|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 4, 2016 19:46:23 GMT
I guess if you are a shareholder with a vote on the issue it directly effects you.
If an ex director who wasn't universally popular is set to make money out of the club in what may not be a great deal for the club then it's of interest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 20:26:38 GMT
I guess if you are a shareholder with a vote on the issue it directly effects you. If an ex director who wasn't universally popular is set to make money out of the club in what may not be a great deal for the club then it's of interest. I guess the new owners can always vote against the resolution but if the property is now a ransom strip for future development then they might just bite the bullet and agree to the resolution. The alternative might be that the owner of that property might demand an even higher ransom. It's a shame that the previous owners of the club didn't buy the property for the club rather than for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 4, 2016 22:03:39 GMT
I guess if you are a shareholder with a vote on the issue it directly effects you. If an ex director who wasn't universally popular is set to make money out of the club in what may not be a great deal for the club then it's of interest. I guess the new owners can always vote against the resolution but if the property is now a ransom strip for future development then they might just bite the bullet and agree to the resolution. The alternative might be that the owner of that property might demand an even higher ransom. It's a shame that the previous owners of the club didn't buy the property for the club rather than for themselves. Imagine which posters would be first to complain if NH had taken out another wonga loan of £500K at 14.4% to buy the property, assuming they'd lend us more money? Given the AGM has been delayed a week I wonder if that will give sufficient time for the Appeal decision to be announced and we won't need to worry about buying the property anyway?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 12:19:11 GMT
I guess the new owners can always vote against the resolution but if the property is now a ransom strip for future development then they might just bite the bullet and agree to the resolution. The alternative might be that the owner of that property might demand an even higher ransom. It's a shame that the previous owners of the club didn't buy the property for the club rather than for themselves. Imagine which posters would be first to complain if NH had taken out another wonga loan of £500K at 14.4% to buy the property, assuming they'd lend us more money? Given the AGM has been delayed a week I wonder if that will give sufficient time for the Appeal decision to be announced and we won't need to worry about buying the property anyway? Between the wealth of the board they could have funded the purchase without demanding a profit if they had wanted to. I thought it was one of the boasts of the owners that they never made a penny out of BRFC. That property could still be used as a ransom strip and the new owners might be forced to agree to the resolution as without it the current owner (Ware?) could demand even more without it.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 6, 2016 16:40:17 GMT
Imagine which posters would be first to complain if NH had taken out another wonga loan of £500K at 14.4% to buy the property, assuming they'd lend us more money? Given the AGM has been delayed a week I wonder if that will give sufficient time for the Appeal decision to be announced and we won't need to worry about buying the property anyway? Between the wealth of the board they could have funded the purchase without demanding a profit if they had wanted to. I thought it was one of the boasts of the owners that they never made a penny out of BRFC. That property could still be used as a ransom strip and the new owners might be forced to agree to the resolution as without it the current owner (Ware?) could demand even more without it. What's odd about this is that the property wasn't bought, or at least registered with the Land Registry, until Jan 2016 at which point negotiations with the new owners must have been well under way, why did the club agree to pay EW £125K as a retainer, then another £125K above the selling price if it wasn't just an attempt to take £250K from the club/the new owners and past it straight to EW? Will EW attend the AGM now he's a former Director (& shareholder?), if so, it'll be intresting to see what his (or TW on his behalf?) explanation is for this deal/motion?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 16, 2016 10:45:08 GMT
I raised the question of Resolution 9 when it was about to be voted on.
I explained that I could not fathom out it's meaning and required clarification before the vote took place.
TW answered my points and his answer gave a full explanation of what was "intended" by the Resolution which he confirmed was drawn up by lawyers and not from anyone connected with BRFC.
It appears that Sainsbury had agreed to pay £520k for the property to complete that part of the contract for The Mem. The owner of the property was paid £395k and in addition an amount of £125k was to be paid to her AND NOT to Edward Ware. I pointed out that the wording of the Resolution made no mention of these two points and someone asked "was the Resolution drafted by the lawyers who drew up the Sainsbury Contract?"
So it appears that Sainsbury were happy to pay £520k for a property with a market value of £395. I say fair play to the owner of the property who managed to squeeze that amount of money from Sainsbury.
So it appears that should we lose the Court case tomorrow, EW will be left with a property which Sainsbury no longer need. BRFC have paid an option fee of £125k to the original owner, not to EW, so we have incurred a lose there.
It was clear that the resolution would be passed by the "top tables votes" if the attending shareholders rejected the motion. The vote was called for, hands were raised to accept it but many, including myself, abstained from voting. The resolution was "passed".
I'm glad that we managed to get clarity on what we were being asked to vote on. All I can say is Lawyers can make the most simple clauses mean something totally different to what it appears to say.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Mar 16, 2016 10:53:43 GMT
What annoys me is that the reality is we (the club) are still doing the paying. Sainsburys, assuming they lose the case, will pay over the total of approx £28m or whatever the agreed figure was. That means that £520,000 will come out of that figure, which effectively means the club are paying it.
Just glad the former incumbents are exactly that. 'Former incumbents'.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 16, 2016 11:00:51 GMT
What annoys me is that the reality is we (the club) are still doing the paying. Sainsburys, assuming they lose the case, will pay over the total of approx £28m or whatever the agreed figure was. That means that £520,000 will come out of that figure, which effectively means the club are paying it. Just glad the former incumbents are exactly that. 'Former incumbents'. IANAL, but if Sainsbury's lose tomorrow they'll be liable to compensate for our expenses, and that will be a legit expense, istm.
|
|
|
Post by gastropod on Mar 16, 2016 11:05:41 GMT
So the innuendo that Board members were making money out of BRFC through the sale of this property was false.
|
|
|
Post by gassince1957 on Mar 16, 2016 11:10:37 GMT
So the innuendo that Board members were making money out of BRFC through the sale of this property was false. "I wondered who'd be the first to notice"
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 16, 2016 11:34:23 GMT
So the innuendo that Board members were making money out of BRFC through the sale of this property was false. I wanted an explanation of the Resolution as it was unclear why any amount in excess £395k, plus Stamp Duty and legal fees were being agreed too.
Had the resolution mentioned that Sainsbury and not the current owner of the property had agreed to a price of £525k, the matter would not have been raised.
I can assure anyone that there were a few Shareholders who put their hands up to question the resolution but as I stood up, my points were heard.
It will be interesting to know the outcome of tomorrows appeal as I believe that the adjoining property, which formed part of the Contract to buy The Mem, is owned by an ex Director and he could also be "lumbered" with a property which Sainsbury will not be buying.
My other question I was going to ask was "did anyone get a finders fee" for introducing the new owners to BRFC. I had no problem if a fee was paid but just wanted to know if one had been paid. I was told before the meeting that no such fee was paid so I did not ask the question.
PS - I had already warned the new Chairman that questions would be asked about the resolution as it was unfair to ask him about something he had no direct involvement in. In the end TW answered the question.
|
|
|
Post by Mancgas has left the building on Mar 16, 2016 11:49:21 GMT
I've known Ed Ware since he was a school boy attending games at Twerton, and gave him odd clip around the ear for being an arse.
Shame some felt it necessary to make 2+2 equal 23,896 but that's what happens when the Club hide behind confidentiality and that's the main change I've seen between new owners and old, they really know what is confidential and what can be said without lying or breaching confidentiality. Accordingly less rumors and suspicions will arise
People mention due dilligence as if its an exact science and deals with every thing.
As my ex-boss once said in due dilligence you get to see the bodies lying on top of the patio and not the ones lying underneath the slabs. But any resulting sale contract has penalty clauses for failure to make best, reasonable or material disclosures.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 11:49:31 GMT
It is always nice and refreshing when someone who has tarred somebody else with the wrong brush is big enough to admit that he was barking up the wrong tree and apologises for doing so. Furthermore,those who stir the pot should lick the spoon!!
Over to you severncider....
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Mar 16, 2016 11:49:56 GMT
is it a way of getting around property purchase tax?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 16, 2016 11:54:44 GMT
What annoys me is that the reality is we (the club) are still doing the paying. Sainsburys, assuming they lose the case, will pay over the total of approx £28m or whatever the agreed figure was. That means that £520,000 will come out of that figure, which effectively means the club are paying it. Just glad the former incumbents are exactly that. 'Former incumbents'. Perhaps the rumoured offer of £1.5m NH turned down before the original trial was a contribution towards costs like this the club had incurred? If the present owners do intend selling the Mem for development then perhaps they will eventually recover the costs of buying no 31 etc as i assume owning those properties may boost the land value/access to the site?
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Mar 16, 2016 22:16:20 GMT
Posted by zulugas on the other forum. _______________________________________________ Just for clarification, the £125,000 paid to the owner of 31 Filton avenue was for the OPTION to purchase the property. This was all part of the original agreement with Shamesburys who would also purchase no 29 & 27 in order to create sufficient access and turning circle for the site. This was of course all subject to timescale of the project going ahead. However when Trash put their two pence worth in and then Shamesburys started to stall the owner of no 31 said enough is enough, either buy my property at the agreed price £395k + £125K (for the option) or i will sell to someone else. Ed Ware stepped in to raise a mortgage on the property and buy it on the understanding that Shamesburys would cover the cost when completing the contact. As we all know Shameburys have then p*ssed us about endlessly and we find out the result of the appeal tomorrow. The vote was for the club to cover the obligation of £125k to an ex-director. should we win the case it will be covered by Shamesburys under the contract. ______________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Mar 16, 2016 22:30:54 GMT
I think Severncider was implying on various social media sites (here and gas list for sure) that there was something underhand going and Ed Ware was going to profit greatly from this situation. I am glad it has been resolved but I think Ed deserves an apology?
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Mar 17, 2016 7:55:18 GMT
I think Severncider was implying on various social media sites (here and gas list for sure) that there was something underhand going and Ed Ware was going to profit greatly from this situation. I am glad it has been resolved but I think Ed deserves an apology? Can I say in Severciders defence, I think with the wording of the resolution and the information publicly available it was very easy to come to the that conclusion. I only ever saw Severncider setting out the facts and asking for clarification. If the club or someone itk had given this clarification earlier it would have brought this whole episode to an end weeks ago. I think it is important that people feel they are able to question things that they feel are not correct. To me it just highlights to importance of good clear communication.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 17, 2016 8:02:14 GMT
I think Severncider was implying on various social media sites (here and gas list for sure) that there was something underhand going and Ed Ware was going to profit greatly from this situation. I am glad it has been resolved but I think Ed deserves an apology? Can I say in Severciders defence, I think with the wording of the resolution and the information publicly available it was very easy to come to the that conclusion. I only ever saw Severncider setting out the facts and asking for clarification. If the club or someone itk had given this clarification earlier it would have brought this whole episode to an end weeks ago. I think it is important that people feel they are able to question things that they feel are not correct. To me it just highlights to importance of good clear communication. Yep, you don't want to get to the stage where people are frightened to question the club/raise stuff they're concerned about coz they'll get piled-on for getting it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 17, 2016 8:34:04 GMT
I think Severncider was implying on various social media sites (here and gas list for sure) that there was something underhand going and Ed Ware was going to profit greatly from this situation. I am glad it has been resolved but I think Ed deserves an apology? Can I say in Severciders defence, I think with the wording of the resolution and the information publicly available it was very easy to come to the that conclusion. I only ever saw Severncider setting out the facts and asking for clarification. If the club or someone itk had given this clarification earlier it would have brought this whole episode to an end weeks ago. I think it is important that people feel they are able to question things that they feel are not correct. To me it just highlights to importance of good clear communication. Good post.
|
|