Howardroark

Yes

Because he’s not going to simply slink away, he doesn’t respect the law or it’s processes. Dont forget, they offered KA millions of pounds simply to avoid the whole drama of recalling the shares

They are guaranteed by a fixed and floating first charge so it’s not a question of the money, it’s a question of what you stand for.

BWFC is under WU, not Burnden Leisure.

My bidders circumvented KA to avoid dealing with him. They then agreed to his demands and put everything in place to acquire the business 9 days ago. All this despite KA refusing to meet them. Since that point they have had to sit and watch as KA has allowed this whole Bassini farce to play out whilst refusing to talk to/meet with them to sign off. They are then told that he is challenging the legality of their claim to security on frankly ridiculous grounds simply to suit his own purpose. These people don’t have the time to be ‘not serious’ but they also don’t have the time to be played publicly by Ken Anderson

What they won’t do is anything detrimental to their reputation. They wouldn’t seek to go through a public court process with Ken Anderson.

It’s not about them agreeing, it’s about if KA can get a judge to delay it.

Redemption of a securitised asset comes with all kinds of legal mandates allowing for a challenge if processes are not followed to the letter of the law. KA can and will seek an injunction preventing it. His attempts to buy it have failed.

In respect of the wrong address, that’s KA’s claim not mine. In respect of accepting the funds, a fundamental of being successful is having a feel for when to walk away, Laurence Bassini being involved and the subsequent press gave a lot of people a lot of concern. To walk away with a few million for essentially nothing and with reputations in tact, that might be considered a victory. These people owe the club nothing.

Well Bassini hasn’t yet set up a legal entity through which to buy the business (like first ventures) so that’s an immediate red flag to anything imminent. What I think is happening is that KA is just trying to buy time to get the Bassini deal over the line because he truly believes he has the cash. The problem with him doing that is that he gives the only serious buyer there has ever been the ability to simply walk away (because the share redemption date would be too late if they agreed to his complaint about non-receipt). That being said, maybe KA needs rid of that buyer to get EFL on-board. Honestly my gut suggests he will chance his arm and take the liquidation order, only to sell within the 7 days. Alternatively, Bassini may find the funds to allow KA to put the club in to admin, remove the WU risk and shed some debt. Note- the shares couldn’t be transferred to mystery buyer if the business is in administration.

Have I not proven my source is credible?

Money can only be transferred between 0900 and 1530.....

EFLwere always going to fail Bassini whilst another bidder was in play, if KA’s “I didn’t get the letter” kicks that bidder out then the EFL may have to reconsider. But it does remain unlikely unless he’s fronting for an equally as corrupt source, there is unfortunately an abundance of these across the South East Asian states.

A week on Weds

You don’t really think these guys will pay KA anything now, if he gets the injunction it gives him 2 weeks to go through this charade again. Courts opinion will be “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....”

To avoid prison

Right the document is involvement of a party I am familiar with in respect of the purchase. The NDA was back dated to reflect the commencement of term date with Moonshift.

Proof of my non WUM-ness.

Just for any doubters CERBERUS_Sig-2-2.pdf

Quite possible, but how do you prove receipt unless there’s a signatory at WM? As I said, i have no idea which address it was sent to, only that he’s claiming only to be in receipt as of last Weds

It’s the notice of the notice period. Electronic sending isn’t classed as proof of receipt.

KA will try to gain an injunction on the basis of non receipt. If he gets that then they will probably pull out.

Inner Circle isn’t, if it was sent to the stadium then it’s not the right address, the addresses are London and Switzerland

If KA proves he didn’t get the notice letter then the likelihood is that he will liquidate.

So KA is essentially claiming that the letter stating the 14 day notice was sent to an address that he wasn’t at (probably stadium) and as such should commence from when he received it (Weds last week). Its difficult when there’s a sole director and if he can prove he wasn’t at the stadium/address then yes possibly legitimate. Although hopefully the content of this forum and his/Lee’s browsing habits might counter that argument.