Do You Believe There Is A Mystery Investor?

[lebowski]

the £1.2million is the key takeover issue. if the courts confirm that there is unsatisfactory evidence to prove it was shares, then the club will owe BP that money.

in that instance, BP will demand immediate repayment plus interest. the club won't be able to pay, so, to save another court case BP will knock that amount off the value of the offer he will make to SSW for the club.

now, the reason the NDA hasn't been signed by BP is because the club want to install a clause into the NDA that signing it means BP accepts the £1.2million was for shares. the question is, why have they insisted on this clause? my first guess would be because they don't have any other legally binding paperwork to prove it was for shares.

the first court case won't be until july at the very earliest, which is after the CVA deadline has elapsed, so we have a bit of a problem there.

what should be applauded though is that BP waited until the season has finished before beginning legal proceedings, if he didn't have the club's best interests at heart then he would have done this when promotion was still in the balance.

[Fred Elliot]

I could not have put that better myself

[Fred Elliot]

the first court case won't be until july at the very earliest,

I bet it wont be even listed for trial until back end of this year.

This will not be heard by a District/Circuit judge sitting at County Court.

Corporate claims this size normally get heard at the High Court

[lebowski]

...so we need to hope that the obnoxious gentleman "running" the CVA is successful in renegotiating, and hope to god that we don't lose 10 points in the process!

either that or it somehow gets paid off in full.

[Fred Elliot]

Any court will not liquidate the company if someone can demostrate a viable rescue package to the benefit of the creditors

THAT IS FACT !!!!!

[red macca]

Very good, whats your next move then Reg and Glos? Are the Consortium any closer to taking over the club than say last January, the answer is no.

Nobody wants this current board including myself, the trouble is they are there and the Consortium are not and never will be.

Now that is not a rumour, that is a fact.

We are no closer because dopey bollocks like yourself wont take your head out your mouth(ass) and will try and argue the toss and just make things difficult

[yeo]

Blimey you lot really hate Dell dont you. :shock:

[red macca]

I dont, just having a shit day

[millom red]

Read on the ThisIs that Maverick was banned from this site,  by the way how many times do you use the word 'fuck' in one day Fred.

maverick is not banned and never has been. as i said, i've met maverick and although we may disagree on many things, he's a good bloke.

unlike yourself, who hides bhind the anonymity of the internet stirring shit and dodging simple questions, hopping from one side to the other and generally not having a clue.

if you've got anything interesting to say, hurry up and say it so i can ban you before the cricket starts.

Nothing of interest Sonic, so hit the button.

Sonic wont ban you for no reason dell.. He does not like it when people cannot be bothered to look into the facts before slating peoples opinions

Sorry, but who have I slated? Pot Kettle and Black.

I am going on posts on thisis..

What is your position on the trust again ??

how many trust meetings you attended

Right, see where your coming from.
I do not support the Trust/Consortium

Deary me!!!(edited after ben's wise words)
See below...Ben talks sense.

[flammableBen]

I know that Dell is on the wind up, but I do worry that the Tef can sometimes be like the unofficial trust forum. Calling for someone to be banned as soon as they start taking the piss out of the trust position with somewhat creative arguments is a bit hypocritical, especially when a lot of make similar piss takes against the board.

If dell boy was winding you all up that much then just don't rise to it. Answer question he asks sensibly and do it over and over again if necessary, even if he doesn't acknowledge the answers, others who are reading might. The general bitchiness which seems to take over as soon as someone questions the consortium (if they're taking the piss or not) doesn't help anybody.

I've lost the plot a bit with this post, I think my point was that we should try and not get involved in personal arguments with anti-consortium people. There's a fair few silent undecided people who read these forums and getting into personal sniping just alienates people. Or something.

[pauld]

What Ben said. Dell is in part expressing a point of view quite reasonably which he's entitled to do, and which doesn't merit the kind of vitriol he attracts. But the reason he does (I assume) is because the other part of what he's doing is trying to get a rise out of people for his own personal jollies, which some seem to be giving him in spades. Don't see the benefit myself.

[red macca]

If you were not a well know figure within the trust would that be your opinion paul

[dell boy]

Thank you for your warm welcome yesterday.
In hindsight my opening post was a bit stupid by putting the word 'FACT' at the end and this obviously started you all off. Its not fact, but it is a bit more than just my opinion.
I've often been called a fencesitter by those who post both on here and ThisIs, at the moment that is correct. FBen thank you for your post I know it wasn't posted to back me up, it was for all those other Fencesitters and there are a hell of a lot of them out there, who could quite easily be put off my the ganging up tactics of Trust members on forums, and that is how I feel, I have an alternative view and because I don't toe-the-line of the militant side of The Trust I and others like me take a pasting.

My stance changed last year, I was pro-board until September 2006 and then realised I was wrong, very wrong.
When Bill Power was named as the finance behind The Consortium I was pleased like most others and could see the end of this corrupt board.
I even thought of joining the Trust, but as stated before I decided not to because of the aggression shown by Trust posters.
I supported The Orange protests, but not the protests at the back of The Arkells.
I am not convinced the Consortium have acted any different through the media than the antics shown by the current board and both imo have come out of this badly.
My point is - why should I a fencesitter believe everything the Trust/Consortium tell me because I don't, the same goes for The Board, but The Trust supporters inform others with great confidence that every single word that has ever been published from The Board are lies and deceit.
I'm always willing to listen to both sides even if I dont agree with them, maybe some of you should try being a bit flexible, if you dont you will find fewer and fewer fencesitters will join your crusade.

[pauld]

If you were not a well know figure within the trust would that be your opinion paul

Yes

[red macca]

Thank you for your warm welcome yesterday.
In hindsight my opening post was a bit stupid by putting the word 'FACT' at the end and this obviously started you all off. Its not fact, but it is a bit more than just my opinion.
I've often been called a fencesitter by those who post both on here and ThisIs, at the moment that is correct. FBen thank you for your post I know it wasn't posted to back me up, it was for all those other Fencesitters and there are a hell of a lot of them out there, who could quite easily be put off my the ganging up tactics of Trust members on forums, and that is how I feel, I have an alternative view and because I don't toe-the-line of the militant side of The Trust I and others like me take a pasting.

My stance changed last year, I was pro-board until September 2006 and then realised I was wrong, very wrong.
When Bill Power was named as the finance behind The Consortium I was pleased like most others and could see the end of this corrupt board.
I even thought of joining the Trust, but as stated before I decided not to because of the aggression shown by Trust posters.
I supported The Orange protests, but not the protests at the back of The Arkells.
I am not convinced the Consortium have acted any different through the media than the antics shown by the current board and both imo have come out of this badly.
My point is - why should I a fencesitter believe everything the Trust/Consortium tell me because I don't, the same goes for The Board, but The Trust supporters inform others with great confidence that every single word that has ever been published from The Board are lies and deceit.
I'm always willing to listen to both sides even if I dont agree with them, maybe some of you should try being a bit flexible, if you dont you will find fewer and fewer fencesitters will join your crusade.

Thats fair enough when you put a reason behind what you think it comes across better.