NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER | Page 252 | Vital Football

NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mighty Bongsmon said:
In fairness I didn't say that Parry or the EFL were fit for purpose, that they'd handled the proposed bail out well or that Parry's "big picture" proposal wasn't just an idea to perpetuate the domination of the "big 6"
In fact at the time it was proposed I criticised Parry & said he should declare whether, from his time employed by them, he has any shares in Liverpool FC with which he could have personally gained financially from the proposals.
He actually mentioned numerous times when admin started & Latics fans dug up dirt on Choi & Au Yeung that the checks that they could run were limited & that they had recommended changes to the system but club's wouldn't back them.
Even the dirt that was dug up in the aftermath of administration, particularly on Au Yeung, would not have prevented the sale to him & as others have explained nor would the loan
Click to expand...

I disagree. As was outlined by Pies who provided specific financial information to the efl (and I also think Nandy if I recall correctly asking her to intervene) that the loan was unplayable given the terms set and so ownership should have been declined. Parry admitted they effectively self certified and provided assurances as they can’t find out much about Asian people. Setting his choice of language aside he is effectively admitting his employees are utter morons and incompetent, something I wouldn’t disagree with. Effectively he was saying it was too hard to do so they couldn’t be arsed and this is the consequence. They are now concerned about the source of funding from the Spanish, so I guess are not looking to repeat the same mistake, but clearly working efficiently, with expedience to tight deadlines isn’t in their culture,

In fairness you make a valid point as you haven’t stated he or his organisation are fit for purpose. If I painted the impression you did then that wasn’t meant to be the case.
 
Made in Wigan said:
The loan was before Choi took sole ownership from iec and the same checks still apply in this instance.
Click to expand...

The loan was an internal matter between Choi and IEC and therefore nothing to do with the EFL. The EFL had no jurisdiction in the internal running of the club nor do they have any over the Spanish funding as long as it comes from a legitimate source and can be proven so. The loan from IEC to Choi was a legitimate loan although the terms were unfavourable to the club and as such the EFL could do nothing to stop it. The Directors of the club were the only people who could do anything about it and given that the board was weighted against them they were unable to stop it too. The EFL have no right to interfere in the day to day running of a privately owned business, they can only get involved with matters that have an effect on the competition.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
The loan was an internal matter between Choi and IEC and therefore nothing to do with the EFL. The EFL had no jurisdiction in the internal running of the club nor do they have any over the Spanish funding as long as it comes from a legitimate source and can be proven so. The loan from IEC to Choi was a legitimate loan although the terms were unfavourable to the club and as such the EFL could do nothing to stop it. The Directors of the club were the only people who could do anything about it and given that the board was weighted against them they were unable to stop it too. The EFL have no right to interfere in the day to day running of a privately owned business, they can only get involved with matters that have an effect on the competition.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, it became their matter when Choi bought the club from iec. Pies identified this, highlighted the problem to them on numerous occasions and they dismissed his concerns.
 
Made in Wigan said:
I disagree. As was outlined by Pies who provided specific financial information to the efl (and I also think Nandy if I recall correctly asking her to intervene) that the loan was unplayable given the terms set and so ownership should have been declined. Parry admitted they effectively self certified and provided assurances as they can’t find out much about Asian people. Setting his choice of language aside he is effectively admitting his employees are utter morons and incompetent, something I wouldn’t disagree with. Effectively he was saying it was too hard to do so they couldn’t be arsed and this is the consequence. They are now concerned about the source of funding from the Spanish, so I guess are not looking to repeat the same mistake, but clearly working efficiently, with expedience to tight deadlines isn’t in their culture,

In fairness you make a valid point as you haven’t stated he or his organisation are fit for purpose. If I painted the impression you did then that wasn’t meant to be the case.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree MiW - you're interpreting the same things I heard but in a completely different way. Nowt wrong with that but we're never going to agree
But yes I feel the EFL aren't fit for purpose

Just in response to some of your other points though, Pies said a lot of things around the loan, admin & appeal - some worked out & some didn't so I wouldn't necessarily take his view of the loan over other people's such at TB's
 
Made in Wigan said:
As has been pointed out, it became their matter when Choi bought the club from iec. Pies identified this, highlighted the problem to them on numerous occasions and they dismissed his concerns.
Click to expand...

Sorry MiW you are incorrect on this, they dismissed it because they had no reason to interfere, they have no jurisdiction in the matter, as I said they cannot interfere in a private business.

It is only the same as the buy out of Man Utd by the Glazers who lumped the club with the repayments of the loan they took out to do the acquisition. The only difference was the terms, which in our case were extremely punitive but still legal, and agreed by the two parties concerned. The EFL cannot prevent two consenting parties from agreeing to a loan.

If the Spanish want to borrow the money from someone, so long as they have a business plan that shows how they will make the repayments and the loan is from a legitimate source, the EFL cannot refuse them. It is standard business practice to buy a business with borrowed finance.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
If the Spanish want to borrow the money from someone, so long as they have a business plan that shows how they will make the repayments and the loan is from a legitimate source, the EFL cannot refuse them. It is standard business practice to buy a business with borrowed finance.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the club is being bought by a couple of chancers without a pot to piss in. No bloody wonder the EFL are being thorough.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
The loan was an internal matter between Choi and IEC and therefore nothing to do with the EFL. The EFL had no jurisdiction in the internal running of the club nor do they have any over the Spanish funding as long as it comes from a legitimate source and can be proven so. The loan from IEC to Choi was a legitimate loan although the terms were unfavourable to the club and as such the EFL could do nothing to stop it. The Directors of the club were the only people who could do anything about it and given that the board was weighted against them they were unable to stop it too. The EFL have no right to interfere in the day to day running of a privately owned business, they can only get involved with matters that have an effect on the competition.
Click to expand...
That isn't true. The loan was part of chois takeover of the club (rather than being owned by iec) and therefore was looked over by the EFL.
 
Wlatic said:
That isn't true. The loan was part of chois takeover of the club (rather than being owned by iec) and therefore was looked over by the EFL.
Click to expand...

They may have looked it over but could not reject it as they have no legal right to interfere in the process. This was a legal loan from a legitimate source and part of the business plan.

I don't see what "isn't true" about my post.
 
pie eater said:
Sounds like the club is being bought by a couple of chancers without a pot to piss in. No bloody wonder the EFL are being thorough.
Click to expand...

Once again someone is picking a sentence out of context to drive their agenda.

No one has said that that is what they have done, it is merely there to make the point that they could legally buy the club with borrowed money if they wished to.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Sorry MiW you are incorrect on this, they dismissed it because they had no reason to interfere, they have no jurisdiction in the matter, as I said they cannot interfere in a private business.

It is only the same as the buy out of Man Utd by the Glazers who lumped the club with the repayments of the loan they took out to do the acquisition. The only difference was the terms, which in our case were extremely punitive but still legal, and agreed by the two parties concerned. The EFL cannot prevent two consenting parties from agreeing to a loan.

If the Spanish want to borrow the money from someone, so long as they have a business plan that shows how they will make the repayments and the loan is from a legitimate source, the EFL cannot refuse them. It is standard business practice to buy a business with borrowed finance.
Click to expand...

I’m afraid you’re wrong. The ownership changed hands from iec to Choi. He financed that by taking out a loan on extremely punitive terms from the seller (strange as that sounds) then put this debt immediately on the club who had no means to repay. This was grounds to refuse ow worship. Unfortunately the efl weren’t diligent and effectively waved it through. It is why they are concerned about the source of funds from the Spanish to ensure this scenario isn’t repeated. Common business it maybe to buy businesses with finance, or for two parties to agree a loan, but it doesn’t mean it will satisfy football league criteria to participate in the league.[/QUOTE]
 
Made in Wigan said:
I’m afraid you’re wrong. The ownership changed hands from iec to Choi. He financed that by taking out a loan on extremely punitive terms from the seller (strange as that sounds) then put this debt immediately on the club who had no means to repay. This was grounds to refuse ow worship. Unfortunately the efl weren’t diligent and effectively waved it through. It is why they are concerned about the source of funds from the Spanish to ensure this scenario isn’t repeated. Common business it maybe to buy businesses with finance, or for two parties to agree a loan, but it doesn’t mean it will satisfy football league criteria to participate in the league.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

MiW, the main point, which I raised months ago, is that the EFL cannot influence ownership of a club, they can only influence membership of their own organisation. People need to separate the legal ownership of a company from membership of an organisation. They are 2 totally different things.

Choi was always selling to Au Yeung and he was always going to try and kill us. The EFL couldn't prevent that, all they could do is throw us out of the league. Thank god they are too incompetent to have done that.
 

MiW, the main point, which I raised months ago, is that the EFL cannot influence ownership of a club, they can only influence membership of their own organisation. People need to separate the legal ownership of a company from membership of an organisation. They are 2 totally different things.

Choi was always selling to Au Yeung and he was always going to try and kill us. The EFL couldn't prevent that, all they could do is throw us out of the league. Thank god they are too incompetent to have done that.[/QUOTE]

Whilst they are two different things, there’s literally no point owning be a club if you can’t compete in a league. So by agreeing we could play under yeung they were effectively agreeing the sale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.