derbystfc
Offline
Posts: 474
|
|
« Reply #225 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:23:10 » |
|
Feel sorry for Power and Emmell, clearly got shafted by the old lot!
Well thats my take on it anyway, the issue gets ore complex all the time
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nemo
Shit Bacon
Online
Posts: 21423
|
|
« Reply #226 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:24:26 » |
|
For those who have a clue legally, can this decision be appealed? I'd hate it to drag on even further.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #227 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:24:44 » |
|
Seems a strange choice of words saying their case "failed" and not being a bit more specific about the costs claim.
Hopefully the full ruling will be made public so we can see exactly what the judge said.
Maybe Fitton will spend the million he had in his back pocket to payout when they list this case can be spent on players now. Unlikely of course, but we can but hope.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27137
|
|
« Reply #228 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:27:18 » |
|
Thinking about it, this effectively confirms Power & Emmell have a shareholding in the old holding company - now in administration. This holding company held a majority share in the football club, right?
Fittons new holding company bought the football club shares from the old holding company. Surely that should mean as shareholders of the holding company, Power & Emmell should've been entitled to a proportion of the money paid by Fitton's company for the football club shares - which I'm guessing they never got.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27137
|
|
« Reply #229 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:29:25 » |
|
Seems a strange choice of words saying their case "failed" and not being a bit more specific about the costs claim. It said the claim had failed. I take that to mean Power & Emmell claimed the money was only a loan but the judge ruled it was shares.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@MacPhlea
Offline
Posts: 2321
|
|
« Reply #230 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:33:00 » |
|
Thinking about it, this effectively confirms Power & Emmell have a shareholding in the old holding company - now in administration. This holding company held a majority share in the football club, right?
Fittons new holding company bought the football club shares from the old holding company. Surely that should mean as shareholders of the holding company, Power & Emmell should've been entitled to a proportion of the money paid by Fitton's company for the football club shares - which I'm guessing they never got.
That would be my take - if so, then they need to go after the directors of the old company as it would be my guess they divvied out the money based on share ownership before administration - trouble is, Mick the Greek 'wasn't' a Director so it would come down to SSW & Co... I think...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27137
|
|
« Reply #231 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:35:07 » |
|
That's what I thought. I wonder if Power will go after them for his share or whether he'll just cut his losses.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
suttonred
Offline
Posts: 12510
|
|
« Reply #232 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:36:56 » |
|
Seems a strange choice of words saying their case "failed" and not being a bit more specific about the costs claim.
Hopefully the full ruling will be made public so we can see exactly what the judge said.
Maybe Fitton will spend the million he had in his back pocket to payout when they list this case can be spent on players now. Unlikely of course, but we can but hope.
Or we can hang on to cox now, as we dont have to sell him to pay the bill hopefully!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Summerof69
Offline
Posts: 8598
|
|
« Reply #233 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:55:43 » |
|
I'm in shock with the outcome.
Diamond Mike has seemingly got away with it...again.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #234 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 11:58:34 » |
|
Whilst it's a shame that Bill and Phil have been screwed by the old board i just want what is best for STFC. It means no costs to us which is fantastic. Let's look forward and look to build for next season. We might now be able to spend some of that Cox money. Yay.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55455
|
|
« Reply #235 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 12:00:23 » |
|
Hard to know what to make of it, don't have the necessary legal background or case details. I guess nothing is black and white in law. But good news for the club whatever. Or we can hang on to cox now, as we dont have to sell him to pay the bill hopefully!
No chance, he's gone whatever. Power & Emmell should've been entitled to a proportion of the money paid by Fitton's company for the football club shares - which I'm guessing they never got.
Did he actually pay for the club, or just take on the debt? I can't remember.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
STFC4LIFE
Fence Fucker
Offline
Posts: 2785
|
|
« Reply #236 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 12:02:36 » |
|
Does Fitton still have to pay for the court costs?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Offline
Posts: 11757
|
|
« Reply #237 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 12:06:24 » |
|
Thinking about it, this effectively confirms Power & Emmell have a shareholding in the old holding company - now in administration. This holding company held a majority share in the football club, right?
Fittons new holding company bought the football club shares from the old holding company. Surely that should mean as shareholders of the holding company, Power & Emmell should've been entitled to a proportion of the money paid by Fitton's company for the football club shares - which I'm guessing they never got.
Doubt any money was paid, more likely an undertaking of the debt. Power's loan/shares would have been through the holding company, so it's very likely the seperation with the football club is the deciding factor - so the Holding Co going into Admin pretty much leaving Power with no legal way of obtaining the money back without pursuing the owners of the Holding Co I guess. Seems he'll end up out of pocket, which is a bugger, but as someone else said, the club is the most important thing for us.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
fatbury
|
|
« Reply #238 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 12:13:54 » |
|
Good news for the club ... I would have sympathy with Power and Emmell but in all honestly they should have realised they were trying to get the money back from the wrong people ...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant
Offline
Posts: 15863
|
|
« Reply #239 on: Friday, May 1, 2009, 12:23:52 » |
|
Does Fitton still have to pay for the court costs?
Don't think so.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|