Just an afterthought...wanderlust wrote:So if Anderson can still pawn the assets to refinance the club (momentarily giving him the benefit of the doubt despite his track record) what is he complaining about?Sluffy wrote:wanderlust wrote:Maybe a daft question, but does the ACV stop Anderson from pawning even more club assets?
No it doesn't.
The ACV simply makes any proposed sale to be put into the public domain and allows the ST six months to raise money to but the asset.
Even then the club owner can sell to who he wants - even if it is for less money.
So all along I've argued that if the ST can't raise millions to buy the assets then what really is the point of them getting an ACV other than as a means of simply irritating the owner, delaying him by 6 months and devaluing the value of the asset whilst people have to wait to go through the whole process every time they want to buy or sell it.
Think Hotel rather than the ground and you will soon see why it is so absurd and damaging to the clubs future.
He's saying that the ACV affects refinancing - which according to you is simply untrue.
The only impact the ACV would have is if he wanted to sell off club assets (as opposed to use them as collateral against loans) so maybe his problem is that he can't asset strip and pocketing the money whilst the ACV is in place - which IMO is a very legitimate concern given that he's been barred from Directorship in the past for doing just that.
As for the ST having the money to buy if it came up for sale the truth of the matter is that they won't need that money until required and they would have six months to put together a consortium or raise the money from the community.
I find it really difficult to believe Anderson is complaining about the ACV for legitimate reasons.
If he genuinely wanted to refinance the club for legitimate reasons, surely the simplest thing to do would be sell off some of his shares for actual dosh as that would bring new money into the club to reduce the club's exposure and interest payments - much more in the club's interest than more loans and more debt.
If he genuinely cares about the club's interests he should put his shares where his mouth is rather than put the club deeper into hock.
If someone wanted to buy Anderson's shares, they'd be buying them off him not the club so he'd receive the money and not the club - is that right?
And is it not also right that Anderson didn't pay for his shares? Didn't he renegotiate the terms of the BM loan by putting the club's assets up as collateral? (I.e. the club paid for them?)
So do Deano's shares belong to the club or to Anderson? Who paid for them and who will get the money when they are sold?
In fact how much of his own money has Anderson put into the club (and left in) in total?
And how much additional debt has he run up on behalf of the club since he took over?
Anybody know?