FPP to take full control

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Well, turned up at colliery last night as per oddbods (from RTG) invite, messaged him on arrival, had a look around, no one in sight that fitted the description given to me, no response to my message. What an utter utter cad, inviting me to meet him and not showing up. Pure downright rudeness. LOL.
Are you sure he didn’t turn up as there was a bit of a pagger going down at 7:30ish
 
Are you sure he didn’t turn up as there was a bit of a pagger going down at 7:30ish
Deffo mate, was just people in high spirits, had a couple of pints. One inside and one outside. Was at the burger van where proposed meeting was to happen, but nothing doing. Got witnesses as well to prove my presence.
Left for Stadium at 19:35.
 
If what Methven said about Donald negotiating with multiple parties is true - and it is an if - then it would mean FPP have given their consent to him doing that. It would seem if they have they're either saying to him 'go and see what else is out there and if it's better, fair enough', or they have said they're happy to walk away.

Hopefully it's the former.[/QUOT

I don't believe a word coming out of Donald/Methven's collective mush, but on what basis would FPP need to consent to them talking to imaginary buyers?
 
They don't need FPP's consent, they can discuss a sale with anyone they choose.

Ok, Smug, but that's not what the charge says (clause b here is most relevant)

You must log in or register to see images


Essentially, they (Madrox, the Chargors) couldn't sell any of the club's fixed assets as part of a deal or even agree in principle to do so without FPP's (The Lender's) consent.

This protects FPP from Donald taking a loan out secured on an asset, then selling the asset and therefore FPP having no recourse if he didn't pay it back.

Pretty simple.
 
Ok, Smug, but that's not what the charge says (clause b here is most relevant)

You must log in or register to see images


Essentially, they (Madrox, the Chargors) couldn't sell any of the club's fixed assets as part of a deal or even agree in principle to do so without FPP's (The Lender's) consent.

This protects FPP from Donald taking a loan out secured on an asset, then selling the asset and therefore FPP having no recourse if he didn't pay it back.

Pretty simple.

You said they would need FPP's permission to talk to people, they don't.

Nothing you've posted says otherwise.

They can talk to anyone they choose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Comfy
They don't need FPP's consent, they can discuss a sale with anyone they choose.

You said they would need FPP's permission to talk to people, they don't.

Nothing you've posted says otherwise.

They can talk to anyone they choose.
this is what I said, throughout my time reading his posts he pretends he knows stuff but always makes mistakes. When you correct him he’s always denies what he said.
 
You said they would need FPP's permission to talk to people, they don't.

Nothing you've posted says otherwise.

They can talk to anyone they choose.

They cannot attempt to sell the club in those discussions or they would be in breach of the above clause. That is in writing, in a charge sheet filed with Companies House. It proves exactly what I said.
 
This is exactly what I said, why would they need any permission from anyone. I personally think the silence from them has been very professional and only what

this is what I said, throughout my time reading his posts he pretends he knows stuff but always makes mistakes. When you correct him he’s always denies what he said.

What? :D You do realise that comes from the charge sheet? You're literally arguing with the agreement between Madrox and FPP, not me. Have a word.
 
What? :D You do realise that comes from the charge sheet? You're literally arguing with the agreement between Madrox and FPP, not me. Have a word.
I’m not arguing about anything in the agreement I’m arguing about the bullshit you spout, you said Fpp must have gave him consent to “talk” to other people, myself and spug have highlighted that they don’t need to give permission for him to talk to people. As I said you make mistakes and then spout ****e when you’re caught out. Either proof read what you write or stop pretending you know things just to look good, have a word with yourself.
 
They cannot attempt to sell the club in those discussions or they would be in breach of the above clause. That is in writing, in a charge sheet filed with Companies House. It proves exactly what I said.
I am unbelievably uneducated in business and less so in bloody legal interpretation, so forgive me. But that says they can’t sell, it doesn’t mention that they can’t talk about it, Donald can pay back the 10mill and then sell the club to who he wants
 
I am unbelievably uneducated in business and less so in bloody legal interpretation, so forgive me. But that says they can’t sell, it doesn’t mention that they can’t talk about it, Donald can pay back the 10mill and then sell the club to who he wants

You must log in or register to see images


Last line.
 
I didn't, I said that they needed FPP's consent to negotiate.
If what Methven said about Donald negotiating with multiple parties is true - and it is an if - it would mean that FPP have given their consent to him doing that. It would seem that if they have they're either saying to him 'go and see what else is out there and if it's better, fair enough', or they have said that they're happy to walk away

again full of bull
 
If what Methven said about Donald negotiating with multiple parties is true - and it is an if - it would mean that FPP have given their consent to him doing that. It would seem that if they have they're either saying to him 'go and see what else is out there and if it's better, fair enough', or they have said that they're happy to walk away

again full of bull

Read the first line. What are you playing at here? That I said the words 'saying to him'? :D This has to be a wind up.
 
Read the first line. What are you playing at here? That I said the words 'saying to him'? :D This has to be a wind up.

so you didn’t say it then even though I’ve just copied what you said and it’s down in black and white.
Blah blah blah blah blah, you’re are full of it. Backtrack all the time and using little green smileys doesn’t make it correct