Shrimpsvoices

I know this has probably already been said somewhere but
If he has no funds to play with how did he pass the due diligence criteria
I thought the EFL were supposed to look into before any sale/takeover can take place
I thought they had to make sure funds were in place to carry on running the club??
Seems not ?
perhaps someone can explain the process

Well, the EFL were satisfied enough to allow him to take control so either it's not as apocalyptic as some fear, or the EFL are the ones who've f'ked up...

John L
That's my thought
Or the old saying
No news is good news ??

It will come good

If it goes tits up then this is a genuine cock up for the EFL and their fit and proper test. I am surprised nothing has been mentioned on this before. A bigger deal should be made of this in the news
although because we are "little old Morecambe" then no one will really pay any attention.

The EFL don''t give a stuff about little clubs....so don't expect any action from them.

The EFL won't have checked the reality of the promised funds etc - they won;t have asked for bank statments showing monies available for example. If they're anything like other official organisations, it's all about ticking boxes rather than any proper checking. Could be just a matter of checking the business plan, i.e. that there is one and it looks OK, rather than actually checking behind the business plan than it actually has any grounding in fact. I've seen some organisations where the business plan was incoherent but was ticked off because it simply existed - the people checking didn't know one end of a business plan from another - the "tick box" was simply to tick that a plan existed, not whether it made sense or not!!!

The EFL has done nothing wrong. They don't have the legal rights to deny someone ownership of a football club for things like an inadequate business plan. The rules are simple and as follows:

In general, a businessman will fail the test if:

They have power or influence over another Football League club
They hold a significant interest in another Football League club
They become prohibited by law from being a director
They are filing for bankruptcy
They have been director of a club while it has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency
They have been a director of two or more clubs of which, while they have been director, has suffered an event of insolvency

Neither Diego Lemos or Abdullah have failed any of these.

The responsibility for effective due diligence in the event of a company sale is wholly the responsibility of the owner of the company selling it. If the deal goes wrong it isn't the EFL's fault at all, it's Peter McGuigan's and whoever bought it.

And don't forget, "any deal done must, and will, be in the best interests of Morecambe Football Club" according to PMG.

Posh wrote:The responsibility for effective due diligence in the event of a company sale is wholly the responsibility of the owner of the company selling it. If the deal goes wrong it isn't the EFL's fault at all, it's Peter McGuigan's and whoever bought it.

The whole Board of Directors share responsibility for the running of the company and if things go pear-shaped, they may ALL be called upon to defend their own position and risk prosecution or claims against them. They have joint and several liability for the legal and competent running of a company.

KenH wrote:

Posh wrote:The responsibility for effective due diligence in the event of a company sale is wholly the responsibility of the owner of the company selling it. If the deal goes wrong it isn't the EFL's fault at all, it's Peter McGuigan's and whoever bought it.

The whole Board of Directors share responsibility for the running of the company and if things go pear-shaped, they may ALL be called upon to defend their own position and risk prosecution or claims against them. They have joint and several liability for the legal and competent running of a company.

This is of course why several Directors have resigned from the board in the last 2 or 3 years. If someone is for example a Solicitor then it would be a severe embarrassment to be a director of a company trading illegally and technically insolvent.

Something has to has to happen soon. This is obviously coming to a conclusion one way or the other.

KenH wrote:

Posh wrote:The responsibility for effective due diligence in the event of a company sale is wholly the responsibility of the owner of the company selling it. If the deal goes wrong it isn't the EFL's fault at all, it's Peter McGuigan's and whoever bought it.

The whole Board of Directors share responsibility for the running of the company and if things go pear-shaped, they may ALL be called upon to defend their own position and risk prosecution or claims against them. They have joint and several liability for the legal and competent running of a company.

Agreed but technically we weren't selling the whole footbal club only his shares so his role is more critical.

Apart from not being visible or chatty, what has he done thats ''Improper, or unfit?''

nothing.

Surely PMcG can only act on the information given to him and assurances made regarding financial resource


There are numerous cases where assurances have been given in business circles that in the cold light of day have proved to be fraudulant.

Let's not forget that it was PMcG, Mark Dixon and Nigel Adams who undertook the negotiations with Diego and his Qatar associates. They ALL have to accept that on the face of it they have been duped....don't they

Christies Child wrote:Surely PMcG can only act on the information given to him and assurances made regarding financial resource


There are numerous cases where assurances have been given in business circles that in the cold light of day have proved to be fraudulant.

Let's not forget that it was PMcG, Mark Dixon and Nigel Adams who undertook the negotiations with Diego and his Qatar associates. They ALL have to accept that on the face of it they have been duped....don't they

Are we 100% sure who has been duped by who?

Well Neil, your loyalty to PMG is although commendable, a bit naive, you fawn over him like a lovesick puppy but you have no facts,he can't be arsed defending his role, so why should you do it for him, stop it, you are embarrassing yourself

Exactly.

It was PMG who said "any deal must and WILL be in the best interests of MFC"

Looks like that went well then.

mrpotatohead wrote:Apart from not being visible or chatty, what has he done thats ''Improper, or unfit?''

nothing.

Getting drunk mid negotiations and telling those around him what the deal was?

Allegations like this are a bit ''iffy'' to be putting on here , and if that was the criteria for fit and proper, then most of the countries MD's would be out of work

mrpotatohead wrote:Well Neil, your loyalty to PMG is although commendable, a bit naive, you fawn over him like a lovesick puppy but you have no facts,he can't be arsed defending his role, so why should you do it for him, stop it, you are embarrassing yourself

...and your facts and info come via a mystic....'nuff said....

mrpotatohead wrote:Well Neil, your loyalty to PMG is although commendable, a bit naive, you fawn over him like a lovesick puppy but you have no facts,he can't be arsed defending his role, so why should you do it for him, stop it, you are embarrassing yourself

+1

With a finance broker being his backer, could well have been that he thought he could re-finance/re-mortgage the land & buildings to raise funds. May not have realised the difference between freehold and leasehold and may now be proving difficult (if not impossible) to borrow money secured on the leasehold land/buildings due to restrictive covenants or lease terms. After all, if it was easy/possible, I presume PMG would have done it to raise funds.

Was thinking today, how feasible it would be to sell off or rent some of the ample land at the Globe? Even when the slag heap at the front is gone, we also have a pretty big car park and even the 3G pitches as assets to keep the club going a few more years at least right?

It's not the clubs land, it's owned by a director.

mrpotatohead wrote:It's not the clubs land, it's owned by a director.

What land does the club actually own then?

Pretty surprised something hasn't been built at the front yet with the economy not doing too badly at the moment.