He's restricted because he knowingly signed up for certain things.
The contract doesn't preclude him from speaking to other buyers with a view to selling the club.
All the waffle in the world can't change that.
FPP to take full control
- Thread starter Whiteleas Wanderer
- Start date
-
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
-
He's restricted because he knowingly signed up for certain things.
The contract doesn't preclude him from speaking to other buyers with a view to selling the club.
All the waffle in the world can't change that.
In that case, the light at the end of the tunnel is that by all his public chat, he genuinely is trying to sell up and get out. Whoever comes in is another matter ha.
So for the third or fourth time, why does it distinguish 'attempt to (sell)' from 'sell'?
this all day long and he can “talk” to whoever he likes but needs their consent to sell. It so simple I don’t see how anyone can’t see it
Misunderstood, my “light at the end of the tunnel”, was just really an end to the whole saga, even if it is a train coming the other way. We are constantly in limbo and that isn’t good at all
I'm guessing that attempt to sell is when paperwork and price is all agreed but the sale falls through for some reason, a bit like buying a house subject to finance and the purchaser doesn't get approved for the funds. That's an attempt to sell.
To actually sell is when the deal goes through.
So from that charge sheet SD can't sign a contract of sale without FPP's permission/terms of the charge are met yet he can discuss things with potential purchasers.
**** the train, we want a monorail
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel.
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel.
A realist sees a freight train.
The train drivers sees three idiots standing on the tracks.
I may disagree, but thanks for at least answering in a polite way.
As far as this is concerned, I am very confident (again, I have been through a very similar situation) that the covenant is designed very specifically to stop Donald trying to drive up the price by soliciting bids from other sources that might interfere with any future plans they have. It means he has to at least ask them first if they're ok with him going public. In this particular case, they do not appear to have any objection.
It's very simple, and that's what distinguishes 'sell' from 'attempt to'. Your first paragraph is still covered by 'sell' as it makes no difference at that point when the sale is stopped. This is in to prevent something other than the sale.
Keeping that one in my locker mate, brilliant**** the train, we want a monorail
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel.
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel.
A realist sees a freight train.
The train drivers sees three idiots standing on the tracks.
He doesn't have to solicit bids ...
... anyone is entitled to make a bid to the legal owner of any entity.
FPP have absolutely no say in that.
The club is quite clearly up for sale.
It would be idiotic to believe the owner of the club would refuse to talk to a prospective buyer when he's said he wants to sell.
It’s not getting through to him mate, think we could go on for months arguing the toss but nothing will get through his skull
Agree.
Let's say that a mate of SD's is having a conversation with a fella and mentions that his mate is looking to sell his business (in this case SAFC).
The fella then contacts SD and offers a price.
In this circumstance SD would have done nothing wrong.
If the conversation then progresses and the 2 parties agree a price with which SD would be happy to sell then he would need to approach FPP prior to signing or commencing the official sale process.
Actively pursuing a sale of the club is both attempting in it's own right to sell the club, and solicting bids, but let's not get bogged down in semantics again...
I mean we really are arguing about nowt here, he has literally said in a club statement that he's started the process of selling the club, so there's no way he didn't ask FPP for their consent to do it and they approved, because if not they'd have him by the balls if they were so inclined.
I think we've already established your depth of knowledge here pal
I don't mind you agreeing with smug, but if you give me ****e in the same breath, I'll respond in kind.
That's all you ever do tbh.
I've never said he's actively pursuing the sale of the club or soliciting bids but that quite simply isn't the same as attempting to sell the club.
It's attempting to arrange the circumstances whereby someone could attempt to buy the club with FPP's consent.
I have said that there's nothing to stop him negotiating with prospective buyers.
There isn't, no matter how many hairs you split.
Last edited:
My depth of knowledge knows that you being a business man you are thick as pigshit and cannot understand when loads of posters on here are telling you are wrong and you still spout ****e. How you run a company is beyond me cause you come across here as a know nowt ****aI think we've already established your depth of knowledge here pal
I also pulled you up before smug said anything about FPP not allowing him to speak to anyone. Read back on the posts and stop backtracking, I’ll point you in the direction of post 240
Whereas we all established your depth of knowledge months ago when you first started posting your bileI think we've already established your depth of knowledge here pal
I assume smug will be reporting this, being the righteous man he is.Good on you pal, you just believe that if 5 people all believe their own interpretation, and can't give a plausible reason why 'attempt to' differs markedly from 'sell' that they're right. Nothing wrong with following the crowd without question and then shouting down anyone that disagrees and calling them thick as pigshit and a ****er, questioning their ability to run a business, or even, if you take a leaf out of say, @Smug in Boots's book, you could tell me to **** off and die, then defend your right to do so, but then edit the post to get rid of it.
I must have missed why BumbleBee was banned btw? Was it purely for disagreeing with you smug, or was it because he told someone to **** off and die?
That was my point, he's not their puppet if he pays them back. He may already have done. Only he knows what's going on, the rest is just 'hear say'... ain't it?