who signed the loan

[zaza123]

As I understand it, he leaves both posts.

 

We are still waiting for the club to "decide" on his 20000 shares.

 

What's the betting they either find some other fool to invest £100K (exactly) or the shares are withdrawn?

 

If the shares are withdrawn then surely it means everyone elses shares were temporarily devalued by a fraud by the board at the time? I want to see the ****ers in court.

[billbee33]

I thought that 2 or more signatures were legally required to sign for the loan so who signed then!!!!

 

Your correct two or more signatures are required, but there was only one signature on the document, the questions that needs to be asked, where is this 300k now, and where is the 350k shares that Miller and Deakin have alledgedly purchased.

[carpetman123]

This was all around the time they both appeared on Radio Stoke breakfast telling us that they had def paid for their shares and they had saved the club because it was in such dire straits 6 mths ago, so at that interview unbeknown to us Deakin had resigned and they had organised a £300k mortgage!!!!!!

[Conrad]

This was all around the time they both appeared on Radio Stoke breakfast telling us that they had def paid for their shares and they had saved the club because it was in such dire straits 6 mths ago, so at that interview unbeknown to us Deakin had resigned and they had organised a £300k mortgage!!!!!!

 

Its been said before, if this was any other club it would be funny.

[rayzer]

This was all around the time they both appeared on Radio Stoke breakfast telling us that they had def paid for their shares and they had saved the club because it was in such dire straits 6 mths ago, so at that interview unbeknown to us Deakin had resigned and they had organised a £300k mortgage!!!!!!

 

And they had the cheek to call Hank a liar.

[Conrad]

I think we all know the shares have not been paid for.

This raises a number of issues.

1 they've not been paid for so remain the property of the club,no need to decide what to do with them.

2, a person cant be on the board with no shareholding, so they are both illegal directors, and the board is not quarate.

3, if they are not legally entitled to be on the board they are not legally able to take out the 300k loan, or indeed any other bussiness they have undertaken. Its all one big sorry mess.

[Santa]

The signature on the MG01 document at CH looks like the solicitor rather than anybody at the club.

[Stevo]

The loan looks to have been registered by a solicitor employed by Russell Jones and Walker. Are these the club's solicitors? I noticed that they represented Sinnott in 2008, claiming that the termination of his employment was unlawfully terminated

 

http://www.onevalefan.co.uk/news/show_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1232453541&archive=1253108350&template=