Winding Up Order

[Phil_S]

I see iot as purely some jouno trying to make a story & a property Co desparate to get some money back that they lent to a dodgy guy who once ran our football club.
The electricity bill is the best analogy & is the way I see it. If I recall the Holding company or one of its OTHER subsidaries was lent the money. IT was NOT lent to the football club, as Diamndis & cO wanted to retain all rights etc over any redevelopment & profits. (Remember they saw a pot of gold eminating from massive housing developments & wanted that to belong to them not the club).
As we know the same thing was adjudged to happen with Bill Powers money (although he thought he'd lent it to the Football Club).
AF & CO bought 75% of the shares in the FOOTBALL CLub, FROM the holding company which was then put into admin etc.
So, whilst their may be some dispute, because no one lets that sort of money go without a fight, I am comfortable that AF & co have it sussed. St Modwen is just another victim of a "scam" by a guy well known to us all.

[pauld]

That statement is a load of gash as well, it doesn't even begin to really address the issue.

Of course it doesn't. When there's a court action in progress, even if you think it's a complete crock of shit, only a fool would release a statement that did actually address the issue in concrete terms. Which is why Holt/Diamandis often did precisely that. What you should do is play a straight bat and let the lawyers sort it out. Which is what this is. They couldn't do anything else under the circumstances

[Samdy Gray]

If I recall the Holding company or one of its OTHER subsidaries was lent the money.

Yes, but to be fair Phil you don't know the ins and outs of the club's/holding co's historical financial transactions.

Given that the club have pointed out in their statement that it's in the Football Club's accounts as a disputed debt, it shows that they're not entirely sure who's debt it is either. I don't doubt for a minute that the board won't challenge this, but I'm certainly not resting on any laurels that it's cut and dried that the old holding co owe this money.

[Phil_S]

I'd put money on the fact that it wasn't lent to the football club. The old lot would not have wanted the money going directly into the club. If my memory serves me corrctly (& it might not of course), the money went to some Canal redevelopment thingy which was a joint venture between Wills & St Modwen. Was this company was called Shaw Park developments ? (Or Park Hampers ?)

[pauld]

I'd put money on the fact that it wasn't lent to the football club. The old lot would not have wanted the money going directly into the club. If my memory serves me corrctly (& it might not of course), the money went to some Canal redevelopment thingy which was a joint venture between Wills & St Modwen. Was this company was called Shaw Park developments ? (Or Park Hampers ?)

No, that was separate. Shaw Park was the joint venture between the old Holding Co and St Modwen. And St Modwen pumped a load of cash into it, some of which supposedly found it's way into the club. That's the money under dispute here.

Separate to that St Modwen did a joint venture directly with the Wills to develop the Old Piggery (no, really) into Hungerford Marina. They also pumped money into that. God alone knows what happened to that but I'd guess it's gone, proving you can't make a silk marina out of a pig's ear. That money isn't under dispute here. (It may be under dispute but it's not part of this case)

[ghanimah]

Blimey I've just got back from holiday thinking have I missed much and I feel I've just traveled back in time.

[Jamiesfuturewife]

proving you can't make a silk marina out of a pig's ear.

Im not sure why but this is making me laugh -  ALOT!

[pauld]

Re-reading some of the stuff around this, I suspect it's not so much the board trying to get out of paying the money altogether, more they're trying to delay payment (or do it in stages) whereas if the Grauniad story is to be believed St Modwen seem want payment in full now, relying on this "2-year" agreement, negotiated in Aug 2007. If that is the case, that would have been before Fitton and Co came on the scene (that was when we were being lined up for the Portugeezers) so the dispute may actually be about whether the payment schedule agreed then is actually valid or not. ie about when the money is owed rather than whether.

[nevillew]

I've not seen the accounts. Is the sum shown as a liability, or does it show in the notes to the accounts as a potential liability due to it's disputed nature ?

[pauld]

I've not seen the accounts. Is the sum shown as a liability, or does it show in the notes to the accounts as a potential liability due to it's disputed nature ?

Which ones? According to the club statement today, it's shown as disputed in the 09 accounts but no-one's seen them yet as they haven't been released publicly. Prior to that, it was shown as a liability, but those accounts were heavily qualified in the notes as "quite likely to be utter crap because we had to base them on some post-it notes we found in a shoebox under Sandy's desk" so I don't know you could hold them to that.

[RobertT]

In St Modwens accounts it was listed as a debt owed by Shaw Park Developments with a sub note describing this as a joint venture.

I might be off the mark, been a while since I perused them, but I'm sure a commercial rate of interest was being charged.

The problem is that it all gets a bit murky between the football club and Shaw Park, but club assets were listed as security as far as I remember - may be the lease on the ground, or it could be what remaining stands we owned.

[pauld]

club assets were listed as security as far as I remember - may be the lease on the ground, or it could be what remaining stands we owned.

Both. And IIRC there was a third charge/mortgage as well over the "fixtures and fittings", although quite what they'd be above and beyond the South Stand, I don't know. But presumably St Modwen had a team of bailiffs on standby ready to pounce and seize the programme sellers' stands and the two mugs and a pencil case we had in the club shop at the time

[ahounsell]

We (The Trust) dont know any more about this than has been reported in the press really, except to say that this has not come out of the blue. It is an issue that Fitton has been dealing with ever since the takeover.

It dates back to the tangled web of companies that surrounded the club prior to the takeover and is possibly quite similar to the Power/Emmell case in as much as its a pain in the ass but not the imminent threat to the club`s survival the Adver headline might lead you to believe.

[Simon Pieman]

Sounds to me like the Board don't want to release a statement which implicates them in any way, hence the vagueness.

Doesn't reassure the fans though.

[Reg Smeeton]

ace, old school finacial problems..I feel a blimp coming on!

Monday statements are crap though....I think there should be a "restore statements to Friday" campaign.