Liquidators

[Aussie Rules]

I dont think its about redemption Barry.... I dont think he needs it.

I think it all rests on whether the selling of nil paid shares or the buying of nil paid shares is the issue... there may be a crossover if there was some sort of conspiracy in the purchase... there may be no case to answer for anyone.... if there is it has to be decided if MOLD or BOLA [pre purchase] or both committed any offence and what that offence was.

If the sale of nil paid shares is the issue I cant see how adams or his part in it can be ignored... if he knew or should have reasonably known about the issue he is a party to it.

I dont see how MOLD [apart from conspiricy] could be accountable for the sale of the shares, only for the purchase... and subsequent actions [eg the loan]..... which gets confusing because OL were a party to both pre and post sale boards.

If the nil paid shares or BOLA is not an issue then adams is clear.....

Put simply..... If its post share sale MOLD are in the frame.... if its pre share sale BOLA are in the frame.... yes it does/can get complicated at the point of sale.

 

Points noted Geo

[Bede]

This is crack on and Adams was a total ignorant fool for ignoring the advice he was given prior to agreeing to become a pawn in the previous board's scam.

 

I bet all of them are pointing the finger at eachother claiming they just went along with what they were told.

 

Adams is stupid and ignorant and for that I can't stand the bloke but the rest need ****ing hanging.

[Bede]

Balls, forgot to quote geo's post from a couple of pages back

[bookworm]

This is crack on and Adams was a total ignorant fool for ignoring the advice he was given prior to agreeing to become a pawn in the previous board's scam.

 

I bet all of them are pointing the finger at eachother claiming they just went along with what they were told.

 

Adams is stupid and ignorant and for that I can't stand the bloke but the rest need ****ing hanging.

 

not on your christmas list then bede.

[geosname]

This is crack on and Adams was a total ignorant fool for ignoring the advice he was given prior to agreeing to become a pawn in the previous board's scam.

 

I bet all of them are pointing the finger at eachother claiming they just went along with what they were told.

 

Adams is stupid and ignorant and for that I can't stand the bloke but the rest need ****ing hanging.

 

Sounds about right to me

[fairportnick]

It never helps to criticise or dismiss people who know that they are genuinely in the right and have done a lot of background work to ensure that they are right. (Some have done it, admitted they are wrong and then done it again). There are some on here who have done it a lot more than Adams . I cant stand them whereas at least Adams wins the occasional football match.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What law as he broke ? Look back at how he was made a director, he never said he bought shares,so there is a witch hunt

 

It's yet to be proven if any laws wele broken and whether he was involved in breaking them. However, it is unlikely IMO that if any from MOLD are found have done wrong that he won't get dragged into it. he was probably naive (foolish even), thought that he was doing the right thing and maybe used by others but when one becomes a director one takes on significant responsibilities on many levels and the "risks" that come with that.

 

I don't see any witch hunt, just a desire for the truth and facts to come out, to be investigated thoroughly and for the wrongdoers to be punished and to be seen to be punished...it's a fact he is involved and so the investigation must look at his involvement just as it must everyone else

 

Personally I hope that he is exonerated and at worst receives a slap on the wrist but if he's done wrong he deserves punishment

[bookworm]

I will ask you again do you think that Adams or any one else is above the law ?

 

No one should be above the law but as i see it you and others are doing your best to make a case for guilt by association when in reality if adams hadn't been co opted then OVF would be a forum without a club.

[grebovale]

Correct me if am wrong again :) ,nil paid shares are not illegal to have as long as you pay for them some were down the the line,am sure this was mentioned before we went in administration,Adams became director with the approval of the FL to make the numbers up,didn't Adams step down before we went in admin ?

[geosname]

No one should be above the law but as i see it you and others are doing your best to make a case for guilt by association when in reality if adams hadn't been co opted then OVF would be a forum without a club.

 

It all depends on your angle of vision. If adams hadnt joined the board we may not have had a nil paid shares fiasco, deakin may not have tied the club to long contracts, miller may not have taken a loan against the ground, neither may not have been paid silly amounts of money or been given cars, bratt may have got his money back and we may not have been disappointed by the none existent blue grass deal.... or anything else that happened after MOLD took over.

They are all may nots because they may have drafted someone else onto the board, if they had whoever that person was would be as responsible as adams... the fact is adams took on the role... he made the board quorate... he made the decisions valid.

I am not suggesting he had any intention of wrongdoing, he may not [hopefully] have done any wrong but if the police are investigating pre MOLD they have to look at adams, they wont have a choice, he was an integral part of that era.

People are discussing the facts as they know them and how they apply.

The thing we cant judge, because we dont know, is would smurf and wilds have come forward if the administrators had been called in when BOLA were in charge, or if anyone would have come forward. They may have, if they had the healing process would have started much earlier and who knows where we would be today.

I think adams did himself no favours with his cringe worthy comments of "Im only on the board to discuss football matters" [or similar]......

"Im driving the bus but Im only a passenger" "I didnt shoot him officer but I was holding the gun when it went off" "the pilot hasnt turned up can one of the passengers make up the numbers and fly the plane"....

perhaps he just sent a box of cornettos to the meetings with his proxy?:rolleyes:

[geosname]

Correct me if am wrong again :) ,nil paid shares are not illegal to have as long as you pay for them some were down the the line,am sure this was mentioned before we went in administration,Adams became director with the approval of the FL to make the numbers up,didn't Adams step down before we went in admin ?

 

Its a breach of the articles of association [the rules]... which state [from memory] That a person must purchase £50,000 worth of shares to be eligible for a place on the board.... BOLA did not receive payment so shares should not have been issued therefore miller and deakin were not eligible to stand for election [unless sponsored].

The decision to issue the shares without payment was taken by Bratt/Oliver/Lloyd/Adams.... anyone not attending that meeting invalidates [unless they were able to participate fully by other means] the decision because the board is inquorate [not enough members to make a decision]

You cant/shouldnt become a director to make up the numbers because you take on the responsibilities and liabilities of the board as a director.

He didnt step down he had his sponsorship withdrawn but that doesnt abrogate his responsibilities for the time he was on the board.

[blackdog]

No one should be above the law but as i see it you and others are doing your best to make a case for guilt by association when in reality if adams hadn't been co opted then OVF would be a forum without a club.

 

I am NOT doing my best to make a case against Adams, the fact remains he got involved when he was warned repeatedly NOT to go on the board,you are assuming the club would have closed for good if he had not got involved, geosname post #115 sums up the situation very well.

I dont want Adams sacked I dont want him involved in any future investigation that might distract him doing his job, I support Adams as a manager but NOT as a director

[Jacko51]

No one should be above the law but as i see it you and others are doing your best to make a case for guilt by association when in reality if adams hadn't been co opted then OVF would be a forum without a club.

 

Wrong. All they needed on the Board was a body. It didn't have to be Adams.

[Jacko51]

Very good piece from Martin Tideswell in this morning's Sentinel:

 

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Martin-Tideswell-t-just-forget-shares-scandal/story-19523776-detail/story.html

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Correct me if am wrong again :) ,nil paid shares are not illegal to have as long as you pay for them some were down the the line,am sure this was mentioned before we went in administration,Adams became director with the approval of the FL to make the numbers up,didn't Adams step down before we went in admin ?

 

I think the point is they claimed to have put money into the club to come onto the board when in reality they had not

 

Yes nil-paid shares (or rights) are perefectly legal and really just give you an entitlement to buy 'proper' shares at a certain price in the future..an entitlement not a commitment to buy them, you can let the right lapse, you can even sell on the entitlement to make some money form that without ever putting a penny in to get that entitlement in ther first place.

 

I doubt anyone did anything illegal in issuing the nil-paid shares and claiming to have put money in when they got the nil-paid shares whilst dodgy might also not be illegal..hence I suspect only a slap on the wrist will follow

 

Hope I'm wrong