Latest rumour about why we sold players (Sporting Options)

[B.M.F]

Latest rumour about why we sold players

Got a phone call from one of my Journo buddies last night who said that the reason Currie and Cullip were sold was not to help the Falmer pot. It was due to more than one director ( not just Dick Knight ) having their hands in the Sporting Options firm that got done recently. From what he was saying the directors had to find £500k to stop Administrators trying to go after the club for monies owed.

Let me re-itterate that this is only a rumour and that it is being looked into quite closely by various journalists to find out if there is any truth in it.

If it is true then it is not good for the club that we have lost 2 key players but is good that we have stopped Administrators as we could not afford to lose 10 points.

 

[dougdeep]

I don't believe a word of that.

 

[Fluffster]

We CANNOT go into administration as we don't own a stadium or a training ground, we have no assets. And I believe as the two companies are seperate, despite having the same directors it won't affect the Albion.

 

[chez]

Re: Latest rumour about why we sold players

Got a phone call from one of my Journo buddies last night who said that the reason Currie and Cullip were sold was not to help the Falmer pot. It was due to more than one director ( not just Dick Knight ) having their hands in the Sporting Options firm that got done recently. From what he was saying the directors had to find £500k to stop Administrators trying to go after the club for monies owed.

Let me re-itterate that this is only a rumour and that it is being looked into quite closely by various journalists to find out if there is any truth in it.

If it is true then it is not good for the club that we have lost 2 key players but is good that we have stopped Administrators as we could not afford to lose 10 points.

Im assuming the journo buddie is the one I'm thinking of, the same one as Harry Redknapp story. If so I wouldnt expect him to sprout bullshit.

 

[B.M.F]

We CANNOT go into administration as we don't own a stadium or a training ground, we have no assets. And I believe as the two companies are seperate, despite having the same directors it won't affect the Albion.

It will if they can get their hands on assets and that is exactly what our players are. If it was only 1 director then they do not have the power to do anything but when there is more than one involved then who knows what can happen. I am no legal expert and was prepared to be shot down by posting this but felt it my duty to let fellow fans know what I have heard

 

[e77]

I think this is nonsense because if (and only if, I hasten to add) they were financially liable for any debts then the only Seagull related assests are their shares (which the loans were converted to a while back).

As they are effectively worthless there wouldn't see a lot of point doing this.

 

[Fluffster]

I think this is nonsense because if (and only if, I hasten to add) they were financially liable for any debts.

Which being a limited company they would not be. Somebody with a better legal understanding of it all will prove this rumour as being incorrect I'm sure.

 

[B.M.F]

Re: Re: Latest rumour about why we sold players

Im assuming the journo buddie is the one I'm thinking of, the same one as Harry Redknapp story. If so I wouldnt expect him to sprout bullshit.

Your assumption is correct mate

 

[B.M.F]

Which being a limited company they would not be. Somebody with a better legal understanding of it all will prove this rumour as being incorrect I'm sure.

Lets hope so Fluffster

 

[Rangdo]

If the only link is a director, then as limited companies the director and their holdings are not liable if the company goes under. Therefore if a company was in trouble then their assets etc would be stripped to pay debts but the directors assets would not. ie. the companies are not linked.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Now we're getting rumours about rumours.

All very damaging, which may, of course, be what the rumour mongers are hoping for.

As someone has posted on another thread ... it's time to put up or shut up.

 

[Rangdo]

Now we're getting rumours about rumours.

All very damaging, which may, of course, be what the rumour mongers are hoping for.

As someone has posted on another thread ... it's time to put up or shut up.

It's been that time for a while but the doubters can't because rumours aren't real. I feel a bit left out. I never get to meet any of these "insiders" that the rumour mongers get all these "facts" from.

 

[El Presidente]

Think the story shows that journalists know f*** all about basic company law, and are just a bunch of shit stirrers.

Directors in common is a regular feature of UK corporate behaviour, I am a director of three companies myself but there is no legal responsibility between any of them.

Just another twat (not you fatboy) trying to kick the club when we are down.

 

[B.M.F]

To be fair to my journo buddy, he only said they were investigating it ( not him personally I would like to add ) and that it was their job to investigate all rumours that have a national interest.

Would agree that most rumours are scare mongering or people who have nothing better to do and want to wind people up ala Ernest. Whatever the reason behind them being sold is of no concern of mine as long as the club have a future. this is the only thing I care about and how we do it does not matter as long as it happens.

El Pres

thanks for saying I am not a twat. think you are the first person who has ever said that to me

 

[disgruntled h blocker]

Re: Latest rumour about why we sold players

Got a phone call from one of my Journo buddies last night who said that the reason Currie and Cullip were sold was not to help the Falmer pot. It was due to more than one director ( not just Dick Knight ) having their hands in the Sporting Options firm that got done recently. From what he was saying the directors had to find £500k to stop Administrators trying to go after the club for monies owed.

Let me re-itterate that this is only a rumour and that it is being looked into quite closely by various journalists to find out if there is any truth in it.

If it is true then it is not good for the club that we have lost 2 key players but is good that we have stopped Administrators as we could not afford to lose 10 points.

I think we should take close attention to this.

According to an accountant I know (who is a Company Secretary of 2 PLC's) - depending on how the money/investment is held by BHAFC, the creditors can request all of the investment back to pay other parties.

 

[Ernest]

Why doesn't this surprise me ?

 

[dougdeep]

I give in. Tell us.

 

[Yoda]

We CANNOT go into administration as we don't own a stadium or a training ground, we have no assets. And I believe as the two companies are seperate, despite having the same directors it won't affect the Albion.

In that case, all this talk of Leeds going into administration can't be true. They have no assets either as they have already sold their ground and training ground to pay off debts.

 

[Guest]

Limited liability means just that and was intended to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour, however it is not unusual for personal guarantees to be made by directors to investors, particularly banks.

Therefore it is distinctly possible that an individual will have to realise assets held in other organisations if personal guarantees are called in.

 

[Starry]

In that case, all this talk of Leeds going into administration can't be true. They have no assets either as they have already sold their ground and training ground to pay off debts.

There are still a lot of assetts at Leeds, not huge ones but several houses and lots of land dotted around Leeds, car parks etc etc.