Court case for Accrington Stanley - Page 7

yerself · 28-10-2009, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

hope yer just speaking fer yerself simon

He's not speaking for me cashman.

Chimer · 28-10-2009, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by sausage butty

I think that the only thing the don has done wrong is bite off more than he can chew, my view is that he took on the club when nobody else would and tried to dig us out of this mess. Yes he has lied a bit but when people are put under a lot of pressure they do silly things. This happens in all walks of life, maybe he has learnt his lessons and will come out of the other side of this saga with everybody hating him but i think its a bit harsh thats all. Are people forgetting that eric whalley left this debt with horrendous miss management of the club and i havent heard a bad word said about him

thats all.

You can't have been looking very hard then ....

VALAIRIAN · 28-10-2009, 19:15

HMR&C
Wednesday 28th Oct 2009

Club statement
Accrington Stanley has been granted a seven day adjournment from the High Court to pay the remainder of the £308,000 owed to HM Revenue and Customs.

This morning the club made a payment to HMR&C of £96,000 with a further payment of over £100,000 to be made later today. Shareholders Ilyas Khan and Peter Marsden were present in court and have offered to make up any shortfall required to satisfy the the winding up order.

Is that not £196K?

K.S.H · 28-10-2009, 20:24

No its 96K

Neil · 28-10-2009, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

HMR&C
Wednesday 28th Oct 2009

Club statement
Accrington Stanley has been granted a seven day adjournment from the High Court to pay the remainder of the £308,000 owed to HM Revenue and Customs.

This morning the club made a payment to HMR&C of £96,000 with a further payment of over £100,000 to be made later today. Shareholders Ilyas Khan and Peter Marsden were present in court and have offered to make up any shortfall required to satisfy the the winding up order.

Is that not £196K?

Thats a typical statement from the club - I though Ilys Khan had given his shares away so is no longer a shareholder.

K.S.H · 28-10-2009, 20:45

Sorry, just noticed you had underlined them and added them up

Revived Red · 28-10-2009, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

HMR&C
Wednesday 28th Oct 2009

Club statement
Accrington Stanley has been granted a seven day adjournment from the High Court to pay the remainder of the £308,000 owed to HM Revenue and Customs.

This morning the club made a payment to HMR&C of £96,000 with a further payment of over £100,000 to be made later today. Shareholders Ilyas Khan and Peter Marsden were present in court and have offered to make up any shortfall required to satisfy the the winding up order.

Is that not £196K?

I'm still trying to sort all this out, Valairian. Where is this £100k coming from?

Is it from the directors?

Or is it the £100k from the PFA? Is this money from the PFA a gift or a loan?

I recall it being said that we already owe money to the PFA. Is this correct?

Whalley Red · 28-10-2009, 21:11

If the £100k was from the directors, that would leave a shortfall of just £12k once the PFA money had been received ... clearly this is not the case. Ilyas has been talking about guaranteeing the shortfall of £112k.

Note that even though the the news agency story which appears on several news sites states that the directors are putting in £100k, this are not the words on the fishy site and nor are these the words that Rob Heys says in either the 2br or the Radio Lancashire interview.

Clearly, the directors/O'Neill/Heys haven't put in very much, if at all, and not the £100k that was promised several weeks ago. Maybe, they'd rather see the club go under than lose their own money

In terms of the PFA, they paid at least half of the players wages last month. Not sure about this month.

I'm sure it will be a loan from the PFA.

Tealeaf · 28-10-2009, 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

I'm still trying to sort all this out, Valairian. Where is this £100k coming from?

Is it from the directors?

Or is it the £100k from the PFA? Is this money from the PFA a gift or a loan?

I recall it being said that we already owe money to the PFA. Is this correct?

Sorry folks if I can't be more helpful. The acoustics in court 53 of the RCJ are not the best, and even worse when Counsel speaks from the back of the room. However, I'm pretty sure the 100K is PFA dosh, but whether that is a grant or a loan, I dunno. I suspect the latter.

Revived Red · 28-10-2009, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Sorry folks if I can't be more helpful. The acoustics in court 53 of the RCJ are not the best, and even worse when Counsel speaks from the back of the room. However, I'm pretty sure the 100K is PFA dosh, but whether that is a grant or a loan, I dunno. I suspect the latter.

Thanks, Tealeaf.

Can I just say that your presence in court this morning and subsequent report were very much appreciated.

VALAIRIAN · 28-10-2009, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

I'm still trying to sort all this out, Valairian. Where is this £100k coming from?

Is it from the directors?

Or is it the £100k from the PFA? Is this money from the PFA a gift or a loan?

I recall it being said that we already owe money to the PFA. Is this correct?

My understanding/opinion only..... We owe monies to P.F.A. We have monies coming from F.L. Instead of repaying P.F.A. With F.L. We will still owe P.F.A. Hence we still have embargo... Second guessing I know, but I do not think it is far off the mark! Let's wait for official confirmation......