This tweet worries the hell out of me. http://twitter.com/affers1178/status/207814746995568640 My understanding of the bond deal (which I admit to not having read in several months), was that in the event of an act of default, the bondholders who hadn't been paid off would come back into the fold. If it's going to get messy, my reading is that either legal action will determine our fate, or that the bondholders might not be keen to do business with the party involved.
he has signed a 3 yr deal with liverpool weeks after saying I`m staying at swansea , history repeats again Does this mean DG to liverpool now ,then he might get in england team.
If that happens, Rodgers moving up the ladder is a price that I'd happily pay. Do we have a sell-on clause? Because he'll be worth a lot more than £3.5m.
That was my understanding, that if Bassini fails to pay the bonds then the club resorts back to Ashcroft's control. does this not impact on anyone who wishes to buy the club?? Is it even possible to do it straight away??
Just when we were enjoying a bit of stability and bang NNW I share your concerns re bond payments (does this mean we flog Mappy on the cheap?) Out of the frying pan and into the fire we go , I`m praying the new interested party isnt Pallidini of qpr infamy! Fransen led consortium would be good but would they have enough financial muscle?
Depends on what you mean by "enough". He had £2m available to put in when he had no direct financial exposure to the club, and at the time it was questionable whether he would see it again. If someone like that is only part of a consortium, you have to assume that they would have what it takes to fund a club which is run along the lines that it has been in the last three years.
I think that the non-payment of the bond is misleading. Unless Baz was telling porkies the installment was paid this year. http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/watfordfc/watfordfcnews/9589964.Bassini_makes___1_5m_payment/ I think that there were certain obligations in the terms of the purchase which included completion of the SW corner and keeping GT and ST on the board. The question was asked what would happen if GT left. The answer seemed to be that Baz could not get rid of him, but it was unclear what would happen if GT just gave up. The club has to give undertakings that they will be funded throughout 2012/2013 season and maybe Baz is unable to give that assurance. In addition to the normal running costs there will be a £2.5m bond repayment due next March. That would of course create alarm with the non executive directors, who could quite rightly ask what he plans to do then. Should there be someone waiting in the wings to buy the club, but Baz is not getting what he thinks he should for it, then there could be a battle to gain control. There is also the question of what monies have been placed where. The Yellow and Red Lion seems to be set up under the control of a company outside of the club. We now know that the new pitch is being paid for by installments and Baz himself stated that incoming transfer fees were going into a seperate account. Affleck is suggesting that the WO should be getting behind the real reason for GT going, but if there is more to it than GT says, then the problems with LA could begin. None of the above is based on anything other than my thoughts about what is the truth behind the rumours, pure speculation and trying to put snippets together to form a broader picture.
IMO Thats a fair picture your painting Frenchie , what happens with these failed assurances for next seasons funding , do we get docked points , do we get banned from bringing players in?
That is a good question Norway. All I know is that a few weeks ago the question was being raised at Portsmouth when there didn't seem to be anyone wanting to buy the club. The administrator was saying that without such assurances the club would not have it's golden share allowing it to play any games. I think you are only docked points for going into administration, and signing players can be for that reason or not filing the accounts on time.
Don't know if this has been mentioned while I was away, but just lifted it from the WML. "Had a chat with another lad at work yesterday who supports York City and he said that there had been a story in the local press just after they beat Scum, that Watford were interested in signing their match winning striker Matty Blair. Both Jamie (the lad I chatted with) and Mike (my boss) really rate him and have frequently said that they could see him playing at a much higher level."
I think we are misunderstanding here. He has not missed a bond repayment! He has just been unable to prove to the Football League that the finances of the club are secured for the next 12 months.
Not by any means. I am simply saying that we are all basing the situation on the fact he has missed a payment. That is not the situation and I am sure the resulting action will be different as a result.
The question appears (to me) to be whether missing a deadline to guarantee funding would constitute an "act of default", as defined in the takeover agreement.
It seems shaky to say the least. The only redeeming thought is that Affleck said that the outcome of all this will be good for Watford. He does seem to get very accurate information, so i'm feeling positive.
