Letter to shareholders

[Bladesman]

While the cat's away......

Come on Coutts, stop nancying around and gerritforrad.

Shoooooooot!

He did

 

[Jonboy60]

Thanks SBB. How is this affected by the offer originally being for ALL 50% of UTBs shares when HRH "knew" he didn't have 50% to sell. The offer was for something that wasn't available, which McCabe didn't know.

Why would those terms apply when McCabe couldn't buy enough shares to gain control? HRH appears to have made on offer for 50^. Something McCabe couldn't achieve as it turned out.

Exactly.

 

[Pinchy]

Contracted VHCC?

They’ve virtually died a death. I still have one alive in Teesside Crown though. Bench Warrant issued in 2010 and extradition proceedings continuing...For some reason the Indian Court keeps adjourning a related case for two years at a time, thus keeping client within that jurisdiction...

About a dozen witnesses have died, so have two defendants and a barrister. Three trial judges have retired and one of my defence co-counsel is now the Recorder of Teesside (he was also chair of a rather controversial FA tribunal...)

The Autumn job is within the AGFS (a fee structure) but I am a Leading Junior. That will be utter impenetrable bullocks to most people, but you did ask...

 

[Snowman]

They’ve virtually died a death. I still have one alive in Teesside Crown though. Bench Warrant issued in 2010 and extradition proceedings continuing...For some reason the Indian Court keeps adjourning a related case for two years at a time, thus keeping client within that jurisdiction...

About a dozen witnesses have died, so have two defendants and a barrister. Three trial judges have retired and one of my defence co-counsel is now the Recorder of Teesside (he was also chair of a rather controversial FA tribunal...)

The Autumn job is within the AGFS (a fee structure) but I am a Leading Junior. That will be utter impenetrable bullocks to most people, but you did ask...

Thanks. That places you. If that's Bourne-Arton I'll keep quiet and refrain from posting whilst pissed.

On the original subject and question, it's like chess to me. I can see the moves, but I'm buggered if I can work out the end-game because it's too complex. At the moment all I'm seeing is the knee jerk thrashing around of Kev's team on the side show and nothing relating to the substantive contractual claim which will be the most interesting argument. Anyway, whatever I think is irrelevant. I've seen enough strange decisions in my lifetime to realise I obviously haven't a clue.

 

[McGrath]

I've only started reading this Thread in the last 24 hours. There are some truly excellent posts on it and thank you to some of the people who have taken their time to explain what the legal texts mean.

Can someone tell me whether my summary is right or wrong....

1. The Prince stopped keeping his side of the agreement some time ago to match payments with McCabe.
2. Some of the financing he used, might be seen as a bribe. I'm referring to the Chartwell loan. This makes you think that the Prince might not be wealthy.
3. McCabe had enough of all this so offered to buy him out, but Prince said no, which meant the Prince could then buy him out for the same price. That would mean the Prince had to buy the property too, which was much more.
4. The Prince then moved his shares elsewhere so he could claim that he doesn't own 75% and therefore won't buy the property. Saving lots of money.

So legally the Prince looks like he's correct and would probably win the case. BUT if he wins, McCabe will probably sue him for acting in bad faith and take him to the cleaners. Prince probably can't afford that

 

[Harrisblade]

Thanks. That places you. If that's Bourne-Arton I'll keep quiet and refrain from posting whilst pissed.

On the original subject and question, it's like chess to me. I can see the moves, but I'm buggered if I can work out the end-game because it's too complex. At the moment all I'm seeing is the knee jerk thrashing around of Kev's team on the side show and nothing relating to the substantive contractual claim which will be the most interesting argument. Anyway, whatever I think is irrelevant. I've seen enough strange decisions in my lifetime to realise I obviously haven't a clue.

Well then guys, about this Jarndyce v Jarndyce thingy...........................

 

[Sean Thornton]

Point taken although the last confirmation statement for BL was on 18/07/17 and a lot of funny business has happened since when it would appear new reporting rules apply, and they have to report a change of PSC with 14 days, unless they all opted to keep stuff secret away from CH.
Mr Invisible is no longer a PSC if judged only on a 10% share holding and covertly was not at the time of the original actions, maybe he can claim PSC by the other definitions, but am thinking an option to offer to buy remaining shares is only valid against a declared PSC, not a secretive organ grinders monkey with 10%.
Clutching at straws maybe but something that resolves stuff one way or the other sooner rather than later might be in the clubs best interest, and ours...

2018 CS filed this week SB.