Shrimpsvoices

The latest extraordinary twist in this ever unfolding story of the club's sale and financial calamities is that the actual owner of Morecambe FC is a man called Graham Burnard. Given the documentation now available, it basically states that Diego Lemos never owned a majority share of Morecambe FC.

Back in April 2016, Diego Lemos was in the UK setting up two businesses. The first company was called Sport 99 Ltd, incorporated on 29 April and registered at Morton House in Co. Durham (1) (the home of Graham Burnard) (2).

The second company was called G50 Holdings (3) and was registered again at Morton House and incorporated on 18 May. According to the papers filed the company issued 1 share that day representing 100% of the company and this was owned by Diego Lemos. This company, according to a tweet from Marlin and the BBC (7), was the vehicle used to acquire PMG's shares in Morecambe FC. So, until very recently, we've been led to believe that it was Diego who owned the club.

However, new papers filed by G50 Holdings (4) now show that not to be the case. On 11 January 2017 Diego Lemos resigned as a Director of the company (another director or the company secretary can sign the paperwork on behalf of the resigning director). That same day Graham Burnard became a Director.

Then on 17 January, G50 filed paperwork (4) (5) that said that later in the day on 18 May, after the company issued 1 share to Diego, it then issued a further 99 shares, making a total of 100, of which Graham Burnard owned 99 and Diego just 1. It basically says that when PMG's shares were acquired by G50 Holdings they were bought by a company controlled by Graham Burnard and not Diego Lemos. The problem is that it took 8 months from the issue of the shares to actually filing the paperwork.

Graham Burnard is clearly a successful businessman. An accountant who has owned sportswear companies and much more. The change in the ownership situation may be great news for the club as I have no idea what personal or other financial means he has at his disposal. Let's hope he has loads.

These paragraphs from a court case in 2014 involving Mr Burnard make interesting reading though (2). In a long legal battle over the family estate the Judge said in his summing up:

"Graham and Paul

114. Graham and Paul’s explanations of the execution of the stock transfer forms dated 23rd August 2007 is wholly unbelievable. It is not in dispute before me that someone has forged Goff’s signature on the forms. It is to my mind unbelievable that Goff would have presented forms on which his signature had been forged to Graham and Paul for their signature.

115. It is the more unbelievable when put into the context of the events that happened at about that time in relation to the shares. It will be recalled that Goff discussed with Ms McCaslin the possibility of leaving the shares to his sons on the basis that they paid the income to Stella for 10 years. On 4th September 2007 Goff executed the will leaving the shares to his 3 sons. If he had already transferred the shares to his sons I would have expected him to have informed Ms McCaslin. If he had done this the provisions in the will would have been different.

116. It is also notable that Mr Hughes understanding of what Graham told him on 25th September 2007 is different from the effect of the transfers.

117. I am driven to the conclusion that the transfers were forged by one or other of the sons on an unknown date. All 3 of the sons were aware of the forgery.

118. Graham’s evidence in relation to the letter of 14th September 2007 is also unsatisfactory. It seems to me that Graham did hand the signed copy of the letter to Ms McCaslin on 24th September 2007. It will be recalled that the letter was addressed to Mr Sim. Graham accepted that he handed over the TR1 on 24th September 2007. He was not able to suggest any other letter he might have handed to Ms McCaslin. It is clear that the signed letter was on Hay & Kilner’s file. To my mind the most likely explanation is that, for whatever reason, Graham did create the letter and did forge his father’s signature on it at some time between 15th September 2007 and 24th September 2007. Stella was aware of the forgery and at some was provided with a copy."

Graham Burnard was also involved as Chairman of Bedlington Terriers (6). There is no evidence he ran the club in anything other than to the best of his abilities and did everything possible to ensure its success.

I wonder whether he's been down to see his new club?

(1) Take a look around £1.3 million manor house http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/pro ... r-11328123.

(2) Burnard vs Burnard - "Graham's house" http://www.familylawhub.co.uk/default.aspx?i=ce3812

(3) G50 Holdings https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10187053

(4) Share capital document G50 Holdings - https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docu ... cation-pdf?

(5) Confirmation statement G50 Holdings - https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docu ... cation-pdf?

(6) Bedlington Terriers http://www.newspostleader.co.uk/news/cl ... -1-1617352

(7) G50 acquired PMG's shares - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-engla ... e-38612551 (search Lemos)

It's like a soap opera..so many twists and turns and never knowing who did what to whom...

I can't get my head around the fact that Lamos was introduced to the crowd as the new owner and strolled onto the pitch with Abul by his side as if nothing was wrong, when he probably knew all along that ownership of OUR club was not in his hands at all.

As for this latest chapter in this saga I would like to hear from our current Board that this latest revelation is as much news to them as it is to us....but somehow I doubt that any statement will be forthcoming in the near future.

This entire episode is getting more farcical, every hour of every day.....

Christies Child wrote:I can't get my head around the fact that Lamos was introduced to the crowd as the new owner and strolled onto the pitch with Abul by his side as if nothing was wrong, when he probably knew all along that ownership of OUR club was not in his hands at all.

That's one possibility. There are plenty of others.

Everything Posh has compiled is in the public domain. I would hope it's no surprise to the board.

Gnasher wrote:Everything Posh has compiled is in the public domain. I would hope it's no surprise to the board.

You, me and all other concerned fans of OUR club no doubt.....

But you would like it to be a surprise to them? Why?

I would like to hear from our current Board that this latest revelation is as much news to them as it is to us

Because he thinks PMG is squeaky clean and that people like me pick on him.....I said from the beginning that this stinks, and it's going to get worse.....In November I clearly stated bad stuff would come to light before the end of January and guess what!

'' the spirit of JB was correct''

His latest message is ''If you lay with pigs , you get covered in shit!''

Until the truth is out, I'm picking on no one but neither am I wearing blinkers.

Posh is a successful, competent businessman which I expect of every director. Public facts should only be a surprise to those who haven't gone looking for them and at this time, I really hope that includes MFC Ltd and the legal team. The only reason I wouldn't expect them to make any statement is due to any ongoing legal proceedings.

That doesn't apply to the trustees who should be offering reassurances publicly at this time.

Anyone who wants to ask him if he is the clubs new owner, in a friendly but concerned manner, stating they are a fan of MFC, fed up of being kept in the dark , can do so here, simple..........https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... xH8tYG7Mrw

be warned though, a judge has called him dishonest in 2008, when he sued his stepmother over his dads will.

So in layman's terms Posh, what does this mean now for MFC?

Regarding the share issue to Mr G Burnard effectively giving him control of G50 Holdings Limted, this occurred in May 2016.... but was only made public on 17th January 2017. Why the delay? I believe you're supposed to inform companies house within a month if a company issues new shares?

If this is a good thing for the club why all the cover up of who owns what and when. Certainly looks bad to me but then again it's looked bad to all of us for some time. If Diego was a front man the League 'investigation!' was a complete waste of time as he wasn't the new potential owner at all. I just can't see how we are going to come out of this.

this is like that TV series years ago, "LOST" you start to think you've got your head around things, and then it goes off in another direction.

people will be more confused than ever reading this now

mrpotatohead wrote:Because he thinks PMG is squeaky clean and that people like me pick on him.....I said from the beginning that this stinks, and it's going to get worse.....In November I clearly stated bad stuff would come to light before the end of January and guess what!

'' the spirit of JB was correct''

His latest message is ''If you lay with pigs , you get covered in shit!''

Guilty as charged....but I prefer to think the best of people rather than question their credibility at every opportunity.

will you at least accept that, all the ''we can't get hold of Diego'' stuff was absolute bollocks, IF, the club knew that the owner was really the ''accountant from the north east'' ?

George Dawes wrote:this is like that TV series years ago, "LOST" you start to think you've got your head around things, and then it goes off in another direction.

people will be more confused than ever reading this now

...or watching Back to the Future 2 for the first time!

Now it turns out that it was Burnard who was the proposed ultimate "owner" due to his majority shareholding in G50, surely the EFL should now be doing their "fit and proper" tests on him? It seems bizarre if someone can get around the test by simply delaying the formal paperwork and making it look as if someone else is the proposed owner.

RedRedWine wrote:Regarding the share issue to Mr G Burnard effectively giving him control of G50 Holdings Limted, this occurred in May 2016.... but was only made public on 17th January 2017. Why the delay? I believe you're supposed to inform companies house within a month if a company issues new shares?

Companies should file details of new shares issued, but that notification doesn't say who they were issued to. It's only the annual return (now called confirmation statement) that gives details of the identities of the shareholders. So even if the right paperwork had been filed at the time, we'd still have been none the wiser as to who actually owned them.

mrpotatohead wrote:will you at least accept that, all the ''we can't get hold of Diego'' stuff was absolute bollocks, IF, the club knew that the owner was really the ''accountant from the north east'' ?

'IF' being the operative word....

Sounds to me as though the EFL and its vetting proceedure needs to be questioned as well as those involved in the negotiations and whoever acted on behalf of the club in its own vetting process.

I could be completly wrong in this, but I was aware that a development company had made a bid but that the bid was rejected. I wonder if they have used Diego to take control after all....

One thing for sure...it's a bloody mess and will take a long time for it to be sorted....

Christies Child wrote:but I prefer to think the best of people rather than question their credibility at every opportunity.

Christies Child wrote:
Sounds to me as though the EFL and its vetting proceedure needs to be questioned as well as those involved in the negotiations and whoever acted on behalf of the club in its own vetting process.

George Dawes wrote:this is like that TV series years ago, "LOST" you start to think you've got your head around things, and then it goes off in another direction.

people will be more confused than ever reading this now

New mascot will be a Polar Bear then?

outsider wrote:

George Dawes wrote:this is like that TV series years ago, "LOST" you start to think you've got your head around things, and then it goes off in another direction.

people will be more confused than ever reading this now

New mascot will be a Polar Bear then?

Aye that's a good shout, what was all that about, a Polar Bear on a tropical island

Morecambe Jack wrote:

Christies Child wrote:Sounds to me as though the EFL and its vetting proceedure needs to be questioned as well as those involved in the negotiations and whoever acted on behalf of the club in its own vetting process.

No I don't think. From the public records, there is nothing to suggest that Diego, EFL and the club were wrong in thinking Diego was the legal owner at the time.

At this stage, I'm seeing Diego as another victim.