" CALM DOWN EVERYBODY "

Annis where you say Sam is owed £10million that is only the case if it is paid before the end of this year. Otherwise it reverts back to the £24million.

That's incorrect, Carl.

The latest agreement saw the loan notes debt written down to £15 million, with significant incentives for early repayment.

If it is settled in full by the end of December 2010, the figure will be £10 million.

If it is settled in full by the end of December 2011, the figure will be £11 million.

If it is settled in full by the end of December 2012, the figure will be £12 million.

And so on until the end of December 2016, when the remaining balance of the £15 million will be due, which works out at another £8 million provided the monthly repayments have been honoured.

Dave, I cant say how or what but your wrong as Carl and Myself saw ALL THE LEGAL PAPER WORK THIS WEEK, I am not going to go in to an argument with you, as we both gave our word.

Dave, prior to last week, you, myself and Carl believed that was correct, but it was the Riddler who put that out and we have seen with our own eyes different, legal documents.

Dave, I cant say how or what but your wrong as Carl and Myself saw ALL THE LEGAL PAPER WORK THIS WEEK, I am not going to go in to an argument with you, as we both gave our word.

Dave, prior to last week, you, myself and Carl believed that was correct, but it was the Riddler who put that out and we have seen with our own eyes different, legal documents.

Dave, I cant say how or what but your wrong as Carl and Myself saw ALL THE LEGAL PAPER WORK THIS WEEK, I am not going to go in to an argument with you, as we both gave our word.

The agreement was reported as TLG says at the time, but i always thought we had to pay a MINIMUM £1m each year, or the agreement would be voided.

Also as both yourself and TLG are reading this do either of you know when PR took the £4m loan our with Ransom, as pR claimed there were no further debts than those reported at the EGM in Feb, so if it was taken out after this then WHY couldnt we pay the wages or the tax-bill without hand-outs from TG and use of ALL the ST money.

WAS it reported in the management accounts ? If so the other directors can hardly say they didnt know about it.

Tim, I wish this had never been brought up, I have seen a 3rd contract which was re taken out by the riddler etc, but I cant discuss it, Sorry.

Tim, I wish this had never been brought up, I have seen a 3rd contract which was re taken out by the riddler etc, but I cant discuss it, Sorry.

No worries Annis.
I understand you need to respect your source.

I still think that the sooner its all cleared up the better and now we've got a more solid ownership the club should look to pay off the loan and take one elswhere with a more conventional source - or even try a debt for equity swap for all or part of it.

Dave, I cant say how or what but your wrong as Carl and Myself saw ALL THE LEGAL PAPER WORK THIS WEEK, I am not going to go in to an argument with you, as we both gave our word.

Dave, prior to last week, you, myself and Carl believed that was correct, but it was the Riddler who put that out and we have seen with our own eyes different, legal documents.

We'll see.

The fact of the matter is that the £24 debt was written down to £15 million as far back as 2006.

Dave, I cant say how or what but your wrong as Carl and Myself saw ALL THE LEGAL PAPER WORK THIS WEEK, I am not going to go in to an argument with you, as we both gave our word.

Dave, prior to last week, you, myself and Carl believed that was correct, but it was the Riddler who put that out and we have seen with our own eyes different, legal documents.

We'll see.

The fact of the matter is that the £24 debt was written down to £15 million as far back as 2006.

Dave I was of the same understanding prior to last week and to say I was surprised was an understatement to learn that it is £10million plus an extra £5 million bonus on promotion or stadium naming rights to be paid by 31/12/2010 and there is nothing relating to the additional £1million each year upto 2016, I remember it being explained at the time as you have said in a previous post and if you check back on my previous posts you will see that I was saying the same as you, as Annis has said this is strictly confidential and we cannot report on it any further than we already have.

A few points, Carl:

1) The principal sum was written down to £15 million as far back as November 2006. Details of the amended agreement appeared in the club's December 2006 legal notice to shareholders, the 2006/07 accounts and the 2007/08 accounts, copies of which I have in front of me. These documents aren't simply something Ridsdale concocted. They are agreed by the directors, signed on their behalf by the company secretary (who is a corporate lawyer), audited by Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP and filed with Companies House.

2) The November 2006 agreement which saw the principal sum written down to £15 million was later unsuccessfully challenged in High Court by the Langston Corporation. The details of the agreement were clearly outlined during the court hearing.

3) Any further amendments to the November 2006 agreement couldn't simply be agreed by the former-Chairman. The club's directors, solictors and company secretary (who happens to be a successful corporate lawyer) would be involved out of legal necessity.

4) After successfully defending the November 2006 agreement in court, the chances of the club agreeing further amendments which meant the principal sum was written back up to £24 million are practically zero. The directors and lawyers simply wouldn't sanction such a deal as the club would have absolutely nothing to gain from it.

5) We'll know the truth soon enough. The latest set of accounts are already overdue. When they are finally filed at Companies House, they will almost certainly contain details of the amended loan notes agreement (December 2009) as a post-balance sheet event, as was the case with the 2005/06 accounts, which I also have in front of me.

A few points, Carl:

1) The principal sum was written down to £15 million as far back as November 2006. Details of the amended agreement appeared in the club's December 2006 legal notice to shareholders, the 2006/07 accounts and the 2007/08 accounts, copies of which I have in front of me. These documents aren't simply something Ridsdale concocted. They are agreed by the directors, signed on their behalf by the company secretary (who is a corporate lawyer), audited by Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP and filed with Companies House.

2) The November 2006 agreement which saw the principal sum written down to £15 million was later unsuccessfully challenged in High Court by the Langston Corporation. The details of the agreement were clearly outlined during the court hearing.

3) Any further amendments to the November 2006 agreement couldn't simply be agreed by the former-Chairman. The club's directors, solictors and company secretary (who happens to be a successful corporate lawyer) would be involved out of legal necessity.

4) After successfully defending the November 2006 agreement in court, the chances of the club agreeing further amendments which meant the principal sum was written back up to £24 million are practically zero. The directors and lawyers simply wouldn't sanction such a deal as the club would have absolutely nothing to gain from it.

5) We'll know the truth soon enough. The latest set of accounts are already overdue. When they are finally filed at Companies House, they will almost certainly contain details of the amended loan notes agreement (December 2009) as a post-balance sheet event, as was the case with the 2005/06 accounts, which I also have in front of me.

Dave, with regards to the November 2006 loan note I agree with what you say and I do not dispute it was written down to £15million and again I would have been arguing the same points as you a week ago as regards to the amended loan notes for Dec 2009.

Obviously we would all like the loan notes to be settled sooner rather than later for the sake of the club but I was surprised to learn that the figure reverts back to the original loan note if not paid off in full by 31/12/2010.

Obviously we would all like the loan notes to be settled sooner rather than later for the sake of the club but I was surprised to learn that the figure reverts back to the origianl loan note if not paid off in full by 31/12/2010.

It reverts to which agreement if not paid off in full by 31/12/2010?

The original September 2004 agreement or the November 2006 revision?

Obviously we would all like the loan notes to be settled sooner rather than later for the sake of the club but I was surprised to learn that the figure reverts back to the origianl loan note if not paid off in full by 31/12/2010.

It reverts to which agreement if not paid off in full by 31/12/2010?

The original September 2004 agreement or the November 2006 revision?

Dave, I really cant discuss it any further than I already have, as I do not wish to break trust with certain people and also it could be damaging to the club. I am sure you will understand.

Dave, I really cant discuss it any further than I already have, as I do not wish to break trust with certain people and also it could be damaging to the club. I am sure you will understand.

Yes, I understand.

Dave, I really cant discuss it any further than I already have, as I do not wish to break trust with certain people and also it could be damaging to the club. I am sure you will understand.

Yes, I understand.

Good.

Obviously we would all like the loan notes to be settled sooner rather than later for the sake of the club but I was surprised to learn that the figure reverts back to the origianl loan note if not paid off in full by 31/12/2010.

It reverts to which agreement if not paid off in full by 31/12/2010?

The original September 2004 agreement or the November 2006 revision?

As far as I am aware there is still a dispute regarding the legality of the 2006 agreement, which is what the court case was all about. Is Sam now saying he accepts this ?

Whatever agreement is in place the club clearly has to get this debt paid of in its entirety by the end of this year. TG and VT will have been fully aware of this deal before they invested and I can't see that it would make any business sense to these highly successful businessmen not get this paid off. There can't be many businesses around where you would get the chance to write off a £14M debt from the balance sheet

Ideally of course promotion would have have seen the debt repaid but I can't see anything other than a further investment being made to pay it off by the Malaysians which may or may not even involve Sam coming back on board in some capacity as they evidently seem to want other interested parties to invest in the club.

Whatever agreement is in place the club clearly has to get this debt paid of in its entirety by the end of this year. TG and VT will have been fully aware of this deal before they invested and I can't see that it would make any business sense to these highly successful businessmen not get this paid off. There can't be many businesses around where you would get the chance to write off a £14M debt from the balance sheet

Ideally of course promotion would have have seen the debt repaid but I can't see anything other than a further investment being made to pay it off by the Malaysians which may or may not even involve Sam coming back on board in some capacity as they evidently seem to want other interested parties to invest in the club.

Well that is one possibility but i favour the takeover option. Most of the debt is owed to shareholders. The shares while the club is in debt will be of little value. I can see the Malaysians obtaining more shares from the likes of Sam and PMG while in the process of paying off the debt. Could be an interesting 6 months ahead.