what if BP's investment WAS to buy shares?

[pauld]

That's not the context in which the repayment offer was set.

[Ardiles]

What if the clubs lawyers maintain that the repayment offer was made on the basis of a small percentage of the £1.2 mill being a loan and the bulk was to buy shares.

If the club are going to claim that a portion of BP's investment was in the form of share capital and the other portion in the form of a loan - this would represent an additional level of complexity to the transaction, and the courts would surely expect this to be fully documented.

If such documentation does not exist (as I suspect it does not, given the club's failure to produce it so far), then the club's position is significantly weakened.

[Tails]

They must be quite confident though, considering they are more than happy to take it court. Unless of course they think Power is bluffing, or they are bluffing themselves.

[Summerof69]

They must be quite confident though, considering they are more than happy to take it court. Unless of course they think Power is bluffing, or they are bluffing themselves.

They were also confident suing Pete Rowe around five years ago...they not only lost, but the courts also awarded compensation to Pete Rowe.

More like it's playing for more time.

[Batch]

I'm sure both sides lawyers are confident.

I know who I beleive but as pointed out by others it is never that straight forward in court.

We'll have to wait and see.

[OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR]

I'm not that well up in these matters so forgive me but shouldn't Bill Power have got a receipt for this money or something, saying exactly what it was for??

I would have thought that was common sense but then I'm not a mulit-millionaire business man so what the f*** do I know.

I just don't understand how this can be such a grey area. It should have been made absolutely crystal clear at the time of the transaction as to what exactly the money was for.

Why wasn't it?

Fred? Rob T? Paul D?

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

one would think the board are pooing their white fronts. i think they dont stand much chance at all but then hey what i know? i suppose we can only wait and see

[herthab]

To be totally honest, I think this paints both parties in a bad light.

Like most on here, I'm not a millionaire, but even so I wouldn't put a couple of hundred quid into a business without obtaining written verification as to what my investment was. If it was a loan, I would obtain a signed, witnessed letter proving that.

 If it was for shares, I would get a signed, witnessed letter outlining it was for shares and how many I would be getting.

Conversely, if I had a business and someone wished to invest, I would obtain the same sort of evidence as to what that investment meant, ie a loan, or shares.

I can understand the board fucking this up, based on their track record, but BP?

If the board had proof, they would have surely released it by now?

The same goes for BP.

Instead, it's just one huge fuck up!

[OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR]

To be totally honest, I think this paints both parties in a bad light.

Like most on here, I'm not a millionaire, but even so I wouldn't put a couple of hundred quid into a business without obtaining written verification as to what my investment was. If it was a loan, I would obtain a signed, witnessed letter proving that.

 If it was for shares, I would get a signed, witnessed letter outlining it was for shares and how many I would be getting.

Conversely, if I had a business and someone wished to invest, I would obtain the same sort of evidence as to what that investment meant, ie a loan, or shares.

I can understand the board fucking this up, based on their track record, but BP?

If the board had proof, they would have surely released it by now?

The same goes for BP.

Instead, it's just one huge fuck up!

Precisely my point Mr Berlin

This reflects very poorly on both sides and their lawyers.

[RobertT]

I think Si Pie mentioned that you don't need to have paperwork on loans (if they have no repayment terms built in) to a business because the Article of Association for the business should have a section on how Director loans are treated.

[OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR]

I think Si Pie mentioned that you don't need to have paperwork on loans (if they have no repayment terms built in) to a business because the Article of Association for the business should have a section on how Director loans are treated.

Well, if I was in the position of chucking 1.2 million into a club, I would want the terms of it signed and whitnessed, carved into a stone tablet and sealed in a bank vault in Switzerland. There would be no grey (Gray?) areas. That's all I will say about it :shock:

[Barry Scott]

***STOP***

What is the name of the holding company he supposedly has shares in?

Why doesn't someone check on companies house?

As i understand it shares in a limited company cannot be backdated and any share issue has to be within the knowledge of Companies House, yes?

Why can't someone just check on companies house?

Or have i yet again made something up?  :?

[Samdy Gray]

I think the holding company is Swindon Town Football Club Limited. The club itself is Swindon Town F.C. Limited.

Si Pie has checked companies house, and the latest accounts for the holding company show Bill does hold shares.

However, this is just accounts and is information supplied by the company. It's not neccesarily a true reflection.

[Barry Scott]

So although it states he has shares, this can be done easily... Lets hope it's not easy to fake.

[Simon Pieman]

I think Si Pie mentioned that you don't need to have paperwork on loans (if they have no repayment terms built in) to a business because the Article of Association for the business should have a section on how Director loans are treated.

Well, if I was in the position of chucking 1.2 million into a club, I would want the terms of it signed and whitnessed, carved into a stone tablet and sealed in a bank vault in Switzerland. There would be no grey (Gray?) areas. That's all I will say about it :shock:

Yes but you're not loaning to a person, you're loaning to a company, which is a separate legal entity in its own right. You can't get a company to sign because it's obviously not a physical being and because BP was/became a director due to this investment, it's treated as a balance to a director. Unless of course it's shares.