Search results

Well why don't you get the fencepost out of your bum (or whatever the quote was from the American President) and say who you're supporting Stuart.

Not One Penny More!

As part of the debt is to them I would have thought putting a bid in is worth their while, even if it is purely speculative. They would then have to be kept appraised of the situation including any sale particulars etc.

The only bits of that text that are from the Administrators report are in quotation marks, that last bit isn't and is not part of the report. Only the bolded bits are taken from the report, the underlined bits are the Journalists words;

Yeah but the worrying question is when it happened even if it was done with blessing from the league. If it was after the end of the season then we'd probably be alright but if it was before, then we fielded players that potentially had a third party owner in Holdings. :facepalm:

So based on this I'm worried that the GS was in a different place to the Registrations and we'll be hauled over the coals for this.

Tha may well be true but it doesn't change what that bloke wrote which may have been in addition to all of that.

You're not suggesting that SISU didn't do enough homework before setting out on their little adventure are you? Don't think we would ever have been homeless though fairly certain that we had something in the sale details of Highfield Road allowing us to buy it back should the Ricoh not have been...

Finally! **

Yeah respect where it's due PWKH doesn't have to come on here and post, and I applaud him for doing so. I also can't see why he would lie about things as it would eventually come out and he'd lose credibility in the eyes of many on here. Now as I see it Uncle Tim isn't so bothered about the odd...

Heads of terms is defined here. As I understand it this is non binding and not a legal sale agreement. What Uncle Tim claimed as I read it was something different that would have been binding. He'll be able to show us that though to prove it.

I do wonder if anyone ever thought it was a good idea to vet what Tim plans to say before he is let loose in the media spotlight.

Well first time in a while SISU/Holdings have said something that lawyers haven't immediately retracted and reissued with changes.

As Tim made the claim it would be up to him to prove it existed in a court of law.

They could but then they didn't make the claim and it would be up to Tim in a court of law to prove it existed, not ACL or the Council.

No worries, probably deserved its own thread anyway given the severity of the claim by TF.

He is not me!

As I posted in the other thread:

Point 9 Okay so just show us the signed document Tim, as that would prove the council are liars as you claim. No need to talk about handshakes that have been misinterpreted or who said what to whom. Just show us the document, you can can't you?

It's defamation not deformation but don't worry the Guardian newspaper made the same mistake in an article about that subject, so it's an easy mistake to make apparently. Yes they could easily take him to court however when he's made similar inaccuracies in the past they've not done so. PWKH...