Bill Power&Phil Emmell

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 ?