British consortium interested as well according to the sun
The who?
Fantastic band, but I don’t think Roger Daltrey has much experience running a Premier League football club. So for me, it’s a no.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
British consortium interested as well according to the sun
The who?
They probably will, which is why we need SHYSTERS!why would any other reputable bidders not fear the same?
Won’t get fooled againFantastic band, but I don’t think Roger Daltrey has much experience running a Premier League football club. So for me, it’s a no.
…This is not exactly true re: US legal system. Debts owed to 777 are complicated by their source of the funds and their creditors. Payments “due” 777 have strings attached that will necessarily pull in their creditors and tax agencies where 777 is in breach of separate loans and/or defaults.
Source: I’m a US attorney. Specializing in banking, commercial bankruptcy, and collections.
so long as Towsend keeps away from the family encloser were coolFantastic band, but I don’t think Roger Daltrey has much experience running a Premier League football club. So for me, it’s a no.
The best shyster board in the businessThey probably will, which is why we need SHYSTERS!
The only thing standing together with the club is the fans. Opinions may be divided but the love for our club can never be questioned
The issue really is, the 777 debt can’t be settled, because it’s in dispute in the Leadenhall case. ACAP and Leadenhall are both claiming they have rights to own the asset after 777’s demise - a US court has granted an injunction on either side dealing with or despising of the asset, therefore Friedkinen or Moshiri can’t negotiate that part of the debt burden - the hope would be to negotiate a hair cut on the debt.
The fa t its u resolved carries too much of an uncertain risk and Friedkin walked.
I don’t think it’s that simple in this case, but I’m no lawyer. Hellerad is thoughIf the contract says 777 then to them. If they cease to exist then to an administrator, if the court have made a judgement then the court. 777 problems are not ours unless they hold equity in the club….
I’m gutted. The Friedkin group are the type the owners we need. Since they got exclusivity I was slowly starting to feel optimistic about the future.Feel genuinely sad about this falling through tbh. It’s just all so disheartening isn’t it? Really don’t know if I’ve got it in me to be bothered about another takeover saga going on for months.
so it’s gotta be someone who’s not assed!
Cheer up, the last one lasted 8 months, this was over in less than 8 weeks!Feel genuinely sad about this falling through tbh. It’s just all so disheartening isn’t it? Really don’t know if I’ve got it in me to be bothered about another takeover saga going on for months.
But what exactly is the risk? Say it’s £200m - they may have wanted to pay less now, but if it can’t be resolved now it just sits as unsecured debt longer (appreciate interest etc may be high) but that would appear to be the limit - we simply pay back what we have borrowed over a longer period of time).The issue really is, the 777 debt can’t be settled, because it’s in dispute in the Leadenhall case. ACAP and Leadenhall are both claiming they have rights to own the asset (our debt) after 777’s demise - a US court has granted an injunction, that either side can’t negotiate the settlement or dispose of the asset. Thereford Friedkinen or Moshiri can’t negotiate that part of the debt burden - the hope would have been to negotiate a hair cut on the debt.
The fact it’s unresolved carries too much of an uncertain risk and Friedkin walked.
Don't these cases take potentially years to come to conclusion?Nah, was clever to walk mate, not good for us, but why take the risk, they could come back if it’s resolved, but anyone else is going to run into the same problem.