Thetownend.com

:evil:   :fu:  :fu:

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/display.var.2220722.0.a_blast_from_the_past_for_town.php

They're trying to claim back money they are owed. Whats wrong with that? If it was the previous regime in charge I'm sure your reaction would be different.

Its an interesting one this .. not as clear cut as you would think and as one who has always respected Bill Power's stance it suprises me

Id like to hear PaulD's take on it

Bit of an extreme response DRS  :shock:  I see no problem in Power and Emmell getting there money back with Fitton and that getting reimbursed from the Wills and there crooked advisor.  End of the day they got mugged from the old board so are just trying to get there money back.

Bollocks Sippo, Emell has said he would not target the club.It was bad business all round and power was stupid not to get anything signed.Just because the company he has openly admitted giving the money to have gone into adminastration they are targeting the club.

Surely if the loan was made to the old holding company, then because that doesn't exist any longer, the directors of that holding company are liable?

I usually try to moderate my own language on these forums, but that's complete wank.  If Power and Emmell are owed money, they are owed money.  End of story.  There is no 'targeting' of anything.

One of the reasons the sale to Fitton & Co took as long as it did was precisely because they knew that Diamandis was not to be trusted and that they had to indemnify themselves to the greatest possible extent in case anything like this was to happen.

If the law decides that Power and Emmell should get their money back, then they should get it.  The club should pay, and the new owners should use the indemnities signed at the time of the purchase to claim the portion allowed by the indemnities back from the previous regime.

And then, just maybe, we can move on - and never have to hear the expletive 'Diamandis' ever again.

Don’t tone it down on my behalf Ardiles.As Sam has said surely they are trying to get the money off the wrong people?

They're owed money. End of. They're entitled to claim it back.

Yes but who from Sippo

Limited liability, Directors are only personally liable if they trade knowingly insolvent (and I'm not sure what the position is here, as SSW was effectively underwriting them) otherwise the case is against the company whether it exists or not.

Here we go again ... I'm going to keep out of this debate this time around!!!!

Yes - but the mechanism they will need to use involves going via the club, with the club (ie new owners) using the indemnities to claim back from the previous owners.  That's the way the law works, unfortunately.  Bill Power & Phil Emmell have never entered in to a legal relationship with Diamandis or the Wills family as individuals.

Spot on. can you really blame Bill and Phil for wanting their money back?

Well Done B.P. Like every other cunt. They see we have money and come after the current board now to get money back owed by the previous regime, Surely with this saga going on during takeover talks, it would have been established WHO was responsible during due dilligence.  If not, then Fitton is a mug and to be honest I don't think he is.

"Wouldn't harm the club" "Swindon Town fan" Bollocks.

Gazza: if BP is owed money he's entitled to it back no matter who's in charge.

Some people are so fickle. Bill tried his damn hardest to save our club. He wants his money back that is all.

but SURELY... It would have been established in black and white WHO had to pay the money. If Fitton accepted that the club may owe the moeny surely he wouldn't be complaining now. He would be getting on with it and negotiating?

Same with say BEST holdings etc... If those guys are owed money from the time they were at the club then surly Fitton should have just paid it?  Same with Ince etc. etc.

Let's have a protest!

Fuck me you have changed your tune !!!!!!!

Anyone who thinks that AF and Co wern't aware of this, nor expecting it is naive to say the least.

Fuck me what would you do ?

well I guess for 2 months we didn't have any of this crap....  :cry:

Sorry the point I should have made was that establishing whether it's shares or a loan would have taken too long and you would need to sort that out first before deciding who had to pay it back

Given the debate and Mike D's past though, it should have been stated that "if it is found to be a loan, YOU have to pay it not us" and have that written and agreed.

Which is precisely why Fitton got an indemnity from the Wills family during due diligence. Meaning if the case ever got turned against the club, the Wills family would be liable. And as it is James Wills who four weeks ago put the Holding Co into administration, a standard debt avoidance technique, that was always going to put the club into the firing line legally. Fortunately, as you'd have seen if you'd read the story properly, Fitton DID have the good sense to get an indemnity, thereby sheltering the club from the financial consequences.

If you're looking for someone to blame here, blame the people who continue to be at fault.

Fucking hell Gary

If AF and Co were not worried about this happening then why indemnify themselves ?

You really need to engage your brain sometimes before spouting yet more shit

Hopefully my reply to Gazza clarifies some of the issues. There's one really easy way to sort this out of course - James Wills and Diamandis could just pay what they owe instead of hiding behind Andronikou's skirts again

Thank God for your post Paul.  I am one of the people who doesn't really know how it all works but that clarifies things somewhat.

I think if you read the article and quotes from Fitton he is implying that the previous regime would have to pay some of it to them.

Precisely, the club have an indemnity against precisely this eventuality. I suspect the "partial" aspect relates to legal bills incurred rather than any judgement/damages awarded which would be down to the previous owners. Well done AF for having the sense to recognise the worth of  Diamandis' "Don't worry, it's all being sorted out" promises and get an indemnity built in to the takeover.

Reading the article again, I think Fitton is more bothered about the time it'll take and the legal costs rather than the threat of having to pay out £1.2 million.

Fitton & Co would (should) have devalued the value of the company by the £1m+, or the amount of the payout that was likely to occur, according to legal advice.

If they have been advised that Power & Emmel have no stake to a claim from Fitton's consortium and it turns out that they do, then it is the legal advisors which have got it wrong, which is just an unfortunate situation.

Of course, Fitton mentions they are partially covered for the liability through the terms of the contract. It's more than likely they devalued the company by the remaining balance, or something to that effect. If they have not it's their own fault through naivety. I think it was reasonable to expect a claim would come in eventually.

If Fitton buys all the shares from the holding company, then perhaps the liability is passed on with those shares, despite who was culpable? I don't know if that is the case as it were. If Power is as nice a guy as people say, and it was a loan then he does deserve his money back. If Fitton was an astute businessman as people make out then he would have foreseen this.

I think from a moral standpoint Power and Emmel are going after the wrong people, but if any of the above does ring true, then in a way they are going to the right people for their money.

Oh, and Sam the Holding Co hasn't folded, it's gone into administration. As you say if it had simply folded, then the directors (well director actually - Bob and Sandy have resigned, leaving James Wills in sole charge) may have become liable. Which may or may not be why they have chosen instead to put a company that doesn't trade in any meaningful sense and doesn't have any assets or liabilities other than any monies it may or may not owe to former investors into administration. If Wills and Co don't believe they owe Bill and Phil £1.2m, then why put the Holding Co into admin?

With my new Mr Positive hat on Id just like to say

Dont worry about it - Fitton will sort it out!

Maybe Bart would like to borrow your hat then.

I think the term "indemnity" has been used very deliberately and would expect it to refer to a separate agreement regarding responsibility for disputed liabilities incurred under previous ownership. It's pretty standard with this sort of situation - you either factor it in to the deal (as you suggest), write it off if it's a disputed asset or add an indemnity clause into the deal.


As the Holding Co has been put into administration, legally they've not got a lot of choice.

Can someone explain how a holding company is allowed to go into admin, when it does not trade and no longer 'holds' anything.

Surely the point of admin is to allow the business to continue as a going concern? If it doesn't do anything then what is the point? Woudln't the court realise admin was simply a way of avoiding a potential liability?

You may well think that mightn't you? You might also raise eyebrows about the demonstrable prior relationship between the director of said company, James Wills, and the administrator, Andrew Andronikou. But I'm quite sure it's all been very properly and above board. Oh yes.

Pauld, I'm not sure I understand but why put the holding company into admin to possibly avoid liability when they are already liable via the indemnity?

Have BP and PE petitioned for winding the Holding Co. up?

Of course I realistically expected they would persue the money from the football club, but it would be nice to think they tried to get it from the (alleged) crooks that stole their money first.

Insightful words from the wonderous Greek. If anybody knows whether it was a loan or shares, surely it should be Diamandis?! Or is it a case of BP gave the money for a loan, then Diamandis put it down as shares somewhere and won't admit it in the knowledge he'll look a complete twat and perhaps end up in serious trouble? Just a thought

You'd have to ask Messrs Wills/Diamandis/Andronikou - I don't claim to be a spokesman for their business "strategy" or whether it makes sense. Possibly because the indemnity only comes into play if the club are dragged into the legal action, so forcing Bill and Phil to pursue that route?

Hopefully...at last we will get the insight / facts on how SSW and his band of thieves tried with success in ripping off the Club (and supporters ) and the investors (BP & PE) for so long...
I for one really hope BP and PE get their monies returned and that Wills and greekie are charged with fraud... or creating false documents..basically anything that will stick.

Ok I understand now, Sleeping on sofas,bad moods and posting before 9am does not Mix well :oops:

Grumpy Fucker

 :wink:

Its a Maurice Malpas Magic hat  :king:

I want an M3 Hat!

:D  Still grumpy now

Oh lord, Rasput...sorry, Diamandis again. Can't we just pretend he's not real.

It's not Fitton's problem. I don't blame Bill and Phil for wanting their money back though.

I’d imagine any insurance policy is only ever going to pay out on the basis of Power and Emmell going through the full legal process and getting a result in court.  Understandably, Fitton is pissed off with this as it’s a short term financial burned and a waste of his and the other director’s time having to put up the pretence of fighting this case in court before claiming back losses from the Wills.

I’d imagine the noises in the Adver today are the first in series of PR exercises showing face that the club are disputing the claim to ensure Wills pays out.  If the case appears as open and closed as it is SWW would be better off settling up with BP and PE now and avoid having to cough up the amount plus expenses on both sides.

As mentioned above it appears to be something that has always been on the cards just a matter of time.

Exactly.

Of course, this is the same Mikey D who said the club had an open and shut case against previous Chief Exec Peter Rowe a number of years ago.

The outcome...Peter Rowe won with damages !!!

It was inevitable that Diamandis and James 'thicko' Wills would leave a nasty fucking sting in the tail of the Fitton takeover, the cunts.

I don't blame Power for wanting his cash back if the holding company has gone into administration as reported. From my viewpoint, Power and Emmell have acted with restrained dignity throughout the whole shitty fucking stfc pantomime created by Diamandis and the chinless silver-spooned cunt Wills.

I'm hopeful that Power, Emmell and Fitton can sort this shit out privately for the good of the club. If between them they can royally stitch-up the cunts who are ultimately responsible for this dodgy situation, fucking good on em. :beers:

Ive read all this and Paul d's explanations,I realise that they are owed the money ,etc  but I still cant help but feel a little dissapointed in Bill and Phil.

I think that as Swindon fans we have to realise that any club-saving investor will still have a financial interest in the club, and unless we get lucky with a town fan euro millions roll-over winner, that financial interest is always going to play a part.

Even if you ignore all the indemnity stuff (which as I understand it should pass liability back to Wills and co), the old board nearly took the club from us fans, yet they took more than most of us are likely to earn over 40years from Bill Power.

why can't power just have a 1.2 million stake in the club?
or doesn't he want it any more?

fitton must have expected this to happen,or at least prepared for it just in case.

If you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread Mr. Arriba, then you'd realise that Fitton has prepared for this. That's what I think think that all the indemnity and liability talk stuff is about. :nono:

Sorry, that was a bit of a patronising comment. It's clearly something that was going to happen sooner or later, as I said in my last post, you can't really blame Bill Power for wanting his money back, and any interest in the club is going to be financial to a certain extent

I can't see how it would be in Fitton and Co's interest to give up a 1.2mil stake in the club because of the fuck ups that Diamandis and his associates made.

no i didn't trawl the thread ben.sorry.
but from fittons comments in the article he said something like "they said they wouldn't do anything to the club"
thats what i was getting at.its not a surprise like, is it?

Yeah sorry again, my last post was a bit twatish.

But the rest of the thread is worth a read. PaulD and people make interesting points about the inevitability of it all, and the situation with indemnity and the old holding company etc.

Meh, the action was started before Fitton took over. He may be disapointed at the way it's going, but he went into it eyes open even if it is ultimately Diamandis/Wills fault.

We only have Bob Holts word for it that it was the holding company that had Bill p's money anyway.  In this instance I would suggest that Holt's word carries little weight. He also said it was for shares 23 % & on another occasion it was for 33%. If there were anytruth in this why was the holding company able to sell their only asset without one of the major supposed shareholders having any vote or say in the matter.
As I see it, it couldn't have been to buy shares in the club either. Because those shares have not been accoubnted for in the sale of 75% of shares to the AF coinsortium. Therefore the money was not for shares. ergo it was a loan or gift. No body not even Diamandis has tried to claim is was a gift, so it was a loan.
Given that the loan was mainly for payment of the CVA it must have been made to the Football club as the CVA was made by the Football club. The fact that the previous bunch of bar stewards used it for "other Purposes" doesn't alter those facts.
Is my reasonong here correct ?

We only have Bob Holts word for it that it was the holding company that had Bill p's money anyway.  In this instance I would suggest that Holt's word carries little weight. He also said it was for shares 23 % & on another occasion it was for 33%. If there were anytruth in this why was the holding company able to sell their only asset without one of the major supposed shareholders having any vote or say in the matter.
As I see it, it couldn't have been to buy shares in the club either. Because those shares have not been accoubnted for in the sale of 75% of shares to the AF coinsortium. Therefore the money was not for shares. ergo it was a loan or gift. No body not even Diamandis has tried to claim is was a gift, so it was a loan.
Given that the loan was mainly for payment of the CVA it must have been made to the Football club as the CVA was made by the Football club. The fact that the previous bunch of bar stewards used it for "other Purposes" doesn't alter those facts.
Is my reasonong here correct ?