It's Friday....

[Maverick]

Maverick, I'm not about to start debating the ins and outs of potential legal disputes here, I'm afraid. You asked a question, I tried to answer it. Although I do feel that as ever Rob is close to the mark.

Fair enough Paul, just curious and trying to understand.

[Maverick]

Ok ..I think I get that ..... So which is better then Paul for Bill/Phil/Consortium with regard to a takeover - to have a shareholding or to have a loan?

If there is no paperwork to the contrary, then if Companies House shows them as shareholders, isn't that the end of it?

I would have thought that unless there was paperwork to the contrary they wouldn't be shareholders, in the same way that any one of us aren't shareholders unless they have the paperwork to prove we are?  I suspect you can't just label soemone a shareholder just because you want to?  

Good question though, how would the position of the consortium be affected if Bill and Phil are shareholders or otherwise.

But can someone just update a shareholding on their listing at Companies House without any supporting evidence?

[RobertT]

Regardless of that Mav, and what people have said since, if it was 100% correct why would they need to be offering Bill a settlement?  It's nothing to do with the club if it's shares, and they certainly wouldn't be offering settlements unless there is a dispute and they are not the winners.

And that is what puzzles me Rob - could it be that the club don't want them as shareholders and are trying to pay them off?

It's not for the club to pay them off though is it, if they were shareholders, unless the club was doing a buy back (which would involve having to have surplus cash in the business).  Even then, it wouldn't be a "settlement", it would be a share sale or purchase offer.

[Maverick]

Thanks Rob - not sure I am any clearer, but hey you tried!! I am just trying to reconcile how Piemonte's search can reveal that they are shareholders as far as Companies House are concerned. I guess that is why I am not in that line of business!

[Samdy Gray]

The shares are also in the holding company, not the club itself.

[Piemonte]

Ok ..I think I get that ..... So which is better then Paul for Bill/Phil/Consortium with regard to a takeover - to have a shareholding or to have a loan?

If there is no paperwork to the contrary, then if Companies House shows them as shareholders, isn't that the end of it?

I would have thought that unless there was paperwork to the contrary they wouldn't be shareholders, in the same way that any one of us aren't shareholders unless they have the paperwork to prove we are?  I suspect you can't just label soemone a shareholder just because you want to?  

Good question though, how would the position of the consortium be affected if Bill and Phil are shareholders or otherwise.

But can someone just update a shareholding on their listing at Companies House without any supporting evidence?

Like I said, I'm not 100% on this but I'm pretty sure that supporting evidence is not required, it would be up to either the company secreatary or the indivdual selling to get this updaded. In most cases its not going to be benifical to the existing shareholder to tell companies house that they have trasferred x shares to someone else if that is not the case.

[Maverick]

Right - thanks for that Piemonte.

[Frigby Daser]

Ok ..I think I get that ..... So which is better then Paul for Bill/Phil/Consortium with regard to a takeover - to have a shareholding or to have a loan?

If there is no paperwork to the contrary, then if Companies House shows them as shareholders, isn't that the end of it?

I would have thought that unless there was paperwork to the contrary they wouldn't be shareholders, in the same way that any one of us aren't shareholders unless they have the paperwork to prove we are?  I suspect you can't just label soemone a shareholder just because you want to?  

Good question though, how would the position of the consortium be affected if Bill and Phil are shareholders or otherwise.

But can someone just update a shareholding on their listing at Companies House without any supporting evidence?

Like I said, I'm not 100% on this but I'm pretty sure that supporting evidence is not required, it would be up to either the company secreatary or the indivdual selling to get this updaded. In most cases its not going to be benifical to the existing shareholder to tell companies house that they have trasferred x shares to someone else if thatis is not the case.

The CH search will show what the club have submitted as their register of members (for the holding company)

If i remember rightly, you don't need to submit a share certificate/transfer form, just fill out the form, but you have various duties of good faith and competence to do all this correctly. My guess is that this is where the issue arises.

Who are the Boodle Hatfield (they're a law firm) nominees? Diamandis/Holt et al?

[Piemonte]

Good faith and competance  

[Dazzza]

A transfer document, usually provided by a broker is signed by both parties (normally) but it's a private arrangement between both parties and Companies House, as I understand simply update their records on request of the broker.

Logically both signatures are required on a transfer form and this is the evidence of the transaction.  The club have admitted there is no paperwork for a share transfer, which makes their claim completely unsubstatiated unless they can produce the necessary evidence showing both parties agreeing to the transfer.

As I understand, although not 100% I'm fairly certain no evidence is required by CH on updated shareholders shown in accounts/returns.

[Power to people]

Has anyone thought that by them releasing this statement that it is designed to take the attention away for the Lucas transfer deal so they can mention it as a btw....

[flammableBen]

Has anyone thought that by them releasing this statement that it is designed to take the attention away for the Lucas transfer deal so they can mention it as a btw....

I think they are building up to a "We had to sell Lucas to pay off the evil Bill Power" PR move.

[migzy]

If Bill is a shareholder then he should have a share certificate - Swindon should have issued him with one withinn 2 months of the purchase. Lack of a share certificate, though not conclusive, surely points towards the money being a loan???

[sonic youth]

Who are the Boodle Hatfield (they're a law firm) nominees? Diamandis/Holt et al?

Given that Mike D likes to use nomines - he used Nick Prescott originally, presumably he can't now they've fallen out - then I'd guess it's his shares.

Today's statement is laughable but it's vital that the consortium/Bill Power respond accordingly so as to gain more support. A backpage on tomorrow's/Monday's adver suggesting that not only does the consortium undoubtedly exist but Bill is behind it would cause a huge ground swell of support and expose the board for the liars they are.

[Ardiles]

That being the case, the next question would be 'So then - any idea how you'll be paying the CVA?'

Up the creek without a paddle.  Why don't they clear off now and save everyone (themselves included) the bother?