Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Take Over


Kane57
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

EDT would probably be able to get the money from SK's estate in full, but would lose the legacy of ED.

SK may get the money from the hotel & asset sale, and then have to pay out to teh EDT, so wouldn't be out of pocket, but would lose his 'earnings'

We would lose the club.

I am convinced that this is 100% bang on the money.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this deal goes through then we all owe FV a huge debt of gratitude for sticking with it. I don’t think too many other buyers would still have still been around after all that’s materialised over the last few months. I think they’ve handled it all with dignity while being pulled from pillar to post with all the internal wranglings between EDT and KA!

i wish I felt confident that it will still happen though 🤞🤞🤞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Danny G said:

I am convinced that this is 100% bang on the money.

 

I haven’t done the maths but if club in liquidation only fetches what 12/13m? then most of that to EDT plus rubins. Not much left for ken in that. Hotel his claim is 1.7m so again that goes to EDT so by my reckoning ken is on the hook for maybe 4m if liquidated. 

If he goes now with the deal he wants he’s a multi millionaire off the back of it funded by edt. 

You agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
Just now, Ros Coe said:

If this deal goes through then we all owe FV a huge debt of gratitude for sticking with it. I don’t think too many other buyers would still have still been around after all that’s materialised over the last few months. I think they’ve handled it all with dignity while being pulled from pillar to post with all the internal wranglings between EDT and KA!

i wish I felt confident that it will still happen though 🤞🤞🤞

They've done fuck all til it's over line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farnywhite said:

About being blocked by Geoff Shreves on Twitter 

Yeh I thought you meant that after reading replies to it but I assumed he was sarcastically replying to that. It’s a stretch thinking they’re more ITK than anyone here and no one else is dancing here.

He said this after too:

Which doesn’t sound like something in reference to Geoff, could be wrong.

Edited by Mantra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Danny G said:

Apparently the loans to KA are secured against his personal assets so house, car, boat etc. If he didn’t pay back then EDT can have assets seized. With the clause They wouldn’t, simple as that. 

I understand that Danny, but if you take a loan with security against your assets, surely it can't be legal to then "unsecure" those assets as it's tantamount to ripping up the deal?

And given that asset seizure would only come into play on default, extracting a non-prosecution clause would only demonstrate motive and intention to default which I'd have thought lawyers would have a field day with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hoppy510 said:

I understand that Danny, but if you take a loan with security against your assets, surely it can't be legal to then "unsecure" those assets as it's tantamount to ripping up the deal?

And given that asset seizure would only come into play on default, extracting a non-prosecution clause would only demonstrate motive and intention to default which I'd have thought lawyers would have a field day with.

He wouldn't escape criminal proeedings, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mantra said:

Yeh I thought you meant that after reading replies to it but I assumed he was sarcastically replying to that. It’s a stretch thinking they’re more ITK than anyone here and no one else is dancing here.

He said this after too:

Which doesn’t sound like something in reference to Geoff, could be wrong.

Well we were top trending in UK on twatter most of today just dropped to number 2 now bake off as started 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hoppy510 said:

I understand that Danny, but if you take a loan with security against your assets, surely it can't be legal to then "unsecure" those assets as it's tantamount to ripping up the deal?

And given that asset seizure would only come into play on default, extracting a non-prosecution clause would only demonstrate motive and intention to default which I'd have thought lawyers would have a field day with.

Not a clue, maybe if the lender agrees to the clause then nothing can be done?

KA defo knows the game that he is playing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hoppy510 said:

I understand that Danny, but if you take a loan with security against your assets, surely it can't be legal to then "unsecure" those assets as it's tantamount to ripping up the deal?

And given that asset seizure would only come into play on default, extracting a non-prosecution clause would only demonstrate motive and intention to default which I'd have thought lawyers would have a field day with.

You can be released from any personal security by the security holder. Which is what ken is asking for a plus basically being let off with the whole amount now and in future. Effectively it being written off with no comeback. All legal and above board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Morizio said:

Of course and thank you. I’ll still pray🙏

 

Where are the apologists and collaborators? Ask yourselves a question you cunts, what horse are you backing. Fuku👆

What the fuck is this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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