Funds

Funds

Postby glagys » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:06 am

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
glagys
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:10 pm
Location: morecambe

Re: Funds

Postby John L » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:28 am

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
 
Posts: 5094
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:41 pm

Re: Funds

Postby glagys » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:53 am

John L
That's my thought
Or the old saying
No news is good news ??
glagys
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:10 pm
Location: morecambe

Re: Funds

Postby MfcChris » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:54 am

It will come good
"Supporting a football club is about much more than watching football on a Saturday afternoon. It is about the emotional attachment that people have with a club that sticks with them for life"
MfcChris
 
Posts: 2698
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:06 pm
Location: Morecambe

Re: Funds

Postby shrimpinho » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:20 pm

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.
shrimpinho
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 5:47 pm
Location: Morecambe

Re: Funds

Postby Christies Child » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:32 pm

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

:evil: :evil: :evil:
Heroes get mentioned but Legends never die.
Christies Child
 
Posts: 14744
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Storth, South Lakes

Re: Funds

Postby KenH » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:45 pm

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!!!
KenH
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: Funds

Postby Posh » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:06 pm

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.
VIVE LA REVOLUTION!
User avatar
Posh
 
Posts: 4326
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Everywhere and nowhere baby

Re: Funds

Postby Seasider9601 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:14 pm

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

:roll:
Never forget your history
User avatar
Seasider9601
 
Posts: 12657
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: LA5

Re: Funds

Postby KenH » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:16 pm

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
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: Funds

Postby Gone_Shrimping » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:23 pm

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.
Gone_Shrimping
 
Posts: 5312
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:49 am

Re: Funds

Postby Posh » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:03 pm

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.
VIVE LA REVOLUTION!
User avatar
Posh
 
Posts: 4326
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Everywhere and nowhere baby

Re: Funds

Postby mrpotatohead » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:36 pm

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

nothing.
Surprise sex is the best thing to wake up to, unless you're in prison.
User avatar
mrpotatohead
 
Posts: 8051
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Location: circus

Re: Funds

Postby Christies Child » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:19 am

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 :?: :?: :?:
Heroes get mentioned but Legends never die.
Christies Child
 
Posts: 14744
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Storth, South Lakes

Re: Funds

Postby Shrimpy » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:04 pm

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?
Shrimpy
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:53 am

Re: Funds

Postby mrpotatohead » Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:22 pm

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 :lol:
Surprise sex is the best thing to wake up to, unless you're in prison.
User avatar
mrpotatohead
 
Posts: 8051
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Location: circus

Re: Funds

Postby Seasider9601 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:12 pm

Exactly.

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

Looks like that went well then. :roll:
Never forget your history
User avatar
Seasider9601
 
Posts: 12657
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:25 pm
Location: LA5

Re: Funds

Postby Gnasher » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:06 pm

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?
Legally permitted to use "Gnasher" by DC Thomson's lawyers since 1999.
#TooMuchTimeOnMyHands
Gnasher
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:30 pm

Re: Funds

Postby mrpotatohead » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:05 pm

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 :lol:
Surprise sex is the best thing to wake up to, unless you're in prison.
User avatar
mrpotatohead
 
Posts: 8051
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Location: circus

Re: Funds

Postby Christies Child » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:46 pm

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 :lol:


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

;)
Heroes get mentioned but Legends never die.
Christies Child
 
Posts: 14744
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Storth, South Lakes

Re: Funds

Postby sandgrown » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:21 pm

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 :lol:


+1
User avatar
sandgrown
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Funds

Postby KenH » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:30 pm

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.
KenH
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: Funds

Postby Wild Bill » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:47 pm

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?
Wild Bill
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:21 am

Re: Funds

Postby mrpotatohead » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:50 pm

It's not the clubs land, it's owned by a director.
Surprise sex is the best thing to wake up to, unless you're in prison.
User avatar
mrpotatohead
 
Posts: 8051
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Location: circus

Re: Funds

Postby Wild Bill » Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:58 pm

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.
Wild Bill
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:21 am

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests