So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
They have a charge over the assets like a Building Society would have over your property you can't sell it, lease or do anything with it without the BS being satisfied can you?
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
As RecChaser states above they have a charge over the assets. The Valley and Sparrows.
How that would be complicated should those assets not be included in any sale I have no idea.
DD + condition of hard assets ---Valley ---Training Ground. Commercial value of those assets ,depreciation etc. + Playing assets ---who owns the players--length of contracts.Commercial value. +Debts, deferred, payments near and far.Transfer fees outstanding + -. +Statutory issues HMRC, building regs etc +Pensions to staff +Staff T+Cs
Some of the above will take lawyers they aint quick.Some will take experts in property and experts in playing contracts.
Just because former directors who have deferred debts owed to them have yet to be approached dosnt really mean anything neg or pos.
The only thing to take from recent info is that something is happening ---or was.That in itself is possitive and even if they walked away RD will have learnt alot and maybe his expectations will lower ?
Can someone provide me a link to show a connection between Harris and the so called AFC outfit which as far as I can make out is still a one man band with a poorly written one page website?
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
They have a charge over the assets like a Building Society would have over your property you can't sell it, lease or do anything with it without the BS being satisfied can you?
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
They have a charge over the assets like a Building Society would have over your property you can't sell it, lease or do anything with it without the BS being satisfied can you?
Don't think they have a charge over the assets.
I did put a question mark after Debenture however If they do have debentures it will be a fixed and floating charge over all assets. It is not difficult to find out if you search at companies house.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because that's what the legal agreement says. They can also agree to roll the debt over as they did in 2014. Or they can negotiate a deal that gives them a percentage of the money now rather than all of it later on the basis they may never get it otherwise. If RM is involved in the deal that may be an issue in some quarters, but they are fans in the end.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.
My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.
It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.
My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.
It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.
They have a first legal charge on the assets.
Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because that's what the legal agreement says. They can also agree to roll the debt over as they did in 2014. Or they can negotiate a deal that gives them a percentage of the money now rather than all of it later on the basis they may never get it otherwise. If RM is involved in the deal that may be an issue in some quarters, but they are fans in the end.
Ok...thanks. That answers the question. And it also means a sale is still a long way off if the ex directors have not been approached yet.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.
My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.
It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.
I can't help you then, I only deal in facts, sorry. And who said anything about them having a say how the club is run? I'm out.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.
My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.
It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.
They have a first legal charge on the assets.
Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.
Wow...I always thought it was a debt only payable on promotion. These ex directors still have a lot more influence and power than I ever realised.
Wonder if Murray will insist on being part of the new board?
I thought it had been mooted on here somewhere that he would be like to be involved.
He can fuck right off.
I share you concern but he is owed £2.6m against a charge and it may be worth sucking it up if he is the stumbling block but hopefully the owners might pay all the former directors off and have done with it.
So are we to conclude that it’s pretty much done and dusted provided the previous directors who have first dibs are willing to play ball ?
They don't have a veto. The most they can do is insist on full repayment up front and even in that case I expect there would be different positions among them.
Why would they be able to insist on full repayment upfront in the event of a sale?
Because their agreement states thats the case unless they come to some other agreement at point of sale. I’m guessing
That is the question I am asking. Does their agreement include that clause?
All legal charges over an asset restrict dealings of it without the concurrence of the chargee.
My impression is that the obligation to the ex directors is a debt only payable under certain conditions. They have no charge over assets or in anyway have a say over how current owners run the club, (unless a member of the current board) or who they decide to sell the club to.
It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.
They have a first legal charge on the assets.
Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.
Just read the last bit of your post. It is an important point to remember, and you rightly point it out before people on here go into meltdown accusing the ex directors of preventing a sale, that huge amounts were written off by the ex directors.
When you state some amounts were converted to equity that now has no value what equity are you referring to?
And last question, and I am been lazy here but you know off the top of your head, apart from Richard Murray, who are the other ex directors that have this charge?
whoa, hold on a moment. Can I have a yes or no answer please. A new owner agrees a deal with Roland whereby the ex-directors get repaid in full. Can they do anything to stop the sale?
Comments
How that would be complicated should those assets not be included in any sale I have no idea.
Perhaps that’s the issue ?
+ condition of hard assets ---Valley ---Training Ground. Commercial value of those assets ,depreciation etc.
+ Playing assets ---who owns the players--length of contracts.Commercial value.
+Debts, deferred, payments near and far.Transfer fees outstanding + -.
+Statutory issues HMRC, building regs etc
+Pensions to staff
+Staff T+Cs
Some of the above will take lawyers they aint quick.Some will take experts in property and experts in playing contracts.
Just because former directors who have deferred debts owed to them have yet to be approached dosnt really mean anything neg or pos.
The only thing to take from recent info is that something is happening ---or was.That in itself is possitive and even if they walked away RD will have learnt alot and maybe his expectations will lower ?
It could be the case that the potential owners could take the view that the club should clear the ex director obligations as a condition of the sale.
Need to bear in mind that taking Murray out we are "only" talking about £4.4m. It's also only a fraction of what the old board put in. Huge amounts were written off or converted into equity which ended up having no value.
When you state some amounts were converted to equity that now has no value what equity are you referring to?
And last question, and I am been lazy here but you know off the top of your head, apart from Richard Murray, who are the other ex directors that have this charge?