Bill Power&Phil Emmell

[Simon Pieman]

Fitton & Co would (should) have devalued the value of the company by the £1m+, or the amount of the payout that was likely to occur, according to legal advice.

If they have been advised that Power & Emmel have no stake to a claim from Fitton's consortium and it turns out that they do, then it is the legal advisors which have got it wrong, which is just an unfortunate situation.

Of course, Fitton mentions they are partially covered for the liability through the terms of the contract. It's more than likely they devalued the company by the remaining balance, or something to that effect. If they have not it's their own fault through naivety. I think it was reasonable to expect a claim would come in eventually.

If Fitton buys all the shares from the holding company, then perhaps the liability is passed on with those shares, despite who was culpable? I don't know if that is the case as it were. If Power is as nice a guy as people say, and it was a loan then he does deserve his money back. If Fitton was an astute businessman as people make out then he would have foreseen this.

I think from a moral standpoint Power and Emmel are going after the wrong people, but if any of the above does ring true, then in a way they are going to the right people for their money.

[pauld]

Oh, and Sam the Holding Co hasn't folded, it's gone into administration. As you say if it had simply folded, then the directors (well director actually - Bob and Sandy have resigned, leaving James Wills in sole charge) may have become liable. Which may or may not be why they have chosen instead to put a company that doesn't trade in any meaningful sense and doesn't have any assets or liabilities other than any monies it may or may not owe to former investors into administration. If Wills and Co don't believe they owe Bill and Phil £1.2m, then why put the Holding Co into admin?

[fatbury]

With my new Mr Positive hat on Id just like to say

Dont worry about it - Fitton will sort it out!

[Luci]

Maybe Bart would like to borrow your hat then.

[pauld]

If Fitton buys all the shares from the holding company, then perhaps the liability is passed on with those shares, despite who was culpable? I don't know if that is the case as it were. If Fitton was an astute businessman as people make out then he would have foreseen this.

I think the term "indemnity" has been used very deliberately and would expect it to refer to a separate agreement regarding responsibility for disputed liabilities incurred under previous ownership. It's pretty standard with this sort of situation - you either factor it in to the deal (as you suggest), write it off if it's a disputed asset or add an indemnity clause into the deal.

I think from a moral standpoint Power and Emmel are going after the wrong people, but if any of the above does ring true, then in a way they are going to the right people for their money.

As the Holding Co has been put into administration, legally they've not got a lot of choice.

[Simon Pieman]

Can someone explain how a holding company is allowed to go into admin, when it does not trade and no longer 'holds' anything.

Surely the point of admin is to allow the business to continue as a going concern? If it doesn't do anything then what is the point? Woudln't the court realise admin was simply a way of avoiding a potential liability?

[pauld]

Can someone explain how a holding company is allowed to go into admin, when it does not trade and no longer 'holds' anything.

Surely the point of admin is to allow the business to continue as a going concern? If it doesn't do anything then what is the point? Woudln't the court realise admin was simply a way of avoiding a potential liability?

You may well think that mightn't you? You might also raise eyebrows about the demonstrable prior relationship between the director of said company, James Wills, and the administrator, Andrew Andronikou. But I'm quite sure it's all been very properly and above board. Oh yes.

[ghanimah]

Can someone explain how a holding company is allowed to go into admin, when it does not trade and no longer 'holds' anything.

Surely the point of admin is to allow the business to continue as a going concern? If it doesn't do anything then what is the point? Woudln't the court realise admin was simply a way of avoiding a potential liability?

You may well think that mightn't you? You might also raise eyebrows about the demonstrable prior relationship between the director of said company, James Wills, and the administrator, Andrew Andronikou. But I'm quite sure it's all been very properly and above board. Oh yes.

Pauld, I'm not sure I understand but why put the holding company into admin to possibly avoid liability when they are already liable via the indemnity?

[Simon Pieman]

Have BP and PE petitioned for winding the Holding Co. up?

Of course I realistically expected they would persue the money from the football club, but it would be nice to think they tried to get it from the (alleged) crooks that stole their money first.

[reeves4england]

The Wills family advisor Mike Diamandis believes Emmell and Power do not have a case.
"I have always said they did not have a case," said Diamandis.
"I think they are trying to win this claim on a point of law.
"First I think they still need to establish whether the money was a loan or shares."

Insightful words from the wonderous Greek. If anybody knows whether it was a loan or shares, surely it should be Diamandis?! Or is it a case of BP gave the money for a loan, then Diamandis put it down as shares somewhere and won't admit it in the knowledge he'll look a complete twat and perhaps end up in serious trouble? Just a thought

[pauld]

Can someone explain how a holding company is allowed to go into admin, when it does not trade and no longer 'holds' anything.

Surely the point of admin is to allow the business to continue as a going concern? If it doesn't do anything then what is the point? Woudln't the court realise admin was simply a way of avoiding a potential liability?

You may well think that mightn't you? You might also raise eyebrows about the demonstrable prior relationship between the director of said company, James Wills, and the administrator, Andrew Andronikou. But I'm quite sure it's all been very properly and above board. Oh yes.

Pauld, I'm not sure I understand but why put the holding company into admin to possibly avoid liability when they are already liable via the indemnity?

You'd have to ask Messrs Wills/Diamandis/Andronikou - I don't claim to be a spokesman for their business "strategy" or whether it makes sense. Possibly because the indemnity only comes into play if the club are dragged into the legal action, so forcing Bill and Phil to pursue that route?

[Robinz]

Hopefully...at last we will get the insight / facts on how SSW and his band of thieves tried with success in ripping off the Club (and supporters ) and the investors (BP & PE) for so long...
I for one really hope BP and PE get their monies returned and that Wills and greekie are charged with fraud... or creating false documents..basically anything that will stick.

[Don Rogers Shop]

Ok I understand now, Sleeping on sofas,bad moods and posting before 9am does not Mix well

[Fred Elliot]

Grumpy Fucker

 

[fatbury]

Maybe Bart would like to borrow your hat then.

Its a Maurice Malpas Magic hat  :king: