Clapham Saint

The only "evidence" that o have seen is the quote from ml's man that the club is debt free. From experience I also think of unlikely that ml took on any of the avia debt. Aviva may have made more money if the debt remained however that is dependent upon somebody making repayments. If the club went out of business they would have lost a lot more.

1) As other people have said above, it appears so, yes. We will know for sure when the accounts are presented. I haven't checked if the new holding company is registered in the UK or Switzerland but am sure that GM or somebody similar will post a link to them on here once they are released. 2) The exact figure won't be known yet. 28 days after the administration ends the administrator will have to have filed a final report at companies house. It should be in there. (The "end of the administration" is not the same as the date of the takeover, there will be a bit of time needed to complete the formalities before the administration of SHL PLC (which is no longer our problem) will be completed.) 3) The shareholders would only receive a payment if there is money left over after all creditors and costs have been paid in full. So yes. 4) I don't think anybody has specifically confirmed either way however you may (hopefully) be able to find out from the Administrator's report. Alternatively when the annual accounts are finally released we will be able to see from those. I don't know but the money raise will have gone towards the running costs of the club (i.e. wages etc) during the admin period. Given the Administrator's reporting responsibilities and annaul accounts this isn't possible. They may have agreed not to disclose details though. Did you own your share directly? If your broker held it for you they may have owned the share in their name on your behalf.

The horizon is a very very very long way away! Damn right you should be smug!

Brilliant!

Spot on.

The thing that would worry me if I was a skate would be that he (regardless of how rich he is or isn't) is still not the owner. The deal has still not gone through. Not becuase I would be worry that it might not complete but becuase the way that everything is being done just doesn't feel right. There is more to it than meets the eye, I suspect not a good thing for our fishy friends. I'd best shut up now though as I'm beging to sound like a broken record....:-#

Don't forget that the deal was surely finalised last night, as reported in the ever reliable Arabian Business Am sure our fishy friends have been unable to post on this thread today as they are at the press conference....

Can't really argue with that. My post was indended as more of general rant at some of the things posted by p*mpey fans on the multitute of threads. The rant still stands as many of you are claiming that there is significant investment hovering in the background, (which I doubt), your post just happened to be the last one I read before I started. The massive wage erners capable of keeping you up you mean? True but any players in are not going to be anywhere near the quality that have been disposed of are they. As above you are getting rid of as many high earners as possible. If a single month's wages for a much lower earner is going to make a material difference to your finances then you really are close to the endge! Especially if it is a big enough difference as to out weigh the impact of a lack of squad cohesion which will result from the first team players having to be introduced to each other on the morning of the first game. True but it does appear that this is begining to be addressed with the acknowledgement (finally) that the squad needs serious re-building. In league one this doesn't require "throwing cash around" to nearly the same extent as it does in the Prem or CCC. Agree with you there. It has definately gone downhill. I presume that you are talking about P*mpey and agreeing with us here given that Gaydamak (sp) is taking your sky money for himself.

If (as Co-Ho says) he is good friends with Dr Al he might be staying quiet to "help out a mate" who is trying to generate publicity. As for having investors to come in in time for teh January transfer window... Why on earth would this be genuine. If you have the financial muscle to take on a premier league team, why wait until January when they have had to play half a season with just 14 senior players and may well (almosat definately) be deep in the relegation zone as a result. There have been lots of comments from various (fishy) posters either claiming or repeating rumours that X and Y are lined up but they are waiting a month/for due dilligence/until January. If these investors are genuinely lined up what possible reason could there be fore waiting until January when the situation may well be beyond repair? IMO the investors either a) don't exist at all b) exist but would fail the FAPP test and so are prevented from inveting or c) are people who Dr Al saw on tv once and he thinks might have a bit of spare cash he could borrow. If he can work out how to get their phone numbers then fingers crossed he might be able to get them to give him some cash by Jaunuary.

Lol!:cool:

Must be true then Again, all these statements coming from "Maradona's lawyer" conveniently means that Dr Al can revel in the publicity and continue to let people believe that he really is in a position to buy the club, and then (correctly) point out that he never promised any of these things when everything falls through.

I suspect you're just on a wind up, however if not then you really are an idiot. The team with no money, a cr a p ground etc etc etc is going to attract a player than Man City Couldn't land for £200k a week?

Thank god for that. What I find so amazing is the fact that they release (or arrange for somebody else to release) these statements, and still expect people to take them seriously.

I think they are referring to it as the "Pinacle-max" model.

You seriously believe that this is true? And although lawyers are usually careful not to say anything which will result in them being sued/prosecuted, the above hardly falls into this category, true or otherwise.

Why release this story? Total morons. If you are desperately trying to generate pr to make it look as though a take over has gone through at least come up with a sensible story rather than something which it evidently total ****.

My reading of this is that although they are happy that Dr Al has passed the test they are essentially issuing a warnnig that should the proposed beneficial ownership change they will re-do the test on any new investors. This follwos on from Dr Al initially acting as a broker, but after the FAPP was initiated changing his mind and claiming that despite what was said previously he was buying with his own money and no investment from any 3rd parties. The premier league is just covering off the laughably feeble attempt to get around the FAPP test by adding non-FAPP investors after the purchase has gone through.

Obviously I'm not privy to any inside knowledge but when so much about this "deal" doesn't seem to add up I have a tendency to be sceptical. A tendency that most people in our industry develop very quickly indeed.

Becuase (IMO) its all just smoke and mirrors to allow the Gaydamak (sp) to get as much of his money out as possible prior to the administrators arriving.

Honest answer is that I don't know anymore about this than you guys have also read in the press/web. Its just that little things just don't seem to add up. Why release a statement about agreeing a deal "in principle" yesterday when this should have been done before due dilligence was even started. If the deal is only agreed in principle then Dr Al hasn't coughed up anything, nor has he formally committed to completing, however Gaydamak (or whatever he's called) has still allowed him to take over control (chairmanship anyway) of his company. Why would you do that before the sale goes through. etc. It might all get cleared up, however as things stand it just doesn't smell right to me and if it smells like bulls**t 90% of the time it is.

People who say "I told you so" are generally tits so I'm going to go with "I f***ing knew it!!!".

Fair enough. For me though it just has too many similarities to cases I have seen where positive fronts are being shown whilst everything behind the scenes is chaos. We'll see soon enough though I guess.

No it isn't. Also I am not “clinging on to administration”. I acknowledged this morning (on one of these multiple threads) that the deal may go through and that I had thought it wouldn’t. Does the course of events not strike you as strange though? I’m aware that this is slightly over simplifying things but, if you compare it to buying a house the basic steps are: 1) Make an offer. 2) Have offer accepted (subject to contract) 3) Complete survey 4) Adjust offer if required 5) Exchange contracts/Complete 6) Move in What has happened here is: 1) Make an offer 3) Due diligence….. 4) Adjust offer 2) Have offer accepted (in principle) 6) Join the board Why are they issuing statements about agreements in principle? Why have they not agreed the final deal? They have had MONTHS to draw up contracts in anticipation of finishing due diligence. Why announce that the deal is agreed in principle but then not also say "and should comlete formally later today" or similar. Again, I’m not saying it definitely won’t complete, and the only information that I’m going on is that which I have read in papers / on the internet, but everything which I have seen about this screams “deal which is hanging by a threat” at best.

No it hasn't. An agreement in principle has. Something that I would have thought could have been done before due dilligence was even started.

If the bank has formally demanded its money back it doesn't automatically start any form of insolvency procedure. The bank would need to appoint an administrator, which, assuming that Std Chartered are the QFC they can do very quickly.