SteveC 150 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 well everybody backing king said they can trump ashley, well guess what ashley just played a massive blinder. its a case of king, stump up or go to admin 2 I think there is a mistake in your signature, I'm sure you mean the first four letters to read differently 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think there is a mistake in your signature, I'm sure you mean the first four letters to read differently Plus...there's TWO ways to read into it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Yes, but we haven't seen the small print or fine details involved in the second part of the loan. There may be nothing, but there me be more to it than meets the eye. You made the point about owing them 10 million. I made the point that the cash isn't the issue (unless they squander it before they depart, but they cant do that now as they know that King will be watching over them). I still contend that the cash isn't the real issue here - it is the security and the underlying covenants that the security has. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 As long as it's 3 to to King and Co, there is nothing they can do.when they hold the retail revenue inc cost,training complex,25% of in house advertising,ed house,carpark and badges plus being the clubs biggest creditor it could be 3-3. personally think they will have a clause tn bring another 2 on board which will give them the upper hand. They have blown alot of smoke round the nominee aspect.Think we may find that was no mistake. Hope not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Stay on topic and don't start getting personal with each other please. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Surely, even under the Godforsaken entrepreneur culture, this kind of move has to be barred under the present circumstances? No, they still have to carry out the duties of their roles. They would contend that there is no guarantee that King will invest and that without drawing down this 2nd tranche that the Club wouldn't be able to meet its financial obligations for month end. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I reckon this isn't being done to pay the bills for March, it's to extend Ashley's rights to have directors on the board. Note the part in bold.... But even that right to have them nominated only lasts for the duration of the facility. King could take the whole drawdown and repay it the following day. It would be a futile exercise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 who's beeling? i couldn't give a crap who runs it as long as its run right and over paid pricks are told to fuck off, kenny, durie, durrant ally and the rest of the over paid guys stealing a wage while wearing the blue jersey included. Oh you care alright. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 well everybody backing king said they can trump ashley, well guess what ashley just played a massive blinder. its a case of king, stump up or go to admin 2 Nonsense. How is it a blinder ? Stump up what ? The same money that Ashley will have to pump into the Club ? Blinder my arse. This is a futile exercise and nothing more than a vindictive parting shot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Re : the statement Zappa posted, it says the outcome cannot be determined with certainty. DK's statement said that the conversation was recorded in which DL admitted that it was a landslide victory. Why say it in a telephone conversation only to discredit it later? Hope that recording bites them on the ass. It is true that it cannot be determined with certainty when proxy voters can attend and rescind their proxy. What someone says privately is not always what they should be saying publicly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.