Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Marc505 said:

People thinking it's great, some saying he deserves a chance for fucks sake. The absolute pits, this.

Those people are cunts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COYWM! 

Oops, wrong thread. 

Edited by Cheese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re tomorrows Court case, hopefully the judge has all the info and has had chance to catch up with what has happened. However i doubt he or she will have and really hope they dont adjourn it to “seek advice” as that could well be game over as far as FV are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jules_darby said:

I’m on Bridge St not far From the court @ 11am tomorrow. I may have about for a bit

I’m half tempted being only round the corner 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tommy Banks said:

At the risk of some abuse, does anyone know what happens if Bassini wins his case.

I'm not sure that it will be decided tomorrow, I think this is just an initial review to determine whether Bassini has a genuine legal grievance or not.  

If the judge rules he hasn't the it gets chucked out and we are back to where we were on Thursday before the injunction.

As far as I understand things Bassini is saying he completed a deal with Anderson to buy the club (pre-Administration) and signed all the relevant papers.  Anderson's position seems to be that the EFL instructed(?) him not to sell the club as Bassini had not shown the proof to them that he had the required money to take the club on.

Bassini seems to be saying he had, provided such information to the EFL BUT they did not check them out.

Bassini therefore believed he'd bought the club (you can actually buy a club and not pass the EPL FPP test - but this would mean you owned a club that would not be granted permission to play in the EFL leagues - which of course would be a pointless thing to do really).

Anderson on the instruction(?) from the EFL believes no sale was completed.

If the case is not thrown out I would imagine a court date would normally be set some weeks hence and a number of days set aside to hear it.

If however it is for the judge to decide from the initial court hearing tomorrow, then again I think he will need time to write up his decision which again would take a number of weeks to do.

Obviously that would be no good for FV, the EFL and presumably whoever is funding Administration (Fildraw?).

The Administrator has reported that his strategy for Burnden Leisure is slightly different than for the club (BWFAC Ltd) itself, namely his aim is to achieve a better outcome for it's creditors rather than winding it up (which I interpret as selling off the football club), or failing that sell off property to pay off one or more of the secured creditors (which I assume is land and the car parks - can he sell off the stadium without the hotel?) and the secured creditors of BL being EDT/Fildraw, Warburton and Anderson) See Sections 5.1 and 5.2, pages 7, and 8.

However although BWFAC Ltd is not specifically named in the injunction it is clearly implied that the alleged sale was for the club - and the Administrator has already stated that as BWFAC is insolvent he would compulsory liquidate it once a sale can be achieved - thus any delay resulting in FV to withdraw from a purchase of it would lead directly to its liquidation.

I can only assume therefore that if Bassini's claim is not thrown out that an urgent court date will be set to hear, consider and determine the matter.

If Bassini wins then BL and whatever he believes he bought, presumably the club, hotel and everything else, would then belong to him, assuming that he's got the money he agreed with Anderson, and from which all creditors presumably would be paid in full (that's what he claimed iirc?).

If that was the case then Administration for both the club and hotel is resolved immediately as all creditors secured or otherwise would have their claims settled in full.

If Ken wins we revert back to where we were last Thursday before the injunction was issued BUT the question is would FV still be around and if not would the club have been compulsory liquidated by then?

 

One small glimmer of hope we may be able to cling on to is the legal doctrine of 'Laches' which in very simple terms means has Bassini left it too late to start his course action - meaning circumstances for the defender (Ken Anderson) significantly changed his position due to the delay in bringing the action?

One could say his position is one of no longer being the owner of BL, the club and hotel, due to Administration?

However that happened only days after the EFL instructed(?) Ken than Bassini did not meet with their approval.

So I don't put much faith in it being successful in stopping the legal action.

 

In a way it would be better for Anderson not to contest Bassini's claim as I assume he would make more from it if he did have the money for the agreed sale, on the flip side Bassini could be walking away with the stadium and the hotel in order to do a property deal and not care a monkey's of the club future/ or alternatively he will lead us into the Premier League in three seasons!

It's all a bit Kafkasque to me.

(I would recommend The Trial by Franz Kafka if anybody hasn't read it - very reminiscent of what's been happening at BWFC recently).

 

Hope the above explanation hopefully answered some/all of your question?

Edited by Sluffy
Grammar errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a bit about Stephen Eyre's background before he was appointed a judge in 2015.

http://st-phillips.com/v7/web/FILES/Member_CVs/StephenEyre_cv.pdf

He's had a couple of public interest cases since his appointment. One involved fraud allegations against former UKIP MEP, Nikki Sinclaire. Ms Sinclaire was found not guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36640963

More recently he presided in a case brought by the NUM involving a loan to its former leader, Arthur Scargill, who Judge Eyre found to be an unreliable witness

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unreliable-arthur-scargill-could-get-300-000-bill-over-miners-union-loan-b02bntgd0

No report on this from Orgreave-obsessed David Conn or on the travails of BWFC so far as I can see. Would someone tell me if I've missed something?

Edited by Chris Custodiet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kane57 said:

Maybe you could explain in a bit more detail please, didn't quite grasp it from the above 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, enzo gambaro said:

Hope we’re not sending a 19yo law undergraduate in to bat. 

What about if he has a degree and 6 years’ experience on the job...?

Edited by Jol_BWFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I'm not sure that it will be decided tomorrow, I think this is just an initial review to determine whether Bassini has a genuine legal grievance or not.  

If the judge rules he hasn't the it gets chucked out and we are back to where we were on Thursday before the injunction.

As far as I understand things Bassini is saying he completed a deal with Anderson to buy the club (pre-Administration) and signed all the relevant papers.  Anderson's position seems to be that the EFL instructed(?) him not to sell the club as Bassini had not shown the proof to them that he had the required money to take the club on.

Bassini seems to be saying he had, provided such information to the EFL BUT they did not check them out.

Bassini therefore believed he'd bought the club (you can actually buy a club and not pass the EPL FPP test - but this would mean you owned a club that would not be granted permission to play in the EFL leagues - which of course would be a pointless thing to do really).

Anderson on the instruction(?) from the EFL believes no sale was completed.

If the case is not thrown out I would imagine a court date would normally be set some weeks hence and a number of days set aside to hear it.

If however it is for the judge to decide from the initial court hearing tomorrow, then again I think he will need time to write up his decision which again would take a number of weeks to do.

Obviously that would be no good for FV, the EFL and presumably whoever is funding Administration (Fildraw?).

The Administrator has reported that his strategy for Burnden Leisure is slightly different than for the club (BWFAC Ltd) itself, namely his aim is to achieve a better outcome for it's creditors rather than winding it up (which I interpret as selling off the football club), or failing that sell off property to pay off one or more of the secured creditors (which I assume is land and the car parks - can he sell off the stadium without the hotel?) and the secured creditors of BL being EDT/Fildraw, Warburton and Anderson) See Sections 5.1 and 5.2, pages 7, and 8.

However although BWFAC Ltd is not specifically named in the injunction it is clearly implied that the alleged sale was for the club - and the Administrator has already stated that as BWFAC is insolvent he would compulsory liquidate it once a sale can be achieved - thus any delay resulting in FV to withdraw from a purchase of it would lead directly to its liquidation.

I can only assume therefore that if Bassini's claim is not thrown out that an urgent court date will be set to hear, consider and determine the matter.

If Bassini wins then BL and whatever he believes he bought, presumably the club, hotel and everything else, would then belong to him, assuming that he's got the money he agreed with Anderson, and from which all creditors presumably would be paid in full (that's what he claimed iirc?).

If that was the case then Administration for both the club and hotel is resolved immediately as all creditors secured or otherwise would have their claims settled in full.

If Ken wins we revert back to where we were last Thursday before the injunction was issued BUT the question is would FV still be around and if not would the club have been compulsory liquidated by then?

 

One small glimmer of hope we may be able to cling on to is the legal doctrine of 'Laches' which in very simple terms means has Bassini left it too late to start his course action - meaning circumstances for the defender (Ken Anderson) significantly changed his position due to the delay in bringing the action?

One could say his position is one of no longer being the owner of BL, the club and hotel, due to Administration?

However that happened only days after the EFL instructed(?) Ken than Bassini did not meet with their approval.

So I don't put much faith in it being successful in stopping the legal action.

 

In a way it would be better for Anderson not to contest Bassini's claim as I assume he would make more from it if he did have the money for the agreed sale, on the flip side Bassini could be walking away with the stadium and the hotel in order to do a property deal and not care a monkey's of the club future/ or alternatively he will lead us into the Premier League in three seasons!

It's all a bit Kafkasque to me.

(I would recommend The Trial by Franz Kafka if anybody hasn't read it - very reminiscent of what's been happening at BWFC recently).

 

Hope the above explanation hopefully answered some/all of your question?

The problem is, the above is guesswork and speculation - as we don’t know the facts. 

I don’t think Bassini is claiming he completed the deal and owns the club, because presumably there is the small matter if £Xm that he hasn’t paid over to Ken. Without the payment there won’t have been any completion.

Presumably it’s more likely that he is claiming that there has been a breach of contract and is wanting specific performance as a remedy, ie the courts to order that the sale contract is performed / completed and the club sold to him at the purchase price (if he has has satisfied the contract conditions). 

However, that breach of contract claim (if it went to court) would surely be an entirely different trial further down the line, so this injunction hearing would be to determine whether any sale of the club should be prevented pending Bassini launching his breach of contract claim.

As I said at the outset, the information coming out of the administrators is pretty limited, so it’s all a little unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stonefrost will be in to bat for Inner Cirlce won’t she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Jol_BWFC said:

The problem is, the above is guesswork and speculation - as we don’t know the facts. 

The current 970 pages are all guesswork & speculation 

No one on here knows five fifths of fuck all in spite of them alluding to the fact they do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bassini has the money. Sullivan could drop £25million down the bog and barely break a sweat.

hopefully this gets squashed today, but lawyers rather like it when cases drag on, it’s how they make their money. So wouldn’t be surprised if Bassini’s reps pull off an adjournment at the very least.

We’ve become a cash cow for cunts.

because of a cunt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, barrycowdrill said:

The current 970 pages are all guesswork & speculation 

No one on here knows five fifths of fuck all in spite of them alluding to the fact they do

If its informed journalism and perceptive comments you are after, stick to reading the Beeno, Old Bean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spider said:

Bassini has the money. Sullivan could drop £25million down the bog and barely break a sweat.

hopefully this gets squashed today, but lawyers rather like it when cases drag on, it’s how they make their money. So wouldn’t be surprised if Bassini’s reps pull off an adjournment at the very least.

We’ve become a cash cow for cunts.

because of a cunt.

 

Its still questionable whether EFL would allow Sullivan to fund it - under the model Bassini has supposedly outlined. He could fund the acquisition but he can't have "material control" and I suspect if he owned the stadium and charged rent back the EFL would have an issue. 

Also as far as we know Sullivan was offering 12M - for ownership of stadium and hotel. The deal would be significantly more than that - costs are going up every day. Admins need paying off. And given Bassini's claim is it shouldn't have gone into admin - he presumably expects to pay off creditors in full. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Stonefrost will be in to bat for Inner Cirlce won’t she?

Let’s hope she doesn’t ask for an adjournment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposing Bassini's claim is upheld and it is ruled that he has a valid contract  to buy the club and the hotel at an agreed price which he can now exercise.

Would that not mean that nobody had the right to put the club into administration, negotiate with FV etc?

Would that bring into question the administrators fees and the monies put into the club as an interim measure by FV etc?

In fact would those debts not become the responsibility of those who did put the club into admin etc?

Not sure of the timeline here but if Bassini struck a valid deal before this happened he would surely be in his rights to claim that he didn't agree to taking on those additional costs or sign any agreements to be responsible for them i.e. not his problem. And if they argue that the deal was agreed but not completed, he could argue that was not his fault and that had done everything he could to honour the agreement and tried to complete but was illegally blocked from doing so.

If that was the case, there would be a lot of red faces in the various camps including the EFL and they could end up having to pay millions for nothing.

Pure speculation of course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hoppy510 said:

Supposing Bassini's claim is upheld and it is ruled that he has a valid contract  to buy the club and the hotel at an agreed price which he can now exercise.

Would that not mean that nobody had the right to put the club into administration, negotiate with FV etc?

Would that bring into question the administrators fees and the monies put into the club as an interim measure by FV etc?

In fact would those debts not become the responsibility of those who did put the club into admin etc?

Not sure of the timeline here but if Bassini struck a valid deal before this happened he would surely be in his rights to claim that he didn't agree to taking on those additional costs or sign any agreements to be responsible for them i.e. not his problem. And if they argue that the deal was agreed but not completed, he could argue that was not his fault and that had done everything he could to honour the agreement and tried to complete but was illegally blocked from doing so.

If that was the case, there would be a lot of red faces in the various camps including the EFL and they could end up having to pay millions for nothing.

Pure speculation of course.

 

There would be lots of legal challenges. But ultimately Bassini would have to find a lot of money immediately to take control - and convince the EFL.

Can you see that happening? The court can't just rewind time. Nor can it demand the EFL approves Bassini. It can't say he owns the business either since he never actually paid any money to complete the deal.

The debts that are there will still be there and still need settling and the new debts accrued may be up to a challenge between Bassini and Anderson. If Bassini wins I think we're headed straight for liqudation - unless he genuinely has 40M quid ready to go.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be tight for space in there, know of a few Wanderers ST holders on staff who are clocking out and going to watch. Hope they take flares with them.

Edited by Marc505

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Let’s hope she doesn’t ask for an adjournment. 

The Judge is likely to want one so he can read through the 970 pages on here !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the proof of funds were satisfactory enough to prevent the winding up order, how were they no longer good enough 4 weeks later? Are they going to question the integrity of the judge who adjourned the winding up order? 

I suspect this will be referred to the EFL to complete the vetting on the source of funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.