place to prevent a wrong 'un from essentially profiting from 50% of Nigel Eady's bequest.

Legally, I think the club has to run any change of ownership by the JV, but I doubt they can prevent it.

Outside of that:

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/siteassets/202122/2021-22-general-content/memorandum-of-understanding---truststfc-and-stfc---final.docx.pdf

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

Legally, I think the club has to run any change of ownership by the JV, but I doubt they can prevent it.

Outside of that:

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/siteassets/202122/2021-22-general-content/memorandum-of-understanding---truststfc-and-stfc---final.docx.pdf

Is that full ownership or even the 20% they didn't bother telling anyone about?

[RobertT]

Is that full ownership or even the 20% they didn't bother telling anyone about?

Clearly the club saw the "non binding" bit and ran with it.

[Mooneyraker]

Legally, I think the club has to run any change of ownership by the JV, but I doubt they can prevent it.

Outside of that:

https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/siteassets/202122/2021-22-general-content/memorandum-of-understanding---truststfc-and-stfc---final.docx.pdf

Yeah, I think we can all agree that the Memorandum of Understanding is about as much use as the Treaty of Versailles at this point.

I guess I was wondering more could the Eady Trust/Trust STFC have put any mechanisms in place whereby the club's 50% of the stadium is forfeited under certain conditions eg. failure to share full accounts, unauthorised change in ownership (!) etc.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

I thought the CG reverted to SBC if ground improvements didn’t commence during a set time period. May be 18 months, but I could have made that up.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

Not revert, they have the option to buy it back. Which lets be honest they probably won't.

Could it be an option to campaign to the council to force the buy back on the clubs half on behalf of the Trust?

Would require a hell of a lot more funding though, but if that money goes back to the Eady Trust? Hoping they have put certain provisions in place there.

[RobertT]

There are at least two separate transactions involved, so it would be tough to put such onerous terms in.

The Joint Venture has two shareholders - the fans of STFC and the club.  That Joint Venture then wholly owns the Freehold of the ground.  The club is then the sole Leaseholder of the ground from the Joint Venture.

As I understand it, the only place they can really apply such limitations is on the change of ownership of the JV itself.  So if the club tried to sell their share in the freehold, they'd need unanimous consent from the Board of Directors.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

So, if and when the club is sold, if the Trust don’t like the cut of the jib of any prospective new owner they can put the kibosh on the sale of tge 50% of the ground the club owns.

[JoeMezz]

My summary on statement:
- Trust aren’t being as involved as they should be or want to be
- Club haven’t done what they told the Trust they would do (surprise surprise)
- Reading between the lines, players weren’t paid on time
- Trust seeing if rumours of potential buyer are even accurate

Have I missed anything?

[RobertT]

So, if and when the club is sold, if the Trust don’t like the cut of the jib of any prospective new owner they can put the kibosh on the sale of tge 50% of the ground the club owns.

No.

The Club is a business, a separate legal entity, and it is the club that owns the 50%.  Any change of ownership of the club is not material.  The Club cannot sell it's share to another company or individual without approval.

[welshred]

No.

The Club is a business, a separate legal entity, and it is the club that owns the 50%.  Any change of ownership of the club is not material.  The Club cannot sell it's share to another company or individual without approval.

Which considering that's the only thing of value for any prospective buyer, that's a good thing right? Nobody can take ownership of the JV shares unless its approved first?

[ThreeDrawsMentality]

My summary on statement:
- Trust aren’t being as involved as they should be or want to be
- Club haven’t done what they told the Trust they would do (surprise surprise)
- Reading between the lines, players weren’t paid on time
- Trust seeing if rumours of potential buyer are even accurate

Have I missed anything?

Interpreted it moreso that the Trust had heard rumours themselves prior to Whelans story of interested parties but hadn't been able to validate the rumours as of yet.

[Batch]

- Reading between the lines, players weren’t paid on time

I did think mention of HMRC was interesting too.

If I were a betting man I think payments to some staff and HMRC were delayed from the normal date, but not enough to make it "late".

Whether that's correct or not, the underlying issue of looking like we have a cash flow crisis doesn't go away. I'm not sure what a "cover up" would achieve.

[Nemo]

Yeah the statement says people were paid by the 31st. Which isn't technically late, but if they'd normally be paid onf the 27th or something it would certainly raise eyebrows.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

If you're paid a day later than your usual pay day then you're paid late.

I've got a shit load of direct debits that come out the day after my pay day and I'm sure the shop staff and the like are all the same. Might not be so bad for players who are more flush.