Watford Observer ‏@Observer_Owl @nicko647 Certainly something going on. Believe Bassini & bond holders may be at loggerheads. Sale possible. Trying to confirm interesting times ahead .
Kevin Affleck‏@affers1178 Prospective new #watfordfc owner not Paladini who is being linked with #nffc. Buyer previously looked at charlton. #cafc Kevin Affleck‏@affers1178 @Adam_Drury1 I'm not involved in the deal & it isn't my job anymore. I'm relaying reliable info I obtain in my spare time for you.
I wonder if it is just coincidence that GT resigned at this time when the rumours of a sale seem to be gathering pace. Wasn't there some condition re Baz' takeover that he remained as chairman untill the good lord had been paid in full?
Indeed Mark , that was what suggested to me there is something in this. H patience ,all will be revealed in time ,hopefully
I think Laurence Bassinis head is in the right place, he seems to be getting things done, but is the money there?
Sch I have come to the conclusion that H is a daywalking(driving) vampire hence her aversion to sleep Ak I am starting to believe that Baz is skint shame coz he aint done too bad, we shall see , I think Affleck is on to something ,especially as the wobby is now in agreement.
Not sure how this will be resolved if the bond holders want a change and Baz doesn't. Will it end up in court? There is very little from the WO, but then what can they say. I cannot see Baz giving them another statement similar to the one on the 27th April. At the same time I cannot see the bondholders giving the local newspaper a comment. There are people who do know what is happening, but if they say too much they could finish up in trouble.
Watford Observer‏@Observer_Owl @mrtony2009 Nothing we can put on record at moment unfortunately. Don't want to speculate as heard conflicting stories.
It is beginning to look as if Baz has been stitched up by the bond holders. They wanted their money so they they made sure that he was required to pay them, but they also put in place conditions that would allow them to take back ownership of the club if a more profitable offer came along later. One of those conditions appears to have been GT's chairmanship. I'm not saying that he is involved in this, he is too honest. It is called having your cake and eating it. The club just becomes a toy for financial gain.
Elton john was going to buy the club back but as he wasn't given full backroom access he politely declined !
Don't know if anyone has seen this article as it's a few years old, but it gives a good account as to what went on, and a reason why we find ourselves in the position we're in. After reading the article, would people trust the Russo's, if they took the club over again? Surely it gives a reasonable arguement as to why the Russo's threatened the club with administration. http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=4006
There was a reasonable argument. Many people understandably do not want them to touch the club under any circumstances, but there is still also a reasonable argument that if they become the sole masters of the club's future, they won't take us down that road. The problem is that I can't see them paying the debt off in full immediately. In that case we will be in a very similar scenario to the one which led to the administration threat, and in that specific set of circumstances they cannot be trusted again.
Interesting Q & A with Kevin Affleck, (again a few years old) as a inside story as to whats gone on, especially concerning Simpson/Ashton. Interesting read. http://www.wfc.net/files/kevin.pdf
I don't think that the conditions were put in place so that if the bondholders had a better offer they could cash in, but more a case that should there be a default it would provide a back-stop to prevent the club going bust. As long as the repayments were made on time and some other things were kept to, there was no way in which they could go back on the contract they had entered into.
I posted this last night in the stale thread, but this is probably a better place. The only group I can find that matches Affleck's description is a Swiss-based consortium with links to multiple blue-chip companies, including an extremely high profile British retailer. It didn't buy Charlton a few years ago due to a disagreement about proof of funds. It should be stressed that, unlike with Bassini, there was absolutely no question that the consortium had more than enough money at its disposal. But in common with us and Bassini (remember that our board voted against his takeover), Charlton were not satisfied that the money was sufficiently ring-fenced.
Don't know if I've missed something but I heard from reliable source last night we're skint,players haven't been paid for 2 weeks. Is this old news?
Here's how I see it: FACT - Bassini stated a couple of months ago that the club was not for sale but he hasn't done the same in the past couple of weeks despite the speculation FACT - GT has stepped won as chairman. I would imagine that the condition would be that he couldn't be sacked as chairman, but that he could leave of his own free will. He was reluctant to take the position due to his media commitments. Due to how good he's been for this club, I'll take his resignation speech at face value. FACT - Bassini has to pay the bondholders certain amounts on certain dates. Under those circumstances, although he is the legal owner, technically he can't be classed as in full control of the club until these payments are made. FACT - The club has been very quiet re transfers but there seems to have been more manager movement than player movement across the PL and Championship so far this summer. SPECULATION - There is someone interested in buying the club, whose identity we're not sure of yet. Although I've listed more facts than speculation, the speculation is the one item on there that has the most unstabling effect on the club. Is this partly why there is no new club sponsor yet? It could also be part of the reason the bondholders may be jumpy - a loss of a revenue stream may mean they are less likely to get their money on time.
