|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Mar 5, 2015 9:22:42 GMT
Yes, of course, because they incurred the debts under their stewardship. They decide the budget, they know how much shortfall they are going to get, and therefore they are obliged to cover it. As a limited company, no they are not I'm talking morally, not legally. Obviously.
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Mar 5, 2015 9:42:30 GMT
Thank you for your reply which i appreciate.
I'm no board basher if thats what they're called now, i'm also no rose tinter, but i am a little concerned if i'm honest.
I appreciate confidentiality plays a part here and respect that. But as we all know - what we don't understand, we worry about. In fairness i believe Mr Higgs has done his best and for the best reasons as all the board have. Unfortunately their record along the way does not reflect their passion and i mean that respectfully.
One thing i don't really understand (maybe others do) is Mr Dunford stepping down and in effect "Cashing his chips in" just leading up to one of the biggest moments in our history, i'm no conspiracy theorist, but i find it odd.
Good debate by the way.
|
|
|
Post by 2nd May 1990 on Mar 5, 2015 10:23:43 GMT
Thank you for your reply which i appreciate. I'm no board basher if thats what they're called now, i'm also no rose tinter, but i am a little concerned if i'm honest. I appreciate confidentiality plays a part here and respect that. But as we all know - what we don't understand, we worry about. In fairness i believe Mr Higgs has done his best and for the best reasons as all the board have. Unfortunately their record along the way does not reflect their passion and i mean that respectfully. One thing i don't really understand (maybe others do) is Mr Dunford stepping down and in effect "Cashing his chips in" just leading up to one of the biggest moments in our history, i'm no conspiracy theorist, but i find it odd. Good debate by the way. Has he cashed his chips in, though? I know he's having his loans repaid but I thought he still had his shares in the club?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 5, 2015 11:38:04 GMT
Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758.
My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014.
Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these.
These figures taken from the recently published accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 11:48:22 GMT
Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts. Thanks for that, a bit of clarity
|
|
|
Post by lincsblue on Mar 5, 2015 13:22:31 GMT
If Sainsbury lose the case, they can not appeal just because they don't like the judgement. Their legal team has to submit genuine legal reasons as to why they believe the verdict was not legally correct. TrasH managed to submit and then drag out a JR just because they didn't like a decision made by elected representatives, and they were a bunch of local lunatics...Sainsbury's do this all the time, and if the board can't see the legal delays going past March/April 2016 then they're deluded. Sainsbury's know each time they go past March in any given year the cost of the delay to the club increases by one season (and therefore millions of pounds)...this of course means any 'out-of-court' settlement will likely be much more likely to be agreed (as well as being much cheaper for them) if it's negotiated post March 2016 rather than pre March 2016... This isn't a JR though, the rules for an appeal are completely different
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 5, 2015 13:45:03 GMT
TrasH managed to submit and then drag out a JR just because they didn't like a decision made by elected representatives, and they were a bunch of local lunatics...Sainsbury's do this all the time, and if the board can't see the legal delays going past March/April 2016 then they're deluded. Sainsbury's know each time they go past March in any given year the cost of the delay to the club increases by one season (and therefore millions of pounds)...this of course means any 'out-of-court' settlement will likely be much more likely to be agreed (as well as being much cheaper for them) if it's negotiated post March 2016 rather than pre March 2016... This isn't a JR though, the rules for an appeal are completely different At the AGM, the Directors said that they had received no offer from Sainsbury to settle this case and any offer would be reused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 14:42:48 GMT
If the contract states that the money Sainsburys pay to buy the Mem can only be used for the construction cost of the UWE Stadium where will the money come from to pay off the 2.7 million MSP Capital loan ? It is only ring fenced if paid in full,Neil,if it is compensation then it can be used for anything
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 14:45:59 GMT
I thought it was common knowledge that a Director had resigned due to health problems, and that whenever a Director left the club any loans he/she had outstanding were paid up? I don't think anybody demanded anything, which you are well aware of. So why do you persist in writing this nonsense? Let's not look at the facts eh? Did GD say he resigned for health reasons? You know full well that his family wanted him to resign due to his health problems a while before,as GD stated in his resignation publication,perhaps you should look at resurrecting your defunct gas trust
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Mar 5, 2015 15:15:33 GMT
Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts. Thanks Severncider. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs so rely on good information to help explain things. Appreciated. It still seems a little odd that at a time we need every penny to fight Sainsbury's one of our long serving directors asks for a loan to be repaid. I'm not judging by the way - just enquiring.
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Mar 5, 2015 15:21:58 GMT
This isn't a JR though, the rules for an appeal are completely different At the AGM, the Directors said that they had received no offer from Sainsbury to settle this case and any offer would be reused. Sorry, one more question SC, could you confirm whether your average supporter (non-shareholder) was allowed into the Q & A after the AGM on Tuesday evening. I have received mixed answers to this and would like it clarified, as i'm sure i'm not the only one that has been a little disappointed there has been no follow up Q & A as promised at the last one (open to all) back in August. Again, i'm not board bashing, just respectfully asking. thanks in advance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 15:22:31 GMT
Did GD say he resigned for health reasons? You know full well that his family wanted him to resign due to his health problems a while before,as GD stated in his resignation publication,perhaps you should look at resurrecting your defunct gas trust I was told, 2nd hand of some ill health, I have also been told that GD has stated he is fine. I dont know anymore than that. But I was not aware that he said he resigned for health reasons. On another note I was never a member of trust.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Mar 5, 2015 16:15:28 GMT
At the AGM, the Directors said that they had received no offer from Sainsbury to settle this case and any offer would be reused. I assume you mean refused and not re-used!? Was this point put as bluntly as you suggest?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 5, 2015 17:14:24 GMT
At the AGM, the Directors said that they had received no offer from Sainsbury to settle this case and any offer would be reused. Sorry, one more question SC, could you confirm whether your average supporter (non-shareholder) was allowed into the Q & A after the AGM on Tuesday evening. I have received mixed answers to this and would like it clarified, as i'm sure i'm not the only one that has been a little disappointed there has been no follow up Q & A as promised at the last one (open to all) back in August. Again, i'm not board bashing, just respectfully asking. thanks in advance I was always under the impression that non shareholders could go to the Q & A, but have now been informed that this is not the case, it was a Q & A for shareholders only.
There was no restriction on any questions, you could ask what you wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 5, 2015 17:17:09 GMT
Deltavon Developments Ltd had loans outstanding of £677,054 as at 30/06/2014 of which £200,00 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff Dunford had a loan of £143,066 outstanding as at 30/06/2014. So there are loans still outstanding of £620,120 as of now. There were also one year bonds outstanding, as at 30/06/2014, G Dunford £51,134, Barrs Court £147,983 and Deltavon £102,758. My understanding is that just £200,000 was repaid on 05/12/2014. Geoff owned 1,218,221 shares at 30/06/2014 and as far as I am aware continues to own these. These figures taken from the recently published accounts. Thanks Severncider. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs so rely on good information to help explain things. Appreciated. It still seems a little odd that at a time we need every penny to fight Sainsbury's one of our long serving directors asks for a loan to be repaid. I'm not judging by the way - just enquiring. I believe it is in the Constitution that Directors who resign/retire are entitled to have all their loans returned. GD only wanted £200k at the time realising that a full refund would cause immense hardship to the club.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 5, 2015 17:23:35 GMT
At the AGM, the Directors said that they had received no offer from Sainsbury to settle this case and any offer would be reused. I assume you mean refused and not re-used!? Was this point put as bluntly as you suggest? Yes, a typing error, it should have been refused.
Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 5, 2015 17:30:04 GMT
I assume you mean refused and not re-used!? Was this point put as bluntly as you suggest? Yes, a typing error, it should have been refused.
Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case.
So it was the usual bullish bravado 'Watertight' etc etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 17:34:33 GMT
Yes, a typing error, it should have been refused.
Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case.
So it was the usual bullish bravado 'Watertight' etc etc In the interest of balance its only fair to say that so far Watertight has proven not to be bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 5, 2015 17:36:26 GMT
Yes, a typing error, it should have been refused.
Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case.
So it was the usual bullish bravado 'Watertight' etc etc Why do you twist every statement.
Tell me where I have suggested that the contract was not watertight? It is going to cost money to launch this appeal, we have to raise that money somewhere, are you prepared to fund it?
I cannot see the Directors agreeing to take out a loan if they were not confident they can win this action. It was suggested at the AGM that Sainsbury's legal team are not 100% confident but some of the senior executives at Sainsbury do not want to back down. Perhaps their legal team may make them see sense.
|
|
|
Post by RD on Mar 5, 2015 17:37:58 GMT
Yes, a typing error, it should have been refused.
Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case.
So it was the usual bullish bravado 'Watertight' etc etc For all we know it is watertight.
|
|