|
Post by Severncider on Mar 3, 2016 10:41:14 GMT
I think most Shareholders and probably supporters are aware of Resolution 9 to be voted on at the AGM.
The Shareholders are being requested to approve that BRFC pay the owner of 31 Filton Avenue (Edward Ware) £525,000 plus an option fee of £125,000.
31 Filton Avenue formed part of the Contract with Sainsbury in that it was owned, or had an option to buy, by BRFC and was need to widen the entrance into the site for delivery lorries.
Land registry now shows that this property was registered on 16/01/2016 as having been sold for £395,000 Sale Price
So my question is, why are BRFC being asked to pay £650,000 for a property that was only brought for £395,000?
I accept there is Stamp Duty of £9,750 plus legal fees but surely the maximum outlay must have been no more than £410,000.
That is effectively a 50% profit for a few months outlay.
The whole purpose of this message is to get this information into the Shareholders domain before they vote, if they cannot attend the AGM.
It could well be that for legal reasons we have no alternative other to vote this Resolution through, but it will grieve me greatly if I have to agree to this.
One last point, where the new owners aware of this matter or made aware of this by the old Board?
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 3, 2016 10:50:57 GMT
So (just to clarify, and since you've not said it I probably can and not get sued), we will be paying an ex-director a £250,000 goodbye bonus to buy a property he didn't need to buy and a property we no longer need to buy...?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 3, 2016 10:54:53 GMT
So (just to clarify, and since you've not said it I probably can and not get sued), we will be paying an ex-director a £250,000 goodbye bonus to buy a property he didn't need to buy and a property we no longer need to buy...?
It was part of the Contract with Sainsbury that we owned or had an option to buy the property, it appears that he only brought the property recently.
If Sainsbury lose the Court case then as part of the Contract to buy The Mem, it must include 31 Filton Avenue.
As regards your first point, what do you expect me to say.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 3, 2016 10:57:52 GMT
So (just to clarify, and since you've not said it I probably can and not get sued), we will be paying an ex-director a £250,000 goodbye bonus to buy a property he didn't need to buy and a property we no longer need to buy...?
It was part of the Contract with Sainsbury that we owned or had an option to buy the property.
If Sainsbury lose the Court case then as part of the Contract to buy The Mem, it must include 31 Filton Avenue.
As regards your first point, what do you expect me to say.
I assume when he bought it he signed an option for us to buy it from him.....can't imagine it was for £250,000 above market price, but hey ho.... The funniest thing would be if we win the court-case and then can sell it to them for £250,000 above market price.... Also, you don't need to say anything (for legal reasons)
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 3, 2016 11:02:03 GMT
It was part of the Contract with Sainsbury that we owned or had an option to buy the property.
If Sainsbury lose the Court case then as part of the Contract to buy The Mem, it must include 31 Filton Avenue.
As regards your first point, what do you expect me to say.
I assume when he bought it he signed an option for us to buy it from him.....can't imagine it was for £250,000 above market price, but hey ho.... The funniest thing would be if we win the court-case and then can sell it to them for £250,000 above market price.... Also, you don't need to say anything (for legal reasons) Don't worry, I am sticking to the facts as I see them.
I am only asking for clarification of what I believe to be the case.
I could be wrong in interpreting the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 3, 2016 11:04:00 GMT
I never wanted EW anywhere near our club so couldn't be happier he's gone.
Hopefully he won't profit further from our club.
Thanks for raising this.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Mar 3, 2016 11:09:50 GMT
I assume when he bought it he signed an option for us to buy it from him.....can't imagine it was for £250,000 above market price, but hey ho.... The funniest thing would be if we win the court-case and then can sell it to them for £250,000 above market price.... Also, you don't need to say anything (for legal reasons) Don't worry, I am sticking to the facts as I see them.
I am only asking for clarification of what I believe to be the case.
I could be wrong in interpreting the facts.
Good luck getting clarification, it's a hangover from the previous incumbents that you'll never know exactly what is going on or why....in fairness, it's the same thing that happens all the time in this game and I can remember examples from clubs like Swansea, Cardiff and even Forest Green, Crawley, Fleetwood (or at least similar clubs who were taken over at similar times...) It's basically a new broom that's really expensive...still, everyone loves a new broom
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 3, 2016 11:11:00 GMT
Hasn't you already raised this recently? Given that 92% of the shares are owned by the new owners then does it really matter what we think, as surely it's down to them to decide if it should be approved, and they have the full facts not just limited info?
Whether it's actually ever bought off EW and, if so, the bonus paid is surely another matter, even if it is voted though?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 3, 2016 11:15:19 GMT
Hasn't you already raised this recently? Given that 92% of the shares are owned by the new owners then does it really matter what we think, as surely it's down to them to decide if it should be approved, and they have the full facts not just limited info?
Whether it's actually ever bought off EW and, if so, the bonus paid is surely another matter, even if it is voted though? I would like to think that was the case but will ask at the AGM.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 3, 2016 11:51:07 GMT
Apparently NH asked the supporters club to help fund this purchase. They agreed with the proviso that they would have first charge on the property to ensure they got their money back. This was declined so EW then bought the property.
So my question is, if the supporters club could not ensure they would get their money back, why was EW allowed to put such a ridiculous option in place together with a bloody ridiculous sale price attached.
One for the boys on the face of it. Thank god we have now rid ourselves of that motley crew that used to run this great club of ours.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 3, 2016 11:55:10 GMT
Hasn't you already raised this recently? Given that 92% of the shares are owned by the new owners then does it really matter what we think, as surely it's down to them to decide if it should be approved, and they have the full facts not just limited info? Whether it's actually ever bought off EW and, if so, the bonus paid is surely another matter, even if it is voted though? Going by what Wael Al Qadi said to me, they were obviously not aware of all the facts. I dont know, but would suggest, that a provisional contract has now been drafted, and that would include all the details relevant to the site. That would obviously contain all the irritating detail that may not have been passed on by our previous owners.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 3, 2016 13:13:57 GMT
I would have thought "Due Dilgence" would have picked that up, then again who knows what was passed on?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 3, 2016 13:20:38 GMT
If it hasn't been approved yet, then how could they have found out? The easiest way to deal with it, if they don't think it's right, is to not approve it. Job done.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 3, 2016 13:28:36 GMT
If it hasn't been approved yet, then how could they have found out? The easiest way to deal with it, if they don't think it's right, is to not approve it. Job done. It has only come to light, as far as I am concerned, by the Resolution we are being asked to vote on, I was not aware of this before receiving the notice of the AGM.
As has already been mentioned, it appears that the new owners were also unaware.
The question of due diligence is interesting and may have been missed by the new owners, it that is the case, what other "hidden" items are they going to unearth?
When I sold a property, I only answered the questions that the buyers solicitor asked, I did not proffer any additional information.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 3, 2016 13:31:52 GMT
If it hasn't been approved yet, then how could they have found out? The easiest way to deal with it, if they don't think it's right, is to not approve it. Job done. It has only come to light, as far as I am concerned, by the Resolution we are being asked to vote on, I was not aware of this before receiving the notice of the AGM.
As has already been mentioned, it appears that the new owners were also unaware.
The question of due diligence is interesting and may have been missed by the new owners, it that is the case, what other "hidden" items are they going to unearth?
When I sold a property, I only answered the questions that the buyers solicitor asked, I did not proffer any additional information.
Sure, but my point is, if it hasn't been passed yet, then it isn't a liability yet, therefore there's no way they could/should/would have known about it, and they don't need to have known about it coz, presumably, they can just vote not to pay it.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 3, 2016 13:32:20 GMT
surely the new board can just not vote for the resolution.
I doubt now the previous board are no longer there we won't find out what the case was.
Perhaps Ed Ware can sell it on the open market now
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Mar 3, 2016 14:02:08 GMT
After careful & due consideration and not being a shareholder I have resolved to neither vote for or against this resolution. However I'm still undecided on all the other resolutions.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 3, 2016 14:03:41 GMT
surely the new board can just not vote for the resolution. I doubt now the previous board are no longer there we won't find out what the case was. Perhaps Ed Ware can sell it on the open market now Problem is if they vote "no" it kills the Sainsbury's plans and if we then win the Appeal could give Sainsbury's a chance to get out of paying full damages? Although if they vote "yes" it doesn't mean they have to porceed with the purchase? I think the OP's making more of this than is really the case.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 3, 2016 14:10:36 GMT
surely the new board can just not vote for the resolution. I doubt now the previous board are no longer there we won't find out what the case was. Perhaps Ed Ware can sell it on the open market now Problem is if they vote "no" it kills the Sainsbury's plans and if we then win the Appeal could give Sainsbury's a chance to get out of paying full damages? Although if they vote "yes" it doesn't mean they have to porceed with the purchase? I think the OP's making more of this than is really the case. I am only posing a question and I only have one vote.
It is for the other shareholders to vote how they want too, after a discussion about the Resolution.
In the long run it could well be the case that we will have to vote in favour of it, as we are not aware of the alternatives and other legal requirements.
I will still feel unhappy that an ex director is ........ BRFC. Just think how many 50/50 tickets have to be sold to make up the figure.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 3, 2016 14:13:36 GMT
Problem is if they vote "no" it kills the Sainsbury's plans and if we then win the Appeal could give Sainsbury's a chance to get out of paying full damages? Although if they vote "yes" it doesn't mean they have to porceed with the purchase? I think the OP's making more of this than is really the case. I am only posing a question and I only have one vote.
It is for the other shareholders to vote how they want too, after a discussion about the Resolution.
In the long run it could well be the case that we will have to vote in favour of it, as we are not aware of the alternatives and other legal requirements.
I will still feel unhappy that an ex director is ........ BRFC. Just think how many 50/50 tickets have to be sold to make up the figure.
With you on that.
I still don't understand why it can't be sold to Rovers at Market value (as a dwelling) or at the price Ed paid for it to BRFC
|
|