It's Friday....

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

well this is just pathetic! im not happy! not happy at all! first the whole lucas thing and now this! just what do the board think they are achieving with this?

[Piemonte]

They are probablly technically right, there isnt a formal offer currently, which goes back to the NDA's , lack of accounts, due dillegence etc blah blah blah round and round we go

DO SOMETHING YOU COCKSUCKERS ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Dazzza]

Does anyone else smell the proverbial brown trousers and a payoff being on the cards in that statement?

I'm not just talking about the turgid lamb Dhanask followed by the rough as old arseholes prostitute I had last night either.

The patronising language and terminology do little to thinly veil their sorry attempts to distort reality.  No doubt a few individuals are starting to worry about their pay check and are attempting to pay off Bill, what would really make my fucking blood boil is any of the money generated from the Lukas Jutkiewicz transfer is used in an effort to pay off Bill Power.

The timing of this statement, several days after the transfer has slipped out leaves me feeling sick to the back teeth and that's not the dodgy lamb ploughing through my bowels.

As for development in the stadium it's a fucking crime, presumably they're discussing the residents meeting and to be honest if this bunch of incompetent leeches attempt to develop the CG site to their own interest then I'll stand toe to toe with the locals residents and do everything to stop them at every turn.

As the club have released this delightful press release, like janaage has suggested a couple of sound bites from Bill Power affirming his commitment to the cause and oust these jokers would be very welcome.

[Dazzza]

They are probablly technically right, there isnt a formal offer currently, which goes back to the NDA's , lack of accounts, due dillegence etc blah blah blah round and round we go

DO SOMETHING YOU COCKSUCKERS ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Spot on! Poor and completely unnecessary propaganda.

[Piemonte]

Just remember Dazza, there is no consortium

[RobertT]

Having re-read the statement, I think there is something significant in it.  To admit they are making an offer (of any kind) to Bill Power, would suggest a complete shift in their stance over the nature of his investment.  It sounds like they've realised the ground they were on was as shakey as San Andreas Fault and have had to make on offer on how they propose to deal with a "debt".  If they were still sticking to their guns then the club would not really be involved because we were lead to believe it was a private share deal with James Wills.

I think they've had a smack around the chops.

[Maverick]

Rob - I am confused (not difficult!)

Piemonte posted this a couple of weeks back:-


Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:39 pm    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Issued at date of Report 3,454,725 ORD Shares of 1.00 each

Principal Shareholders .......Type of Share ....No. of Shares ...Value

James Seton Wills ..................ORD ............1,764,077 ....1,764,077.00

Boodle Hatfield Nominees Ltd ...ORD ...........899,703 ........899,703.00

William Power .................................ORD ..........395,473 .......395,473.00

Philip Emmel ...........................ORD ...........395,472 3.....95,472.00

Latest Update 13/05/2006
_________________
Five year plans - everybody should have one

If that has been turned up formally in a company search, then how can anyone see it as a loan? Or am I only seeing half the picture?

[pauld]

It's quite simple Maverick - if your supposed shareholders don't accept they are shareholders (ie if they feel you've "converted" a loan into shares without their consent) and if the alleged shareholding also flies in the face of your own public statements, then you have a problem.

[Piemonte]

That means nothin though Maverick, just shows that the club have registered the "shareholding" at companies house, probably in a last ditch attempt to "prove" they bought shares rather than loaned money.

As far as I'm aware there is just a standard type of form that would be sent off to register a change in shareholding, no evidence that this actually happened is required. I'm willing to be corrected on this though, as its not something I'd ever get invloved in.

[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?

[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.

[Maverick]

Thanks for that Piemonte - but still confused as it shows "latest update" as 13th May 2006 so presumably around the time it actually happened (or didn't!), so not sure how it could be a last ditch attempt? Ain't got a clue either cos this is way outta my field too!  

[pauld]

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.

[Maverick]

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?

[mattboyslim]

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.