The CVA balls up and this forums reaction to it

[Bennett]

Yeah. I can see you've got a life.

we're on a forum whilst not at work...

[Fred Elliot]

FWIW Lumps

There was no arse licking going on at all

All that was said was the we hoped that both Mark and Stan were getting better and that personally he had my full support.

If you construe that as arse licking then go ahead.

I bet you also agree with the "get well" banner being pulled down.

FFS get some decency in your life man !

[yeo]

It was a bit arse licky Fred

[DV]

FIGHT!

[Fred Elliot]

FIGHT!

Been there done that.....................never again !

 

[pauld]

Lets assume the CVA can be restructured.....and I'm no expert in this....what would it be something like a quarter of a mill over 4 years?   If the Board hope that a  rights issue underwritten by SSW, will raise funds, then presumably the LSD is in the Boardroom tea, rather than the bank account.

  How would the Trust/ Consortium approach the matter?

If you mean the rights issue, then probably "with extreme caution until we've seen some detail" would probably be about right, especially as it seems to have been plucked out of mid-air in desperation on a Friday afternoon.

[Reg Smeeton]

Lets assume the CVA can be restructured.....and I'm no expert in this....what would it be something like a quarter of a mill over 4 years?   If the Board hope that a  rights issue underwritten by SSW, will raise funds, then presumably the LSD is in the Boardroom tea, rather than the bank account.

  How would the Trust/ Consortium approach the matter?

If you mean the rights issue, then probably "with extreme caution until we've seen some detail" would probably be about right, especially as it seems to have been plucked out of mid-air in desperation on a Friday afternoon.

  I was thinking more in terms of paying the CVA.

[pauld]

As per my response to Moonraker on the other thread, any party wishing to negotiate with the current owners would clearly need to demonstrate that they could meet the club's existing liabilities at the very least. And then be in a position to stabilise the club and move it forward.

[Reg Smeeton]

As per my response to Moonraker on the other thread, any party wishing to negotiate with the current owners would clearly need to demonstrate that they could meet the club's existing liabilities at the very least. And then be in a position to stabilise the club and move it forward.

   Right, so Mike Wilks, says sums of money are in place, but there is now a problem with entering negotitions with the owners.

   What is the Trust position in this.....its clear that sums of money mean outside investors, and the Museum meeting mandated for this to happen...OK at this stage we don't expect to name names, but the Trust needs to act as some sort of honest broker here......if there is a serious package on the table, and Newbury were being economical with the truth again, when stating they would welcome a takeover, we fans need to know.

[Lumps]

The problem is that the Finance Director and Acting CEO chose not to pay a CVA payment due to the Revenue (the most agrressive of creditors), thereby putting the club at risk of liquidation, at a time when the club apparently had the money to pay that bill.

The problem is that they both over a period of months misled fans and shareholders about the CVA being up to date.

OK. So by your argument,  in June when this decision was made, the CE then, Mark Devlin, had no responsiblity for it. Which, as he was the Chief Executive, must mean that no executive officer of the club had any responsibility for it. Which means it was a board decision.

But now, all of a sudden, the ACTING CE and the Finance Director are to blame for the whole thing.

That's exactly the kind of illogical bollocks I'm talking about. Either the CE's responsible for this or he fucking isn't. Whether you like the bloke or you don't.

"The CE at the time it happened is innocent, the CE 6 months later did it" just makes you sound like an arse.

As for what was said to the AGM. I wasn't there, so you tell me.

If someone said "We've paid the June CVA" then they lied. If they said "We're up to date with all due CVA payments" then they didn't, as the June one, having been renegotiated, was not due.

If the AGM let them get away with an evasive answer then that's their own fault.

[sonic youth]

but we're not up to date with the cva payment as it hasn't been paid and nor has it been renegotiated yet.

either way it's a question of semantics and interpretation which is clearly going to be different depending on which side of the fence you sit.

[Mark D]

The facts are this Lumps. Bill Power put in his first £500k in February, I believe, as the club needed finance at the time urgently. I was then asked to see if Bill would put in his second half million in July, because there were outstanding issues including the CVA. My understanding was that June's CVA installment was to be paid once BP's money was in the bank. As CEO the buck would normally stop with me, but the Finance Director was not taking her instructions from me, so frankly I can't tell you anymore about why it hasn't been paid, as, like most people, I was under the impression it had been paid until I read the websites.

[Reg Smeeton]

but we're not up to date with the cva payment as it hasn't been paid and nor has it been renegotiated yet.

either way it's a question of semantics and interpretation which is clearly going to be different depending on which side of the fence you sit.

 However you dress it up....if a shareholder asks the question in open meeting  are the payments up to date?  They do so  based on the facts as they've been told.....if those facts have materially altered in the interim, then shareholders should have been acquanted with them.  

  Either way shareholders are being deliberately misled, as they were over the recent VAT winding up order.....which is unacceptable practice if not illegal.

[Lumps]

but we're not up to date with the cva payment as it hasn't been paid and nor has it been renegotiated yet.

either way it's a question of semantics and interpretation which is clearly going to be different depending on which side of the fence you sit.

Personally I'm trying to sit on the fence rather than standing on one side of it shouting insults and hurling rocks at the people on the other side.

Particularly when one of the people on the other side is SSW who's already threatened to just fuck off and leave us to it.

As my Euromillions ticket didn't do the business for me t'other week I don't feel in a position to scream "your family and friends are crooks that are bleeding the club dry" to the man that's managed to find a few hundred grand a year to keep us going for the last fucking decade.

If the Trust has found an investor that's got a spare £5-10m to take the club on I'll be delighted. But if they have it's probably not wise to be posting stuff slagging off the people you're trying to get around a negotiating table.

[pauld]

The problem is that the Finance Director and Acting CEO chose not to pay a CVA payment due to the Revenue (the most agrressive of creditors), thereby putting the club at risk of liquidation, at a time when the club apparently had the money to pay that bill.

The problem is that they both over a period of months misled fans and shareholders about the CVA being up to date.

OK. So by your argument,  in June when this decision was made, the CE then, Mark Devlin, had no responsiblity for it. Which, as he was the Chief Executive, must mean that no executive officer of the club had any responsibility for it. Which means it was a board decision.

But now, all of a sudden, the ACTING CE and the Finance Director are to blame for the whole thing.

That's exactly the kind of illogical bollocks I'm talking about. Either the CE's responsible for this or he fucking isn't. Whether you like the bloke or you don't.

FFS are you understanding impaired or something? What I said was that the FD (and Mike D) was responsible for the major financial decisions (this publicly admitted in James Wills' statement early Oct). Hence they are to blame for non-payment of the CVA.

Where blame attaches to Starnes as Acting CEO is not in the non-payment but in misleading shareholders and fans at the AGM (and before and after). And that is also where a major chunk of the blame attaches to Sandy Gray, but she must have been involved in the non-payment of the CVA as well, as Finance Director.

"The CE at the time it happened is innocent, the CE 6 months later did it" just makes you sound like an arse.

Your apparent inabilty to grasp two propositions at the same time or willingness to desperately seek any shred of comfort as our club is flushed down the pan rather makes you sound like one.

If this was the Bush/Blair thing you're so keen on, you'd be the one going "Well I'm sure they'll find some WMD soon".