He will just be a keyboard warrior man probably didn't even go to the match.
I seen that thread on RTG made me chuckle like he was giving it the big one then dropped his arse
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 will just be a keyboard warrior man probably didn't even go to the match.
I seen that thread on RTG made me chuckle like he was giving it the big one then dropped his arse
I know it sounds great, but there's a reason why 'attempt to' is separate from 'sell', because they refer to different things. That's why I asked Smug what his interpretation of this was, because the dictionary definition (and believe me, it'll be by the definition) is to 'try' to do it. The day you start publicly telling the world you will look to sell at the earliest opportunity, you're 'trying to sell the club'. Even if you were Donald and thought that smug's argument was potentially admissible in court, do you think it's likely that he'd risk not telling them and finding out that his interpretation was wrong? I'd say that's a low probability.
Hope that makes sense. If smug's interpretation was all there was to it, they would not need 'attempt to' as it would be covered by the very first word of that paragraph, which is 'sell'.
In a nutshell mate, he can negotiate with anyone he chooses.
He can agree a deal but would have to gain the consent of FPP to sell the club.
Or else he can pay off FPP and do whatever he likes.
What he can't do is take a secured loan to pay FPP off.
You're not a lawyer are you?
The document says that SD is not allowed to sell or agree to sell or attempt to sell without agreement from FPP.
In the real world he could talk to various parties to find out whether they might be interested in buying,
and the sort of ball park figure they might be talking about and he would not be in breach of the terms.
The document doesn't mention negotiating either. Nothing to stop him negotiating with anyone as long as he's not trying to sell.
He can allow a willing buyer have a look at the books without committing to sell. Again that wouldn't be in breach of the terms.
In any case I'm sure that out of courtesy he'll keeping FPP advised.
I agree with the last one, which is my overall point anyway. There's no way FPP aren't very aware, so it's unfortunately looking less likely that they've made a bid.
The other two I disagree with. I think a good lawyer could make the case very easily that negotiating a price to sell an asset and making public statements that you're looking to sell is attempting to sell the club. What constitutes 'attempting' in your eyes? Where would your line be? I don't think it would be anywhere beyond the public statements by him and Methven.
Was probably him that got it locked.He will just be a keyboard warrior man probably didn't even go to the match.
I seen that thread on RTG made me chuckle like he was giving it the big one then dropped his arse
That's absolute nonsense.
It's Donald's club, he owns the majority of shares and can speak to anyone he chooses.
Negotiating a price isn't attempting to sell no matter how much you twist the words.
Donald is entitled to negotiate ...
... he isn't entitled to sell.
It's not nonsense, again, you're not explaining why 'attempt to' is separate from just 'sell' in your interpretation?
He can speak to them, but not about potentially selling them the club, and it'd be very, very difficult to argue that he has not already done so. Do you think he has done this without speaking to FPP and finding out if they were ok with it?
Being majority shareholder doesn't give him a legal right to do something that contravenes the charge. By your logic, he could sell the ground and sack all of the players because he doesn't like them, but he can't actually do either of those things even as the majority shareholder, because of various clauses in the document I linked to earlier. He can't sell the assets and he must not do anything that puts the value of the asset at risk until he's settled up with them. There are a few other covenants in there that mean he has a duty to keep the SOL in a good state of repair, for example, or that he can't take out another secured loan against the same things.
Yes he can.
He can negotiate a sale but would need their consent to sell ...
... unless he pays them off.
Just repeating that and providing zero evidence to back it up isn't actually having the effect you think. You can't even give us a reason why he can beyond owning the club. He gave away some of his rights as the owner of an asset when he secured something against it, much like how you give up some of your rights as a homeowner if you secure a loan against it.
I'm confused with all this debate, but surely SD is the man with the say, we're all at his mercy aren't we? He'll sell to who he wants, when he wants. All we can do is watch this space
I'm not a lawyer unlike you guys but it seems to me that actually going through with trying to sell the club isn't allowed but everything short of that is, which would involve informally reaching an agreement. If FPP don't want the club why would they care anyway they'd just take their loan back and say goodbye.
Again, disagree with point 1 (nobody has adequately defined 'attempt to sell' as distinct from 'sell' in a way that excludes publicly saying you will try to sell
) but anyhoo.Point 2 is what I'm getting at here. I think it's fairly likely based on how he's gone about the window, what he's said about FPP and the fact he's openly negotiating with others that FPP are not bothered enough to make a bid right now. Hopefully that changes but there's no evidence yet since he announced he would try to sell, that they have made a bid.
So again, why is he restricted from doing certain things by that charge sheet if he owns the club? Just repeating 'he owns it' doesn't mean he can ignore a charge sheet. I own my business but I was legally unable to leave my job without forfeiting all of my shares for the first 2 years of that period (this is absolutely true btw). That should give you some idea of why this is not as simple as you think.
I also can't sell my shares, or transfer them to anyone else without the consent of others. Life is complicated, they prepare for a lot of eventualities in these documents and ensure that the dominant party (in this case FPP) has the most rights and protection.