Can Someone Explain ? - Page 6

cashman · 05-09-2009, 14:57

it matters a great deal to me, the club was only going one way under the last regime, the financial mire is from 2006, and i am grateful someone else has took this task on. its gonna be hard, but it MUST be done.

shakermaker · 05-09-2009, 15:15

I think my tiny brain is just starting to get all this. Sorry ASSF people.

The 'controlling shares for ASSF' flag was raised most recently when macca posted in another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

the hearing started at 10'30 and by dinner time we may not have a football club

it all depends on how the HMRC want to play but The Don has accepted the offer made by ASSF to provide the funds to clear the debt. It is by no means categoric but the upshot will be that ASSF will become the majority shareholder at ASFC very shortly. If the grim reaper allows it.

There will be time for repercussions later but for now it is cross everything time.

In my very basic understanding, the offer from ASSF will only become active (funds will only be released into the ASSF company account) in the event of two things:

A valuation is allowed to be made of the club,
Promise of a fresh share issue is made once a valuation is obtained.

With the valuation declaring that the club is basically worthless, the funds released to ASSF by Mr Khan would buy ASSF a gigantic amount of shares. The ASSF aren't demanding control of the club; it just so happens that the money available should O'Neill decide to play ball would (with just and fair proceedings) buy the company a controlling amount of shares. This money would go into the club rather than to the owner of any shares (as shares bought would be new) and therefore be available to bail out the club.

Questions of David O'Neill are asked because not everything adds up. I completely empathise with Jeff when he posts his cynical view (that it was O'Neill's plan all along to buy the club and fundraise for a bail-out to make his investment worthwile, as he knew of the club's troubles before he took over). O'Neill has also made up a story (akin to the tricks of EW) that he has received an unconditional offer of help from another party (if it was unconditional, why not accept it straight off?!). There is also the furore over why the funds intended to pay the tax man were used elsewhere, and the ridiculous "I'll investigate why it hasn't been paid" comment.

The O'Neill regime has polished the club up in its short time and no one from any party wants him to be removed, but it's pretty clear that he wouldn't invest the same amount of time or links or resources in the club without a controlling stake.

Obviously the only beneficiary of this post is me and my basic grasp. If I've made any glaring mistakes I'm sure VALAIRIAN & co. will amend accordingly!

cashman · 05-09-2009, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

I think my tiny brain is just starting to get all this. Sorry ASSF people.

The 'controlling shares for ASSF' flag was raised most recently when macca posted in another thread:

In my very basic understanding, the offer from ASSF will only become active (funds will only be released into the ASSF company account) in the event of two things:

A valuation is allowed to be made of the club,
Promise of a fresh share issue is made once a valuation is obtained.

With the valuation declaring that the club is basically worthless, the funds released to ASSF by Mr Khan would buy ASSF a gigantic amount of shares. The ASSF aren't demanding control of the club; it just so happens that the money available should O'Neill decide to play ball would (with just and fair proceedings) buy the company a controlling amount of shares. This money would go into the club rather than to the owner of any shares (as shares bought would be new) and therefore be available to bail out the club.

Questions of David O'Neill are asked because not everything adds up. I completely empathise with Jeff when he posts his cynical view (that it was O'Neill's plan all along to buy the club and fundraise for a bail-out to make his investment worthwile, as he knew of the club's troubles before he took over). O'Neill has also made up a story (akin to the tricks of EW) that he has received an unconditional offer of help from another party (if it was unconditional, why not accept it straight off?!)

The O'Neill regime has polished the club up in its short time and no one from any party wants him to be removed, but it's pretty clear that he wouldn't invest the same amount of time or links or resources in the club without a controlling stake.

Obviously the only beneficiary of this post is me and my basic grasp. If I've made any glaring mistakes I'm sure VALAIRIAN & co. will amend accordingly!

would the don having a controlling stake be good or bad in your opinion shaker? myself i reckon he's took this job on, i have seen improvements at the club since he did, so so far so good IMHO, so therefore to me deserves a crack at it. this old tax bill (2006) apart, things going in a far better way than under previous regime.

shakermaker · 05-09-2009, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

would the don having a controlling stake be good or bad in your opinion shaker? myself i reckon he's took this job on, i have seen improvements at the club since he did, so so far so good IMHO, so therefore to me deserves a crack at it. this old tax bill (2006) apart, things going in a far better way than under previous regime.

I'd agree that things have looked much brighter since the O'Neill takeover. The website has been updated much more regularly and Dan is doing a very good job of not only his commercial work but the unravelling of the mess left for him to take up upon his arrival - just to mention a couple of things. For all the confusion and irregularities surrounding the tax bill, I'd like to see the present regime in place once the club is on an equal footing. However as I said in the previous post it appears to me very unlikely that O'Neill & co. would do the same work without a controlling stake in the club.

cashman · 05-09-2009, 15:53

you may right shaker, meself aint so sure, my opinion fer what its worth is hes stanley through n through, bit like uncle jack was at rovers, only not as rich.

if he was just a control freak, doubt if he would get his jacket off n help wi menial tasks like seating etc etc, i'm prepared at this point to give benifit of the doubt. which aint summat cashy normally does.

Doug · 05-09-2009, 16:00

At the end of the day David O'Neil owns the Lions share of the buisness, at this stage if we want the club to carry on we have to get behind him and back the SOS fund.

shakermaker · 05-09-2009, 16:00

My concern is that we won't get the most out of fundraising while there's all this confusion over the tax bill and what the club are saying about it. First it's "I'll investigate why the money hasn't been paid", next we're told the money donated went into the daily running of the club. Obviously hard core fans will do all they can to save the club but when there's contradictory statements being released the cause is compromised in the view of others.

cashman · 05-09-2009, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

At the end of the day David O'Neil owns the Lions share of the buisness, at this stage if we want the club to carry on we have to get behind him and back the SOS fund.

Thats it in a nutshell.......... can see shakers point but things must gel together PDQ, n any recriminations after stanley are out of the crap.

Revived Red · 05-09-2009, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

hes stanley through n through

Now where have I heard that before? Ah yes, about a chap called Eric Whalley.

cashman · 05-09-2009, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

Now where have I heard that before? Ah yes, about a chap called Eric Whalley.

he was, just his IQ was low.

Chimer · 05-09-2009, 17:44

The only thing I think I'm sure of is that if a sane man wants his pockets lined, the way to do it is not, under any circumstances, to buy the most poorly supported (quantity not quality

) club in the Football League.

So I'm not buying that conspiracy theory. Equally I don't believe Ilyas or the ASSF are blackmailing anybody. Personally, I will be putting some dosh into Save our Stanley, and if it comes to it I'll find some more to help the ASSF participate in any future shares issue.

Doug · 05-09-2009, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimer

The only thing I think I'm sure of is that if a sane man wants his pockets lined, the way to do it is not, under any circumstances, to buy the most poorly supported (quantity not quality

) club in the Football League.

So I'm not buying that conspiracy theory. Equally I don't believe Ilyas or the ASSF are blackmailing anybody. Personally, I will be putting some dosh into Save our Stanley, and if it comes to it I'll find some more to help the ASSF participate in any future shares issue.

Ditto in respect of both Camps....Money should go to the SOS because it the surest way of getting the club out of the ****e, I support the ASSF and I hope that when it comes to shares being issued I will not only chip in to the ASSF but I also expect to have the opportunity to buy shares of my own, but I fear that I will be denied that opportunity if any share issues is taken solely by the current ASSF/Khan bid.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against the ASSF or Mr. Khan. I own my own business and I’m 50 grand In debt to it and will for the next three years, if someone came to me and said they will pay off the debt for a controlling interest in my business I’d tell the to sod off, it’s all my money that’s gone into it and for two solid years I’ve worked 7 days a week - 7.00 am to 11.00 pm, even after injury and ill health, I can understand how O’Neil feels, as well as the fans. Let’s give him some rope and hope that the ASSF and Mr. Khan make a gesture of good will financially, like someone as already said, let bicker about after we’re safe.

JEFF · 05-09-2009, 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

My concern is that we won't get the most out of fundraising while there's all this confusion over the tax bill and what the club are saying about it. First it's "I'll investigate why the money hasn't been paid", next we're told the money donated went into the daily running of the club.

And then we were told that the money is in the bank if the two parties want it paid back.

To answer Cashy 'Where would the club be now if DON had not bought EW out' I don't know, but I do know that the offer from ASSF was on the table to EW for a share issue to be made and ASSF would purchase a minimum of £250k but as far as I know EW never even acknowledged receipt. EW had made his mind up that he did not want anything to do with ASSF and only wanted somebody in who would purchase his shares and so he could leave Stanley with money in his pocket and Stanley with a massive debt.

K.S.H · 05-09-2009, 21:00

He also said the money (20k and 25k) was in the bank, if it was given to the club to be used as payment for the HMRC then surely this should now be transferred into the SOS account

DAV007 · 05-09-2009, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Questions of David O'Neill are asked because not everything adds up.

I agree. There are a significant number of issues and answers which have not been forthcoming.
OK, I did not attend the fans forum on Friday as I was in work so its my own fault for not being there.
This is how I see it.
Rob Heys seems to have gone from being whalleys puppet to O'neills. I accept as the clubs spokesman he is only following party lines. It is a tactic which deflects attention from O'neill.

The problem with bailing out the club with the current owners still in town, how can we make sure they wont get us into the same mess again?
This is not just an Eric whalley problem, its to easy to just be an Eric whalley problem.

Yes, the improvements in communication and the employment of staff of the field to help build the club is encouraging but has long been over due. Its not revolutionary.

I am fully behind SOS and will make a donation when pay day comes round, but I am dubious as to the ability of our new owner.. The truth is not fully out, its will now be hidden under an umbrella of 'only positive news storys and fund raising'.

Despite my best attempts to show my support for SOS, I await the barrage of abuse for not buying the bull***t.