"Jsybarry The company that the money that went between Bassini and the Russos is Barrea LLP (sounds too much like barrier for my liking). I thought a company with LLP after it's name was usually a firm of solicitors or lawyers. If they haven't got at least copies of any documentation that exists, they'll be in breach of so many Law Society regulations, they'll be forced to shut down. (I used to work in the internal accounting department of an English solicitors over here)" I set up an LLP with a music business friend when we started a music publishing partnership. All it took was a simple partnership agreement between us and form filling for Companies House which listed the partners. If the Rosso's arn't listed as partners with Companies House, then I don't think that they can be said to have half of the partnership.
An LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership - this simply means one partner cannot be help responsible for another partners actions or negligence!
You might be thinking of LLB which is Legum Baccalaureus, or Batchelor of Laws, or the LPC which is the Legal Practice Course taken in order to be able 'take the bar'.
That is exactly what should have happened in a well documented transaction. But didn't Baz change the status from a public company to a private company? Then in a very poorly documented transaction, which this appears to be, it would be very easy to imagine a scenario where money is transferred and the share certificates ( if this was the true nature if the transaction ) are not forthcoming. Who knows what was said in private about what the money was for, and who can prove what?
Maybe I'm being far too simplistic, but surely Bas must owe Russos either way? If it was a loan, then he must repay them the loan plus interest. If it was for half of the company, then he must owe them half of the money from the sale to the Pozzos?
'Must'may be a bit too strong a word - if there is only a gentlemen's agreement with no paperwork then it may come down to whose hired muscle is the most evil.
I'm certain that the Russo's share ownership of Watford prior to Bassini coming on the scene has a bearing on this somehow. Their shareholding was worth around 4m I think which they would have lost all of that investment if their shares were compulsory purchased under the takeover so maybe they had an agreement between the two parties. Either way, you don't lend someone that much money without paperwork and you don't deal with someone who has just paid 1p in the pound for your 60p shares do you?
I think if we cast our minds back there was a piece of paper shown in the offer documents showing that money for the buy out was lodged with the solicitor. It seems more than likely that this was the money from the Russos. At the time of the buy out the Russos were still 30% shareholders in Watford, yet when the offer of a few pence in the pound was made they accepted without so much as a moan. Why would they so meekly accept such a bad deal I wondered at the time. Possibly because plans were already afoot to reclaim their money via a different route. So did they really want half of a shell company with nothing in the petty cash tin and a fool that they could hide behind? Perhaps they could see that with such incompetence, sooner or later they would be able to reclaim the value of their loans by taking over the club again, but this time from Baz. This plan was working quite well as he was going back and asking for more money, but one day they would turn on him and demand payment in full there and then. Unfortunately for them Lord Ashcroft was still in the background watching and being briefed on the shambles, so before the plan could come to fruition Baz had the rug pulled from beneath his feet and was forced to sell to the Pozzos. Just a few thoughts on what might have happened, but I am sure there is a great deal more to come out. Will the pending court case have any bearing on the FLs considerations? It could do if it is shown that their test of a proper person to run a club leaks like a sieve. They might even feel embarrased that they didn't ask the question raised here time and time again, where did the money come from.
It is a very strange business culture that Bas and the Russo's inhabit. No wonder Ashcroft, who operates in a professional manner, trusted neither of them and took care to safeguard his interests--and, incidentally, the interests of the club. For Bas and the Russo's the club was either an opportunity for quick profit by fair means or foul, or a power struggle they could not bear to lose. Now I think we are in the hands of serious businessmen, who would never allow this kind of shambles to develop, with subsequent risks to the club; the business culture of Northern Italy is all about building long-term businesses on a foundation of family ownership and trust. Goodness knows we need that now.
Gomorrah, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/ , based on a book ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomorrah_(book) ) and a true story.
Mexican--Do not confuse Southern Italy and Sicily with Northern Italy. Two completely different cultures in food, business and politics. Almost two different nations. Udinese is in Northern Italy, close to the border with Austria. In fact it was part of Austria before WW1. The business community is renowned for entrepreneurship and hard work ; they are serious in everything they do. The centrality of family is one thing they have in common-- but it is a slur to link their business practices in any way with the Mafia. I know we like to do this, because it plays to a stereotype , and their name ends in "O". But really, our Home Counties businessmen have more in common with that lot than do the Pozzos.
So glad that both baz and russos underhand dealings cost so dear now if vgs were to go into liquidation it would make my year. Oh and barrea are solicitors not a company set up by baz.
Ihe story has taken a long while to hit the national press, but it has now. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4740801/Danny-Graham-Watford-in-the-dock.html
And of course they're all rubbing their hands with glee because of the Italian owners, loans, transfers etc. I still can't get over the fact that this person was seen as a proper and fit person etc. Obviously only interested in our assets ( Graham, Sordell, etc etc ...) If we lose points, we should be safe, but it will knock all the élan out of this season. Ggrrrrr....
unbelievable. The plot thickens...i just don't understand, like Mr Frog, how a fit and proper person, as approved by the FA...could do such shady dealings without anyone knowing about it. Sickening.
Aw come on - most of us knew he was not fit and proper but a bankrupt with a failed past and no means of explaining where his money was coming from - it is the FA who are at fault for allowing him to nearly destroy our club. Watford should be suing the League for their failure to prevent him getting his hands on our club
oh absolltely Leonardo...i said it when he took over if you remember...having been told exactly what would happen in the end...and how much we couldn't trust him. What i mean is...how noone at the FA or the club could let him get away with stuff without noticing...realising...being more on the ball....it just beggars belief!
I agree - what is the point of having a fit and proper persons test if it allows a Bassinin to destroy a club - and now it seems the League are likely to punish US
