Lee Power

[RobertT]

Which was I was noodling on that bit as standing out a bit.  It looks like the judge has seen an obvious path that could be taken and sort of adding guard rails to Power - you can get out of this if you want to and it doesn't have to be Admin (which is still prevented by injunction).  The fact Power's reason for not selling seems to entirely be a Trust issue is not going to fly, it needs to be a financial issue.

Standings claim complicates the issue a little, but it does look to me like the judge is trying to nudge Power to exit now if he really wants to or risk losing control of the business through a later Court Case.

For Power to still be pushing means there has to be something in that Abe deal for him - either more money personally or a way out without recriminations (not suggesting there any ethical issues to find, but it would be a good reason not to sell to someone you've been fighting with).

[RobertT]

Isn't Powers claim that Barry owns the shares in Trust (I don't think he has ever denied that someone gave him the cash, the contentious issue is whether its Standing or Barry), could Standing/Axis just club together and work through Barry anyway, especially as there is no conflict now as Barry has retired?

Wasn't there also dispute over it being a profit sharing venture vs. ownership as well?

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

Still don’t understand what difference it makes to Power whether the money came from Standing or Barry. He’s admitted to breaking the FA rules either way. You’d have thought if the money was Barry’s he’d be the one in court - not Standing.

[singingiiiffy]

im sure this has been covered many times before so apologies. Isn't the standing case the more urgent. If standing/barry owns 50% and clem 15% that leaves power with 35%. Can't they just get rid of power? im under the assumption that my simplistic view can't be done.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

Can’t get rid of him, but he’ll have no say over club matters.

[Peter Venkman]

im sure this has been covered many times before so apologies. Isn't the standing case the more urgent. If standing/barry owns 50% and clem 15% that leaves power with 35%. Can't they just get rid of power? im under the assumption that my simplistic view can't be done.

I was wondering this but apparently Standing doesn't own 50% of the club he owns 50% of the holding company according to Power, Clem owns 15% of the club so that leaves Power with 85% still.

The judge said Clem paid £250k for his 15% share and that he has proven funds of £4m in a bank account is available to buy the club, which is what Power values the club at. Power said he himself has solely funded the club since August 2019 and Clem says that his cash injection, or a large portion of it seems to be unaccounted for.

Powers solicitor said that Clems bid is actually lower than Able's bid (said to be £250k) which is why he hasn't accepted it.

Power also suggested that because Clem recently had part of his company wound up that he is "not a fit and proper owner" and that Power has the club and its fans best interests at heart!

The judge did not seem to trust what Power or his solicitor were suggesting as the truth, I don't know if that is normal "judge speak" but he kept constantly questioning Powers solicitor who made several mistakes in what she presented which he picked up on instantly and the judge seemed to doubt what he was being told constantly.

[Batch]

good job you were making notes, as I thought the judge said Axis bid was 250k and and undertaking to pay creditors, and ables was similar but slightly different.

[Peter Venkman]

good job you were making notes, as I thought the judge said Axis bid was 250k and and undertaking to pay creditors, and ables was similar but slightly different.

Both bids were said to be around £200k to £250k mark but the structure of Ables bid was considered more acceptable to the Axis bid structure, which Power said represented an overall lower value.

[Batch]

ah right.

it was the 250k for the 15% but i missed as I thought it was £1m

[Peter Venkman]

ah right.

it was the 250k for the 15% but i missed as I thought it was £1m

If it is then the judge didn't mention that figure during the couple of hours I listened, thats not to say thats not the figure though as it may have been mentioned prior to my logging in.

[horlock07]

I was wondering this but apparently Standing doesn't own 50% of the club he owns 50% of the holding company according to Power, Clem owns 15% of the club so that leaves Power with 85% still.

WRT to Standing doesn't the holding company own the club to all intents and purposes anyway, just strikes me of someone trying to bullshit.

WRT to Clem, if he only owns 15% of the club why is he not a director of a bit of the company he apparently part owns, yet is a director of both holding companies (Seebeck and Swinton Reds)

The judge said Clem paid £250k for his 15% share and that he has proven funds of £4m in a bank account is available to buy the club, which is what Power values the club at.

So the club is only worth £4.25m now, could make it attractive to more people compared with the £7m+ previously banded about. I assume there still remains the issue as to whether Clems injection was a loan re the CGT issue.

Power said he himself has solely funded the club since August 2019 and Clem says that his cash injection, or a large portion of it seems to be unaccounted for.

Its very murky innit.

Powers solicitor said that Clems bid is actually lower than Able's bid (said to be £250k) which is why he hasn't accepted it.

Power also suggested that because Clem recently had part of his company wound up that he is "not a fit and proper owner" and that Power has the club and its fans best interests at heart!

£250k seems a comparatively small amount to be apart, especially as they are all racking up legals at an alarming rate.

As for the Fit and Proper argument I assume Crea8 etc etc were mentioned, oh and plus the FA charge!

The judge did not seem to trust what Power or his solicitor were suggesting as the truth, I don't know if that is normal "judge speak" but he kept constantly questioning Powers solicitor who made several mistakes in what she presented which he picked up on instantly and the judge seemed to doubt what he was being told constantly.

Judges don't tend to accuse counsel of lying but will tease stuff out, TBH I imagine the Briefs brief was scrawled on the back of an envelope and as the above suggests is changed by the minute so she is probably doing the best she can!

[Flashheart]

I was wondering this but apparently Standing doesn't own 50% of the club he owns 50% of the holding company

Doesn't that basically amount to the same thing? He'd have a 50% stake in ALL the holding company's holdings - including the club? I know the same would not work in reverse, but somebody please help me out with the (relevant) distinction here.

[Peter Venkman]

WRT to Standing doesn't the holding company own the club to all intents and purposes anyway, just strikes me of someone trying to bullshit.

This is pretty much how I think it is seen by all.

Its very murky innit.

Possibly the biggest understatement ever with things concerning STFC mate!

£250k seems a comparatively small amount to be apart, especially as they are all racking up legals at an alarming rate.

As for the Fit and Proper argument I assume Crea8 etc etc were mentioned, oh and plus the FA charge!

That is the "in the pocket" value of each bid with Axis and Able both handling and absorbing the existing club debts in the deal, Abel suggesting some of the debts are more pressing than the other debts which seemed to upset Powers council, but yes it seems quite small to me too. Crea8 was not mentioned as far as I remember, but irony upon irony from Power there.

Judges don't tend to accuse counsel of lying but will tease stuff out, TBH I imagine the Briefs brief was scrawled on the back of an envelope and as the above suggests is changed by the minute so she is probably doing the best she can!

She did contradict herself a lot and when questioned she said "she didn't know" after hurredly checking her notes. She did seem ill prepared for a lot of the questions, which TBH were posed in the previous court hearing too.

Doesn't that basically amount to the same thing? He'd have a 50% stake in ALL the holding company's holdings - including the club? I know the same would not work in reverse, but somebody please help me out with the (relevant) distinction here.

TBH mate I don't know how the holding company/s stand with regards to the club ownership itself as with Coventry the holding company went bust but the club itself didn't, are Swinton a majority share holder or are they a total sole owner of the club?

[horlock07]

TBH mate I don't know how the holding company/s stand with regards to the club ownership itself as with Coventry the holding company went bust but the club itself didn't, are Swinton a majority share holder or are they a total sole owner of the club?

My interpretation has always been STFC Ltd is 100% owned by Seebeck (Jeds vehicle) which in turn is 100% owned by Swinton (Powers SPV)

[Peter Venkman]

My interpretation has always been STFC Ltd is 100% owned by Seebeck (Jeds vehicle) which in turn is 100% owned by Swinton (Powers SPV)

So then if Standing owns 50% of Swinton reds but has no share in Seebek then he has no claim to owning 50% of the club or are they not mutually exclusive?

Which company do Axis own 15% of?

Does this matter?

I am sure its done to protect the clubs existance but it seems fucking long winded way of doing things of which I am still not 100% certain who ACTUALLY owns what and why shares are issued by each company?