OASF/PTB joint fans forum

[BPAS]

7 minutes ago, PeteG said:

Forgive me as i've never owned a company and only ever worked in the public sector but is it normal to relinquish major control of your business having just won a contract to build houses for a pound to get it back for a pound once the contract has been completed? I can't get my head around that at all.

 

It’s hardly a problem if the company in question is worthless. Equally, the funding/capital being provided into said company was from the very people who were commissioning the contract. Paul also explained about SPV’s. It seems largely common practice in building/contracting. Nothing to see here. We looked at it, we asked the question, we looked around too and are satisfied everything is above board.

[PeteG]

1 minute ago, BPAS said:

 

It’s hardly a problem if the company in question is worthless. Equally, the funding/capital being provided into said company was from the very people who were commissioning the contract. Paul also explained about SPV’s. It seems largely common practice in building/contracting. Nothing to see here. We looked at it, we asked the question, we looked around too and are satisfied everything is above board.

So presuming it's common practice Paul has done it regularly when commissioned for other jobs although companies house would suggest he hasn't.

[Dave_Og]

30 minutes ago, PeteG said:

Forgive me as i've never owned a company and only ever worked in the public sector but is it normal to relinquish major control of your business having just won a contract to build houses for a pound to get it back for a pound once the contract has been completed? I can't get my head around that at all.

Yes it is 

[BPAS]

13 minutes ago, PeteG said:

So presuming it's common practice Paul has done it regularly when commissioned for other jobs although companies house would suggest he hasn't.

I knew you’d have to be obtuse about it, on the basis of those you are close to, meaning you are not impartial, which is partly why I bothered to reply. I can’t speak for Paul, other than he explained the difference between an SPV, largely where banks prefer to deal, and the transfer of shares from private investors until the job was complete. One assumes Paul mainly deals with banks/financial funding/mortgages, which is why the share practice is not common place amongst the companies of his that are available to peruse on companies house. We’ve read up on it and I’m telling you there’s nothing to see. You can ask your mate Mike to do the same if you like, he owns a business that is probably worthless n’all.
 

 

[Chaddyexile84]

25 minutes ago, PeteG said:

So presuming it's common practice Paul has done it regularly when commissioned for other jobs although companies house would suggest he hasn't.

 

Maybe learn the other half of the story?

[kowenicki]

The SPV thing threw me at first, due to his description of it, but it isn’t unusual at all. 

[Ritchierich]

The problem with Latics is there are so many unanswered questions, so many shady deals, loans, agreements and different assets and lack of transparency that we are filling the vacuum with our own conclusions

 

SPVs when used properly are a pragmatic way of isolating risk and protecting the interests of investors and contractors…in this case Corney had control of it during the build which gives him a level of security as he is funding the development and stops a rogue or badly managed contractor from diverting the funds to other projects or to cover losses elsewhere in their business 

 

Of all the dodgy dealings at Latics over the years this is probably not the one………having said that, why the hell is he profiting personally from developing club land…..we should be doing an audit of all the profit and revenue streams that Blitz and Corney have extracted from the club and be deducting those from the money they claim to have put in and from the price Blitz is demanding for our run down stadium 

[PeteG]

I get that an SPV is quite common but my understanding is that the company is set up for that specific job and then usually closed down again once it's completed. That didn't happen in this case so the fact of how it has happened here seems far from common. I'm not saying anything is untoward I just thought it strange and i'm sure it provided a solution to a problem.