All the way through this process and all the way through the aussies involvement I was told they don’t have the funds , everything that person has told me has so far been bang on the money
I agree that there’s a difference in not signed off and no money but I believe the info
Since zabeel I have been sceptical of all investors or prospective owners and this is no different things leak out that is the nature of football some solid info and some shite this is pointing towards solid info at the moment because they have shown me nothing to make the info false
Fair enough point mate, but I would also suggest that most people have no idea how much money the Aussies have or are willing to spend
All the way through this process and all the way through the aussies involvement I was told they don’t have the funds , everything that person has told me has so far been bang on the money
I agree that there’s a difference in not signed off and no money but I believe the info
Since zabeel I have been sceptical of all investors or prospective owners and this is no different things leak out that is the nature of football some solid info and some shite this is pointing towards solid info at the moment because they have shown me nothing to make the info false
Don't have funds to buy the club, run the club steadily or put big money into the club to make a real difference?
I’d assume the fit and proper test only applies to whoever will be the “owners and not to any financial backer/private investor
What protection is there for a private investor without either a charge on the assets (good luck with that) or in our case, more likely equity in the business - so a part 'owner'. Now whether the fit and proper test only applies to the majority shareholder or all shareholders is something I'm not sure about.
I’d assume the fit and proper test only applies to whoever will be the “owners and not to any financial backer/private investor
What protection is there for a private investor without either a charge on the assets (good luck with that) or in our case, more likely equity in the business - so a part 'owner'. Now whether the fit and proper test only applies to the majority shareholder or all shareholders is something I'm not sure about.
I thought the fit and proper person test would only be for the board of directors, not necessarily for the investors (unless they are all to sit on the board). Otherwise any football club that is listed on any stock exchange would have to have the test applied to any new shareholders which would clearly not happen. Without knowing how they are going to be structuring the business it is impossible to know to whom the test needs to be applied.
I’d assume the fit and proper test only applies to whoever will be the “owners and not to any financial backer/private investor
What protection is there for a private investor without either a charge on the assets (good luck with that) or in our case, more likely equity in the business - so a part 'owner'. Now whether the fit and proper test only applies to the majority shareholder or all shareholders is something I'm not sure about.
I thought the fit and proper person test would only be for the board of directors, not necessarily for the investors (unless they are all to sit on the board). Otherwise any football club that is listed on any stock exchange would have to have the test applied to any new shareholders which would clearly not happen. Without knowing how they are going to be structuring the business it is impossible to know to whom the test needs to be applied.
There would be different rules for Plcs versus private companies. The general concept, I would assume, is 'persons with significant control'. In the case of a private company that would be shareholders with more than a certain percentage (generally 25%+). For a Plc it would be executive directors.
I think the fit and proper persons check is a farce and a load of bollox but I am sure they would expect to see the ability to have clear funds
Now if two investors have not committed then there are not clear funds
And there for no fit and proper test would be able to be completed
Mays wage bill will still be picked up by Roland as although a fee in principle has been agreed we have not been sold so it’s his problem
Not necessarily true. They could be additional investors that they wish to have on board to help boost the funding, but not required to prove funds for purchase / general running of the club.
I’d assume the fit and proper test only applies to whoever will be the “owners and not to any financial backer/private investor
What protection is there for a private investor without either a charge on the assets (good luck with that) or in our case, more likely equity in the business - so a part 'owner'. Now whether the fit and proper test only applies to the majority shareholder or all shareholders is something I'm not sure about.
I thought the fit and proper person test would only be for the board of directors, not necessarily for the investors (unless they are all to sit on the board). Otherwise any football club that is listed on any stock exchange would have to have the test applied to any new shareholders which would clearly not happen. Without knowing how they are going to be structuring the business it is impossible to know to whom the test needs to be applied.
There would be different rules for Plcs versus private companies. The general concept, I would assume, is 'persons with significant control'. In the case of a private company that would be shareholders with more than a certain percentage (generally 25%+). For a Plc it would be executive directors.
I think the fit and proper persons check is a farce and a load of bollox but I am sure they would expect to see the ability to have clear funds
Now if two investors have not committed then there are not clear funds
And there for no fit and proper test would be able to be completed
Mays wage bill will still be picked up by Roland as although a fee in principle has been agreed we have not been sold so it’s his problem
But you are assuming that thses two investors have not yet signed off. Whereas nothing has been said that they have signed off, nothing has been said that they have not signed off either.
All the way through this process and all the way through the aussies involvement I was told they don’t have the funds , everything that person has told me has so far been bang on the money
I agree that there’s a difference in not signed off and no money but I believe the info
Since zabeel I have been sceptical of all investors or prospective owners and this is no different things leak out that is the nature of football some solid info and some shite this is pointing towards solid info at the moment because they have shown me nothing to make the info false
Any project that needs to raise capital from a number of investors starts out without any funds. A risky venture like buying football club needs the risk to be spread, which is why you have a consortium.
Just because the funds are raised from a number of different investors who might not be wealthy enough to be an owner outright is not important. The advantage of this approach is that you get as many investors as you need to raise the funds and no one individual is in a position of dictatorial control.
We are entitled to be sceptical in the absence of information that we aren't privy to and can't be privy to at this stage. But we shouldn't be writing them off as cowboys and chancers just because we can't check everything out.
The risks are not that they don't have the purchase money, the risks are that the investors in the consortium are not bound to provide the additional money needed to fund the projected five year budget. In that case they are relying on attracting new investors or the goodwill of existing investors to provide funds they might not have.
That would be my first question put to the new owners so we can set our own personal expectations.
I’d assume the fit and proper test only applies to whoever will be the “owners and not to any financial backer/private investor
What protection is there for a private investor without either a charge on the assets (good luck with that) or in our case, more likely equity in the business - so a part 'owner'. Now whether the fit and proper test only applies to the majority shareholder or all shareholders is something I'm not sure about.
I thought the fit and proper person test would only be for the board of directors, not necessarily for the investors (unless they are all to sit on the board). Otherwise any football club that is listed on any stock exchange would have to have the test applied to any new shareholders which would clearly not happen. Without knowing how they are going to be structuring the business it is impossible to know to whom the test needs to be applied.
‘Relevant Person’ means in respect of any Club any individual Person (and not any Entity) operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the 2006 Act (as a Company limited by shares or by guarantee). Further, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following individuals shall in any event be deemed to qualify as a Relevant Person:
(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act;
(b) a shadow director as defined by Section 251 of the 2006 Act;
(c) a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;
(d) a person for whom a Form AP01 (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been completed in relation to the Club;
(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club;
(f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club;
(g) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act;
(h) any Authorised Signatory; (i) any duly appointed signatory (as that term is utilised in Regulation 44.1);
(j) any 'chief executive' officer, 'general manager', 'chief operating officer' or any other person undertaking any duties which would objectively be considered to be equivalent to those roles;
(k) any person appointed by those with Control over the Club to represent their interests in the management of the Club; and
(l) a person who has Control over the affairs of the Club,
Why has nobody picked up on @JamesSeed revelation that Andy Murray might buy us on his own? So this is the mystery British bid!!
I noticed that. I remember that Andy Murray once came to the Valley for a game in the Premiership I think. If that was enough to convince him to invest then all I can say is WOW!
Cue a host of jokes about Scots taking their time over due diligence. Noooooooooo.
Maybe as suggested by various sources it’s with the EFL and we were waiting for Sunderland’s checks to be completed before they started on ours. As a consortium they’ll need to carry out the fit and proper test on every member. How big is the consortium? No one appears to know. It could take a few weeks for many reasons and not necessarily funding.
Maybe “it’ll go through once we know what league we we’re in next season” was never really the case either.
Sunderland was done and dusted two days ago, the new owner is talking to possible new managers now.
Exactly, the EFL work on their takeover has only recently been completed.
I would love to be proved wrong and eat a large slice of humble pie but I doubt the EFL have any info on who is buying us because nothing has been lodged.
If something had been lodged it would have been leaked and reported.
All the way through this process and all the way through the aussies involvement I was told they don’t have the funds , everything that person has told me has so far been bang on the money
I agree that there’s a difference in not signed off and no money but I believe the info
Since zabeel I have been sceptical of all investors or prospective owners and this is no different things leak out that is the nature of football some solid info and some shite this is pointing towards solid info at the moment because they have shown me nothing to make the info false
Fair enough point mate, but I would also suggest that most people have no idea how much money the Aussies have or are willing to spend
They have enough to have spend £1m so far over nearly two years.
as has been said by lots of peeps if RD appoints the CEO/CFO then the deal is off, assuming it was ever "on".We will see a fire sale and a couple of has beens in and our slide will go on. RD will go for some sort of sale of the carp park area at The Valley and go in hard ---offer LB Greenwich "affordable housing" blah blah.
as has been said by lots of peeps if RD appoints the CEO/CFO then the deal is off, assuming it was ever "on".We will see a fire sale and a couple of has beens in and our slide will go on. RD will go for some sort of sale of the carp park area at The Valley and go in hard ---offer LB Greenwich "affordable housing" blah blah.
sick to fecking death with it all.
I feel this is what will happen.
please dont be right ..and if @sethplum, that was a deliberate fish pun i am ashamed of you
as has been said by lots of peeps if RD appoints the CEO/CFO then the deal is off, assuming it was ever "on".We will see a fire sale and a couple of has beens in and our slide will go on. RD will go for some sort of sale of the carp park area at The Valley and go in hard ---offer LB Greenwich "affordable housing" blah blah.
sick to fecking death with it all.
I feel this is what will happen.
please dont be right ..and if @sethplum, that was a deliberate fish pun i am ashamed of you
If I inadvertently wrote a fish pun I didn't intend to (nor do I see it reading back). What I do know is that Duchatelet has sucked the marrow of hope from my very bones and if he continues all I want is to find a manageable way to make his life hell. Petty, but there it is.
as has been said by lots of peeps if RD appoints the CEO/CFO then the deal is off, assuming it was ever "on".We will see a fire sale and a couple of has beens in and our slide will go on. RD will go for some sort of sale of the carp park area at The Valley and go in hard ---offer LB Greenwich "affordable housing" blah blah.
sick to fecking death with it all.
I feel this is what will happen.
please dont be right ..and if @sethplum, that was a deliberate fish pun i am ashamed of you
If I inadvertently wrote a fish pun I didn't intend to (nor do I see it reading back). What I do know is that Duchatelet has sucked the marrow of hope from my very bones and if he continues all I want is to find a manageable way to make his life hell. Petty, but there it is.
Comments
Now if two investors have not committed then there are not clear funds
And there for no fit and proper test would be able to be completed
Mays wage bill will still be picked up by Roland as although a fee in principle has been agreed we have not been sold so it’s his problem
Just because the funds are raised from a number of different investors who might not be wealthy enough to be an owner outright is not important. The advantage of this approach is that you get as many investors as you need to raise the funds and no one individual is in a position of dictatorial control.
We are entitled to be sceptical in the absence of information that we aren't privy to and can't be privy to at this stage. But we shouldn't be writing them off as cowboys and chancers just because we can't check everything out.
The risks are not that they don't have the purchase money, the risks are that the investors in the consortium are not bound to provide the additional money needed to fund the projected five year budget. In that case they are relying on attracting new investors or the goodwill of existing investors to provide funds they might not have.
That would be my first question put to the new owners so we can set our own personal expectations.
(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act;
(b) a shadow director as defined by Section 251 of the 2006 Act;
(c) a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;
(d) a person for whom a Form AP01 (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been completed in relation to the Club;
(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club;
(f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club;
(g) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act;
(h) any Authorised Signatory; (i) any duly appointed signatory (as that term is utilised in Regulation 44.1);
(j) any 'chief executive' officer, 'general manager', 'chief operating officer' or any other person undertaking any duties which would objectively be considered to be equivalent to those roles;
(k) any person appointed by those with Control over the Club to represent their interests in the management of the Club; and
(l) a person who has Control over the affairs of the Club,
Chill out folks.
Lunch over. Back on the bike.
What I do know is that Duchatelet has sucked the marrow of hope from my very bones and if he continues all I want is to find a manageable way to make his life hell.
Petty, but there it is.