RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Re. The timing of Bob releasing these, is it because there is a late night parliamentary debate soon.....or has that already been done?
I think it matters.
Who is feeding Bob and leaking documents? What's his interest?
Correct, SISU obviously not disclosed documents otherwise why would their lawyers write the letter of 22 March to the Football League? They have blatantly lied to the FL and Administrators
Re. The timing of Bob releasing these, is it because there is a late night parliamentary debate soon.....or has that already been done?
Would there be anyone still at the club and would have access to this kind of thing who is not in someway tied to SISU? If there's not and it's someone no longer there it makes me wonder why they felt the need to retain copies, the only reason I can think of is that they suspected something wasn't quite right long before we went into administration.
Would there be anyone still at the club and would have access to this kind of thing who is not in someway tied to SISU? If there's not and it's someone no longer there it makes me wonder why they felt the need to retain copies, the only reason I can think of is that they suspected something wasn't quite right long before we went into administration.
Would there be anyone still at the club and would have access to this kind of thing who is not in someway tied to SISU? If there's not and it's someone no longer there it makes me wonder why they felt the need to retain copies, the only reason I can think of is that they suspected something wasn't quite right long before we went into administration.
I dunno.
More prosaically, I have employment contracts and minutes of meetings I've been in lying around from a decade past... mainly because I horde and am lazy, so tend not to throw things out!
I've got some records dating back to the late 70's.. yet I do chuck unimportant stuff out from time to time.
Still, interesting to know what we paid for Julian Darby and the fact that the Premier League Golden Share looks like it was made on 123certificates.com
tomorrow i believe 4-4.30pm. makes you wonder if he has anything else to add using parliamentary privileges? exciting isn't it.
Found it, it's not what we paid, more what we valued him at then.
Jamie Barnwell-Edinboro was valued at £300k too, it appears!
Some of the valuations are, especially with the benefit of hindsight(!) optimistic in the extreme!
I was looking at the Higgs loan thing, admittedly I didn't understand all of it, but it seemed we were loaned £5.7m to buy players. Could be wrong.
Wish I could avail myself of Parliamentary Privilege
Yes, the trust may finally have been provided with the smoking gun, lets see how smart they are in terms of how these can be deployed
Willie Boland's in there too though. Those are the players (and valuations) nominated as security against a loan I believe.
i.e. if we default, then they could be forcibly sold.
Lucky, lucky Higgs, having the Ally Pickering as security!
BBC Parliament (618 on Virgin) will be covering the house of commons tomorrow at the scheduled time so you might be able to watch it live, unless like me you will be stuck at work.
Not sure what the Trust can do with this, I assume it'd be the same as you or I can do, which is pretty much nothing. AFAIK only those directly involved in the admin process can complain about it, could be wrong though and if you've got any idea who to start complaining to I'm happy to write a few letters.
The logical conclusion would be only certain evidence is being presented publicly, to form a particular point of view.
None of the evidence publicly presented as of yet shows anything has been moved after all. And the confusion can still exist in terms of what these say, and what actually happened within the club.
I dunno, maybe I'm being overly harsh on the old regime(!) but would you put it past them to be, errm, 'confused' and sloppy with paperwork?
Edit: Another conclusion would be no point making an objection unless you find all evidence going.
does it matter?
surely the important question is why the documents weren't available in the administration process, who was holding on to them?
I reach a different conclusion. The 1995 documents clearly show that all the assets transferred to CCFC LTD. Am I missing something?
Speechly Bircham's letter of 2013 says that CCFC LTD never owned the assets they were always in Holding, but how can this be true?
Wouldn't it seem far more likely that at some point between 2007 and 2013 that SISU transferred them back to Holdings themselves for a specific reason.'
Why cant things be simple? We need a document which is dated the day before admin, stating what was where! Not that even something like that would change things now anyway .........
Well something like that would certainly change things!
The directors would be certainly looking at charges of fraud in that scenario.
Ranson, payback time?
Why cant things be simple? We need a document which is dated the day before admin, stating what was where! Not that even something like that would change things now anyway .........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?