yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 Abdallah wins his court case with Simon Simon Blitz and the courts decide that the football club do have ownership of the North Stand or at least shared ownership, where would that leave us? It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a court could rule in the clubs favour, Blitz in my opinion wouldn't get much sympathy over here given it could be argued he has effectively ring fenced all the assets and turned his back on the loss making aspects of the business whilst still accepting money from the council and the like, I'm also not having it that no money from the club was spent to help in the construction of the stand, I remember a conversation I had with Lee Johnson at the time where he informed me his hands were tied in the transfer market as the stand was costing more than anticipated, Blitz himself said he didn't step in till all the groundwork and steel work was in place, now that's a fair bit of work, so how was that allowed to be signed over to Blitz when it could of been financed a million and one other ways to suit the football club?, despite us being told there is no case to answer from Blitz side I still feel we haven't heard the full story and it will be interesting to see the courts judgement on the day it arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 1. He won't win. Nothing more certain. 2. If he did win it means Abdallah would get his 5 or 6 mill asking price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2022 Author Share Posted June 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Clifford said: 1. He won't win. Nothing more certain. 2. If he did win it means Abdallah would get his 5 or 6 mill asking price. 1. Why is it going to court then? Surely someone, somewhere feels there is a case to answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 4 minutes ago, yarddog73 said: 1. Why is it going to court then? Surely someone, somewhere feels there is a case to answer? That wouldn't happen to be the 3rd board member who'll be able to do most of the legal work for nothing and the gammon headed special adviser? Worth a dip on the raffle if you get a free ticket. It's a 5 or 6 million pound punt. If our board know more about business transactions and local authority funding to projects than TTA's legal team (Blitz millionaire successful business man) and the councils legal team (who issue similar grants regularly) I'd be very suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 7 minutes ago, yarddog73 said: 1. Why is it going to court then? Surely someone, somewhere feels there is a case to answer? The club has legal advisors who feel it’s worth pursuing (and are being paid for their time) - I wonder if it was on a ‘no win no fee’ basis would we even have a pending court case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
League one forever Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 9 minutes ago, yarddog73 said: 1. Why is it going to court then? Surely someone, somewhere feels there is a case to answer? Yep, he’s called the Stench. A deluded egomaniac. Plus, keep in mind- if AL wants to pay a lawyer to take it court on the advice of the stench and his in-ves-ter-gay-tion and he’s adamant they have a case. The lawyer is going to turn down business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
League one forever Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, TheBigDog said: The club has legal advisors who feel it’s worth pursuing (and are being paid for their time) - I wonder if it was on a ‘no win no fee’ basis would we even have a pending court case? Spot on BD. Can we pay you thousands to look into this for us. We think we have a case. Yes, no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2022 Author Share Posted June 17, 2022 I despise the man but surely nobody knows more than Owen the complexities behind the build (from the clubs perspective?). I'm talking hypothetically here but IF the court judged in the clubs favour it wouldn't be difficult to work out why this boycott is being driven the way it is would it? I'll reiterate my point though that I think there is more to this than meets the eye and that's why I think Owen has managed to manoeuvre himself back into a prominent position as the club need his help, that's my thinking anyway as I see no other logical reason for him being there. If the ruling goes in the clubs favour that probably presents more questions than answers but I don't think it is totally out of the question as some suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 BO is using the case to further his own position. He's now defacto chairman while it's ongoing and presumably will benefit substantially if the case is won. All the while I'd hazard a guess that it's the club who's picking up the legal bills and I'd be shocked if they were doing it for free. To answer the what if... either AL will then put it all up for sale and sell to a genuine bidder for a fair price. Or he'll look to stiff the fans by selling to a crook. Or he'll look to recoup his money quicker than that by taking out mortgages then just sack it all off and leave the fans to pick up the pieces. On that last point, I'm not sure if it's technically possible but if it is then I'd think it likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, yarddog73 said: I despise the man but surely nobody knows more than Owen the complexities behind the build (from the clubs perspective?). Remaining in the club yes. He won't know more about the legal agreements than Blitz, Blitzs legal team, the people who built it and the council. Captain Gammon won't have been signing those deals. It's such horseshit that AL was apparently trying to buy the stadium at one point. It's a half brained idea that's wasting time / stopping the club from moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Clifford said: 1. He won't win. Nothing more certain. 2. If he did win it means Abdallah would get his 5 or 6 mill asking price. On 2. If he did win, I wouldn't put it past this guy to up his asking price to 10m all in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 17, 2022 Author Share Posted June 17, 2022 9 minutes ago, Clifford said: Remaining in the club yes. He won't know more about the legal agreements than Blitz, Blitzs legal team, the people who built it and the council. Captain Gammon won't have been signing those deals. It's such horseshit that AL was apparently trying to buy the stadium at one point. It's a half brained idea that's wasting time / stopping the club from moving on. From what we've been told Blitz didn't get on board until some time after the build had started so how would he be in a position to know what funding the club gained/used to get the project off the ground or are you suggesting Blitz funded the whole lot and that is why he ring fenced it to protect his outlay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
League one forever Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 36 minutes ago, yarddog73 said: From what we've been told Blitz didn't get on board until some time after the build had started so how would he be in a position to know what funding the club gained/used to get the project off the ground or are you suggesting Blitz funded the whole lot and that is why he ring fenced it to protect his outlay? He knew exactly where the funding was- because it was mainly defacto his money. The council ‘gave the club’ 1.9 million, 1.2 was to pay blitz back after failsworth, and the other 700k was the grant. That got the stand started and then Blitz put in another 3.8 million, when the 1.9 run out. It was explained on the podcast that the club never actually owned the stand. Because the transactions from council to the club to blitz all took place with minutes off each other. (Still don’t understand that part) I can only assume the stench thinks Blitz owes the grant money back. (700k) But Blitz went into detail about that on the podcast, and said he had numerous meetings with the council at the time and they were completely satisfied with how the money was spent. At the end of the day, it will come down to one thing. Who is the more astute, thorough, and credible businessman. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseowl Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 We know AL has had very poor advice in the past i.e. he apparently thought he was purchasing "everything" from the off; not just a cotton owl badge and a footy team. If history repeats itself, this is yet another foolhardy enterprise. The court case, however, if it comes to trial will be based purely on the evidence and to the much lesser civil burden of proof (i.e. balance of probabilities) as opposed to the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). Some Civil courts can be very fickle places but any trial will, I guess, be heard in the Circuit Commercial Court (previously known as the Mercantile Court) where the judges at least have a good knowledge of commercial transactions. So, there won't really be any ability to hoodwink judges with little experience of contracts, leases and commercial transactions etc. Whether BO will be an actual key witness to anything; who knows? He may hold a "golden nugget" - remembering, of course, that contract can be formed simply by the spoken word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 Leave it off with the gammon nonsense @Clifford. Peppering all your posts with generic insults really doesn't do you any credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tGWB Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 Can anyone on here confirm: 1. Did Blitz (Brassbank) start to invest in the North Stand build before or after the main contractor went bump and 2. How much did the main contractor owe sub contractors and building services companies when it went bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 Few questions: If the club wins and owns the North Stand it still doesn't own the other stands does it? Also if the club loses and Abdallah has to pay out is Barry's head on the block? Does Adam Moralee represent the club in this court case or does his legal specialty lie elsewhere. What legally was the logic behind Blitz transferring ownership to the FLG? Is this just to protect himself/move a financially risky bit of capital away from him or is it to look better as a community asset for this court case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 4 hours ago, Clifford said: 1. He won't win. Nothing more certain. 2. If he did win it means Abdallah would get his 5 or 6 mill asking price. . . . and Blitz would demand his £3.8m back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 39 minutes ago, Roger Ritchie said: Few questions: If the club wins and owns the North Stand it still doesn't own the other stands does it? Also if the club loses and Abdallah has to pay out is Barry's head on the block? Does Adam Moralee represent the club in this court case or does his legal specialty lie elsewhere. What legally was the logic behind Blitz transferring ownership to the FLG? Is this just to protect himself/move a financially risky bit of capital away from him or is it to look better as a community asset for this court case? He didn't - OEC operates the facility, it doesn't own it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 4 hours ago, Dave_Og said: He didn't - OEC operates the facility, it doesn't own it Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted June 17, 2022 Share Posted June 17, 2022 10 hours ago, Dave_Og said: Leave it off with the gammon nonsense @Clifford. Peppering all your posts with generic insults really doesn't do you any credit. Explain to me the issue with the phrase given the foul language that seems permitted these days on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted June 18, 2022 Author Share Posted June 18, 2022 8 hours ago, Clifford said: Explain to me the issue with the phrase given the foul language that seems permitted these days on here. I think the problem with gammon is it could be viewed as having racial connotations depending on it's use, swearing has always been permitted on here whereas racial slurs haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tGWB Posted June 18, 2022 Share Posted June 18, 2022 19 hours ago, tGWB said: Can anyone on here confirm: 1. Did Blitz (Brassbank) start to invest in the North Stand build before or after the main contractor went bump and 2. How much did the main contractor owe sub contractors and building services companies when it went bump Apologies for quoting myself but does anybody know ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted June 18, 2022 Share Posted June 18, 2022 9 hours ago, Clifford said: Explain to me the issue with the phrase given the foul language that seems permitted these days on here. Two different subjects. Gammon is just bone idle stereotyping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted June 18, 2022 Share Posted June 18, 2022 10 hours ago, Clifford said: Explain to me the issue with the phrase given the foul language that seems permitted these days on here. I think the use of term the "Gammon" which I think dates back to Charles Dickens time is used to describe cantankerous middle aged men who sit on their arse constantly whinging about immigrants women or whoever else their Daily tells them too, while making a fairly minimal contribution to society overall and then calling everyonelse a snowflake who disagrees with them. Which is stereotyping as Dave says as is the term "snowflake" although part of me believes these type of people need calling out. Not sure that's a very accurate description of Barry Owen he's alot things he's not that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.