Jump to content

Various: Mike Ashley in talks with Sheikh Khaled bin Zayed Al Nehayan


Recommended Posts

Maybe there's a possibility a deal could be agreed in principle allowing investment in January but not completion of the takeover. Like taking a share of the business prior to taking it in full over time.

 

Can't imagine Staveley wanting to get into bed with Ashley, even if it's just for a quick bunk up until the summer.

 

I'd agree with Purslow too. Can't imagine a deal of this magnitude would be done by Xmas unless some very very serious players are buying us and the thought of dropping £350m comes easy to them.

 

Then, if that's the case, then woah are we in for a ride.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HRMC must have a big say in all this

 

If the potential liabilities are broadly known, I don't think it'll be as big a deal as the press are making out.

 

They'll probably just agree to hold £xxm in an account until resolved. If it's less than expected then Ashley will get a bit more and if it's more then there'll be some agreement about how it's paid but if Ashley is prepared to accept liability for it then we'll be fine.

 

If he's not, then it would be a major problem which will affect any purchase price as you're essentially buying a much riskier investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HRMC must have a big say in all this

And don’t forget HMRC they will have a big say as well, probably more than HRMC

 

You monster

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there's a possibility a deal could be agreed in principle allowing investment in January but not completion of the takeover. Like taking a share of the business prior to taking it in full over time.

 

PCP could sign a letter of intent, I understand that was the process for the Man City sale.

 

Yup.. The actual takeover took place a month or so later. But "everyone" knows that City was sold on deadline day. At City it was talks followed by being given numbers and then there was a letter of intent. Followed by due deligence followed by a bit of horsetrading as there was an iffy £25m debt before everything was signed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they had a deal agreed, it would make no sense to announce it now. We have to get to January with the squad we have.

 

There will be more nights like tonight. Amanda Staveley won’t want that.. whoever she’s acting on behalf for will want a similar deal to how City was announced.

 

It’ll be during or just before the window opens.. plenty of good will and a fresh start.

 

Why would PCP want to take the flack for Mike Ashley’s lack of investment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they had a deal agreed, it would make no sense to announce it now. We have to get to January with the squad we have.

 

There will be more nights like tonight. Amanda Staveley won’t want that.. whoever she’s acting on behalf for will want a similar deal to how City was announced.

 

It’ll be during or just before the window opens.. plenty of good will and a fresh start.

 

Why would PCP want to take the flack for Mike Ashley’s lack of investment?

 

I don't think anyone would give them any flak for the lack of investment from before they took over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Little Waster

Maybe itll be like a PCP deal ... Amanda leaves a small deposit followed by regular payments over 42 months with a balloon payment at the end ??????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they had a deal agreed, it would make no sense to announce it now. We have to get to January with the squad we have.

 

There will be more nights like tonight. Amanda Staveley won’t want that.. whoever she’s acting on behalf for will want a similar deal to how City was announced.

 

It’ll be during or just before the window opens.. plenty of good will and a fresh start.

 

Why would PCP want to take the flack for Mike Ashley’s lack of investment?

 

I don't think anyone would give them any flak for the lack of investment from before they took over.

Of course they fucking wouldn't [emoji38]
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know as it's not my area of expertise, but the issue with HMRC; won't it be the individuals involved that will be in trouble and not the actual club? I know that a company must have a named person who is responsible in case legal action has to be brought and it's that individual who would face charges and penalties. In our case, it was charnley who was arrested.

What I'm not sure on, and haven't seen any expert commentary on it anywhere, is in such a matter who is directly responsible, what sanctions would be met and what the knock on effect could be (league standing etc)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know as it's not my area of expertise, but the issue with HMRC; won't it be the individuals involved that will be in trouble and not the actual club? I know that a company must have a named person who is responsible in case legal action has to be brought and it's that individual who would face charges and penalties. In our case, it was charnley who was arrested.

What I'm not sure on, and haven't seen any expert commentary on it anywhere, is in such a matter who is directly responsible, what sanctions would be met and what the knock on effect could be (league standing etc)?

 

Will more than likely be the limited company if it's questionable or a grey area. In fact, it'll more than likely be the Ltd company in most instances I would think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...