Senile Council Article

[Fosse69]

The Senile is part of the Mail group, since when does a headline have to relate to the article. I also believe his comments have been edited to suit the Seniles anti MC agenda.

[AVIM]

I take it you're unable to back up your claim that the repayment-on-takeover clause is "valid" then since you repeatedly keep avoiding the question of how such a clause can possibly be justified as in the best interests of PVFC?

 

Its "valid" in the sense that v2001 would only relinquish control of the club to someone who has sufficient funding in place to either clear the debt, or set up alternative lines of credit, or meet with the approval of the clubs main investor (the council).

 

The clause acts to support this view.

 

It basically gives the council veto over any takeover of control my someone who doesn't have capital. They can choose to renew the loan with Mo if they see fit. As the biggest investor in port vale, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable veto to have? As we have all agreed here many times, who will invest as large amount as 2.2m in the club without having some say?

[melv]

Hes said many times, 5m. He will borrow the club upto 3.8m to clear the council and other debt if necessary (ie if he cant renegotiate the council to a better rate).

 

Why has it taken 6 months for this info to come out when the V2001 board are open and honest?

[AVIM]

'lend' not 'borrow'.

[AVIM]

Why has it taken 6 months for this info to come out when the V2001 board are open and honest?

 

You think v2001 are open and honest? You've changed your tune.

[Santa]

The board have been called out on here many times for telling fibs, no?

Can I ask you what lies you think the board have made?

[Guest Debbie]

Why has it taken 6 months for this info to come out when the V2001 board are open and honest?

 

You took the words out of my mouth melv. Why has this not come to the fore before now? If Mo and LB have documentation about the council loan, surely this clause would have been there for all to see??

[melv]

You think v2001 are open and honest? You've changed your tune.

 

That is what they claim to be.So why has it taken 6 months (or more) for such important information to be made available.Why has such information come from another source and not the club?

[Caroline Oakes]

I wonder if the same clause is put in the loan from Harlequin. If so that is another £130k to find straight away. All this is designed for a new Board to be seriously handicapped in trying to take the club forward. If they had to pay all this up front then it stands to reason that there is not much left to spend on the playing side, the infrastructure, (the RW suite, the Lorne St Stand) and money for the back room staff to improve the training and scouting side to make forward steps towards an academy. Board members hang your heads in shame in trying to protect your positions.

 

Remember Mo wants to buy 51% on his own to get control, while the current Board have control with only 28% and that is divided by five people. You work out the maths.

 

Just a thought;) but knowing what a good relationship Pratty has with Harlequin, if Pratty goes I would imagine Harlequin would go! Hence the need to repay the £130k.

Also, I wonder what would happen IF the club has ordered any shirts with Harlequin printed on as the club sponsor.

[AVIM]

Can I ask you what lies you think the board have made?

 

They have been accused on here of all kinds of make believe. Some are probably true and some are probably not true.

[Santa]

Its "valid" in the sense that v2001 would only relinquish control of the club to someone who has sufficient funding in place to either clear the debt, or set up alternative lines of credit, or meet with the approval of the clubs main investor (the council).

 

The clause acts to support this view.

This clause was entered 5 years ago, well before Mo or any of the other recent investors were on the scene.

 

The board have always said they would move aside for the right person, to let the club move forward.

 

How could this ever have been the case if they ensured that a mechanism was in place to saddle any new owner with > £2million of immediately repayable debt, before a penny is put into the playing side?

[Caroline Oakes]

That is what they claim to be.So why has it taken 6 months (or more) for such important information to be made available.Why has such information come from another source and not the club?

 

Because the last thing the club want is for Mo to see the books. I'm just wondering what else is being hidden. This info from the council was obtained under the FOI act.

[Howjy04]

Its "valid" in the sense that v2001 would only relinquish control of the club to someone who has sufficient funding in place to either clear the debt, or set up alternative lines of credit, or meet with the approval of the clubs main investor (the council).

 

The clause acts to support this view.

 

It basically gives the council veto over any takeover of control my someone who doesn't have capital. They can choose to renew the loan with Mo if they see fit. As the biggest investor in port vale, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable veto to have? As we have all agreed here many times, who will invest as large amount as 2.2m in the club without having some say?

 

When wrongly asked IMO by the RS interviewer last night if he had proof of funding Mo said he had 32 million available for investment .I think the council may want to do business with him don't you?Granted that was not all for the Vale but why would anyone want to pay that much over the odds considering the board do quite well in getting loan holidays and rumour has it can't be a r s e d paying anything back now.There's taking the **ss then there's taking the giant **ss.

[AVIM]

That is what they claim to be.So why has it taken 6 months (or more) for such important information to be made available.Why has such information come from another source and not the club?

 

You have answered your own question. Clearly they are not 100% open or 100% honest. To be fair, neither are most people in business or otherwise.

[Santa]

They have been accused on here of all kinds of make believe. Some are probably true and some are probably not true.

But what do you think? I'm interested in your opinion.

 

You have seen and heard the things the board say and do. What's your evaluation of them?