Asset Stripping

As stated in earlier threads regarding the land sale, the money raised didn't go on paying bills or easing the tax bill but instead it went off the debts owed to certain directors. When the share holders voted on this were they aware of what was going to happen to the money or were they led to beleive it would raise cash to help with bill etc?

Now if that isn't asset stripping then can someone please explain what is?

It does look like some people looked around the board room table and thought hang on a minute, if this goes tits up then I'll lose all the money I'm owed. So they sold the land to at least get that much back. Looking after number one rather than trying to save the business.

This alleged CVA therefore is the worst thing that could possibly happen, because it gives them the ability to get to the open window and asset strip the playing squad. If it walks - sell it! We'll have nothing left apart from the one's no body wants. I hope Steve Borley kept his goalkeeper kit because we might need him to play next season.

As stated in earlier threads regarding the land sale, the money raised didn't go on paying bills or easing the tax bill but instead it went off the debts owed to certain directors. When the share holders voted on this were they aware of what was going to happen to the money or were they led to beleive it would raise cash to help with bill etc?

Now if that isn't asset stripping then can someone please explain what is?

It does look like some people looked around the board room table and thought hang on a minute, if this goes tits up then I'll lose all the money I'm owed. So they sold the land to at least get that much back. Looking after number one rather than trying to save the business.

This alleged CVA therefore is the worst thing that could possibly happen, because it gives them the ability to get to the open window and asset strip the playing squad. If it walks - sell it! We'll have nothing left apart from the one's no body wants. I hope Steve Borley kept his goalkeeper kit because we might need him to play next season.

Interesting notion that we would be better off trading under an administrator rather than our own board of directors.

Dam hard to argue against.

As stated in earlier threads regarding the land sale, the money raised didn't go on paying bills or easing the tax bill but instead it went off the debts owed to certain directors. When the share holders voted on this were they aware of what was going to happen to the money or were they led to beleive it would raise cash to help with bill etc?

Now if that isn't asset stripping then can someone please explain what is?

It does look like some people looked around the board room table and thought hang on a minute, if this goes tits up then I'll lose all the money I'm owed. So they sold the land to at least get that much back. Looking after number one rather than trying to save the business.

This alleged CVA therefore is the worst thing that could possibly happen, because it gives them the ability to get to the open window and asset strip the playing squad. If it walks - sell it! We'll have nothing left apart from the one's no body wants. I hope Steve Borley kept his goalkeeper kit because we might need him to play next season.

Interesting notion that we would be better off trading under an administrator rather than our own board of directors.

Dam hard to argue against.

cant see 75% of creditors voting for CVA. Payback time for Sam maybe

I can't see what Sam would get from a CVA, surely he'd be far worse off. Thing is if they start selling players to cover their own loans and with PMG having first dibs there'd be nothing left for anyone else.

Are PMG owed 9m? If so it's hard to see where that much would come from especially in a fire sale. Sam would have to be off his head to vote for a CVA along with anyone else who's not PMG.

I don't think there has been a vote on the hotel land, only the house of sport land. I don't think it has been stated anywhere that there needs to be a shareholders vote for sale to Guy, only to Borley. Not sure why this is.

The only positive thing I can think of is that the original feedback after initial talks with the malaysians was that they would only take us on if the debt was reduced and tax bill paid. Wiping 1.8m off debt ticks box 1 but probably screws box 2.

In the Sam deal there was talk of the new arrangement being scrapped if the club failed to meet scheduled payments, so if cva was offered he could say no and it would go back to 15m plus 9m naming rights plus premiership bonus or whatever it was. Suppose it just depends on what he thinks he can hold out for.

Maybe thay are setting themselves up, taking what they can out of the club in preparation to accept a lower share price from the Malaysians?.