Jimenez mislead a long time friend? That's even more of a shock
"Although the loan was repaid, Khakshouri will argue that it subsequently became apparent that there had never been any intention of securing the land deal prior to the sale.
And that's the key point to take in before people go off on a "we're leaving the Valley" acid trip
Very much confirms what we all knew, which is that Cash was the silent investor. Wonder if the Football League would bother looking into it as it felt a bit like a FFP dodge
My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.
My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.
yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.
There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.
There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.
My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.
yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.
There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.
My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.
yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.
The money became a problem in March 2012.
TJ and MS insisted they were the majority owners.
Could they not have been the majority owners and merely borrowed money from Cash at a high rate??
My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.
yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.
The money became a problem in March 2012.
TJ and MS insisted they were the majority owners.
Could they not have been the majority owners and merely borrowed money from Cash at a high rate??
There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.
Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
Could be a points deduction though.
Why would there be a points deduction? The club has not gone into administration.
There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.
Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
Could be a points deduction though.
Why would there be a points deduction? The club has not gone into administration.
Especially as QPR are far more blatant offenders.
Actually this is something we 'd be able to campaign on to highlight the hypocrisy of the League on FFP, if they tried to punish the current regime
There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.
Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
Could be a points deduction though.
Why would there be a points deduction? The club has not gone into administration.
Especially as QPR are far more blatant offenders.
Actually this is something we 'd be able to campaign on to highlight the hypocrisy of the League on FFP, if they tried to punish the current regime
Of course, but what I am saying is that this is dangerous territory. It's not just the ownership issue described here that might come out. And in considering matters the FL would be bound to look at the fact that one of the owners in 2011-13 is the current chairman. Do you really think he didn't know about Slater/Cash?
Hopefully, the FL investigate the sale of the club to RD from Jimenez/Slater. It may not all be as clean as we'd like to imagine, and if it's a dodgy dealing then there would be big repercussions.
Looks like the relevant punishment is indeed a fine:
The League shall have the power to prescribe fixed fines pursuant to Regulation 81 of the Regulations, in respect of a failure by a Club to comply with the reporting requirements of Rule 2. There shall be no appeal against such penalties;
(b) where a Club:
(i) fails three or more times, following written demand from The League, to provide The League with a Declaration or an update to a Declaration and/or any other information required pursuant to Rule 4;
(ii) intentionally, recklessly or negligently provides to The League a false Declaration in respect of any Relevant Person; or
(iii) fails to ensure within 14 days of receipt of written notice from The League (or within such other period as is specified by The League in that notice) that a Relevant Person of the Club complies with the requirements of Rule 2 and Rule 3,
then The League may give notice requiring the Club to transfer its membership to the Company Secretary (the ‘Notice’) in accordance with Articles 4.5 and 4.7 of the Articles of Association. Article 4.8 (suspension of the Notice) shall apply in the Board’s absolute discretion. There shall be no appeal against the service of the Notice.
Looks like the relevant punishment is indeed a fine:
The League shall have the power to prescribe fixed fines pursuant to Regulation 81 of the Regulations, in respect of a failure by a Club to comply with the reporting requirements of Rule 2. There shall be no appeal against such penalties;
(b) where a Club:
(i) fails three or more times, following written demand from The League, to provide The League with a Declaration or an update to a Declaration and/or any other information required pursuant to Rule 4;
(ii) intentionally, recklessly or negligently provides to The League a false Declaration in respect of any Relevant Person; or
(iii) fails to ensure within 14 days of receipt of written notice from The League (or within such other period as is specified by The League in that notice) that a Relevant Person of the Club complies with the requirements of Rule 2 and Rule 3,
then The League may give notice requiring the Club to transfer its membership to the Company Secretary (the ‘Notice’) in accordance with Articles 4.5 and 4.7 of the Articles of Association. Article 4.8 (suspension of the Notice) shall apply in the Board’s absolute discretion. There shall be no appeal against the service of the Notice.
I thought it had been widely reported that Slater was on the board and an official owner BUT he was not the supplier of the money. the money man wanted to be behind the scenes. the way I understood it was that Jiminez owned a proportion of the club and Slater owned a proportion of the club, but Slater was 'given' his proportion by the mystery owner (cash). The problems started because Slater is a football fan and wanted us to succeed but didn't have any of his own money to put in. Cash pulled the plug on 'Slater's' investment and Jiminez didn't have the funds himself to support the club. I don't think we will ever know the true reasons why cash pulled out, just speculation.
Comments
Jimenez mislead a long time friend? That's even more of a shock
"Although the loan was repaid, Khakshouri will argue that it subsequently became apparent that there had never been any intention of securing the land deal prior to the sale.
And that's the key point to take in before people go off on a "we're leaving the Valley" acid trip
It looks as though Mr Khakshouri has some previous in this area: http://nypost.com/2012/05/08/my-own-cousin-ripped-me-off/
http://nypost.com/2012/05/08/my-own-cousin-ripped-me-off/
TJ and MS insisted they were the majority owners.
By the way, its Essex Al not Essex Owl!!
Actually this is something we 'd be able to campaign on to highlight the hypocrisy of the League on FFP, if they tried to punish the current regime
The League shall have the power to prescribe fixed fines pursuant to Regulation 81 of the Regulations, in respect of a failure by a Club to comply with the reporting requirements of Rule 2. There shall be no appeal against such penalties;
(b) where a Club:
(i) fails three or more times, following written demand from The League, to provide The League with a Declaration or an update to a Declaration and/or any other information required pursuant to Rule 4;
(ii) intentionally, recklessly or negligently provides to The League a false Declaration in respect of any Relevant Person; or
(iii) fails to ensure within 14 days of receipt of written notice from The League (or within such other period as is specified by The League in that notice) that a Relevant Person of the Club complies with the requirements of Rule 2 and Rule 3,
then The League may give notice requiring the Club to transfer its membership to the Company Secretary (the ‘Notice’) in accordance with Articles 4.5 and 4.7 of the Articles of Association. Article 4.8 (suspension of the Notice) shall apply in the Board’s absolute discretion. There shall be no appeal against the service of the Notice.
Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/appendix3.aspx#PkgGgW1BUTMqABJz.99