Dick Knight betting scam on front page of Argus...........

[Deano's Right Foot]

Wrong button

 

[The Auditor]

I think that BensGrandad has raised one valid point. I understand that while Griffiths has resigned as a director he is still a shareholder.

I don't know how much KG has invested in the club or what his shareholding is. If the Albion were to severe all connections with him then would this mean someone having to buy out his share?

Would the best situation be for KG to write off his investment in the Albion, but would he do this, and would their be any tax implications on this write-off?

You have to be careful with regards prefered creditors ..to write his loan off in these circumstances might be considered as fraud against the sporting options creditors ...it would become very messy

 

[The Large One]

I'm sorry, when it comes to money we need to be whiter than white, and that means a full statement from the club to satisfy the stakeholders and potential investors of the club that Knight is not dodgy.

Anything else makes it look like we're running a tin pot organisation here.

Agreed about being whiter than white, but like you said, he needs to satisfy the INVESTORS, and he doesn't need to go public to do that. He and/or the club can go and talk to them themselves. It's not as though the investors would need to make any sort of response.

But also, it's not wise to make any comments while there is a police investigation going on (which, looking at yesterday's posts, it appears there now is).

 

[Faldo]

You could argue that KG will have to dispose of his business assets in order to make up any outstanding debt (depending on his security / commitment to the company). That would include BHA shares (assuming there would be a buyer).

As for DK - he needs to satisfy the administrators of his non-exec position. Shouldnt be too difficult given his position, coz he would have to declare and account for any income received. If he's not being paid, and he has no shares, he has no interest - ergo, DK is in the clear.

As for ascertaining fraud, that will be a piece of piss - client funds can only be utilised using the expressed permission of the client. If they aint got it, or the funds are being moved away from the clients (into ANY other expenditure) then its fraud. Theres no real grey area here.

In my opinion, DK has made an error of judgement (havent we all) and hes having to defend himself against a) an uncomfortable but innocent connection to a shoddily run dot com company, and b) the argus are merely trying to get a rise out of people, and what better way than linking this dastardly fraud to an ongoing local issue that matters to 90% of its readership. Yes this company going tits up is bad news for a lot of people, but what better way to stir things up a bit than play on any links to an issue that many feel strongly about.

Noddys guide to accountancy and media.

By the way - every shareholder is major - it is a throw-away, unquantified statement. Again, its gets a rise - if they'd said, "KG - an 11% shareholder in the albion" none of us would jump on it. "Major shareholder" is much more dramatic...

 

[aftershavedave]

If he's not being paid, and he has no shares, he has no interest - ergo, DK is in the clear

i agree with what you say apart from this point. he's connected by virtue of being the non-exec chairman. he is a director (by presumption he must be) and there's no get out in law for "doing it as a favour"...

 

[Faldo]

Fair point, but to my mind, if anything is to go against DK, the administrator will have to disprove his statement that he was there as a figurehead. If they cant prove otherwise, he has no case to answer - and proving or disproving it should be a reasonably simple task for any auditor.

Unless as a figurehead he gave ropey advice, which I can't see happening, or being proven.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I doubt very much whether the club already has all of the "investors" in place.

I think it more like that the real job of getting investors on board will begin after any YES decision has been made.

Like it or not, this club has a history of being poorly run on the financial side, a history that predates Archer and Co. These latest developments are typical of stories surrounding guys who have been running this club for many a year.

If the board is serious about raising £50million to build a stadium they need to get their act together.

 

[The Large One]

I doubt very much whether the club already has all of the "investors" in place.

I think it more like that the real job of getting investors on board will begin after any YES decision has been made.

Like it or not, this club has a history of being poorly run on the financial side, a history that predates Archer and Co. These latest developments are typical of stories surrounding guys who have been running this club for many a year.

If the board is serious about raising £50million to build a stadium they need to get their act together.

Out of curiosity, why do you doubt the money is in place? How do you know that they haven't go their act together?

 

[aftershavedave]

[BMy concern is that the Albion need to maintain political support for a new stadium. And that they need to put a finance package together to fund it.[/B]

i always assume lord b knows a thing or two, and his statement seems to suggest that the financing is not yet in place.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If I was an investor why should I commit this early to a club who have no money to pump in of their own, who don't know what division they will be playing in, a board that changes every 5 mins with a financial scandal hanging over them?

If I had any money I wouldn't look to be putting it into a football club, and certainly not the Albion. I know that sounds harsh, but in a world where the UK economy is strong and there are a plenty of opportunities for investment, it is a fair point.

 

[Faldo]

I cant imagine the funding is in place (re: a great big sack of cash, marked "Falmer or bust"), but there will be many agreements in principle, or contracts subject to........

 

[The Auditor]

i always assume lord b knows a thing or two, and his statement seems to suggest that the financing is not yet in place.

I thought Martin Perry indicated that funding couldnt be put in place until the Falmer green light... this was one of the factors in the timescale between the OK and the opening of the stadium

 

[Lord Bracknell]

i always assume lord b knows a thing or two, and his statement seems to suggest that the financing is not yet in place.

The financing IS in place to the extent that the sources of financing have been identified. But the money has yet to be handed over, because planning permission is still awaited.

If you planned to build a house in a green field, you could get the Halifax to promise you a loan, but you wouldn't see the money until you'd got permission to go ahead with the project.

And if your circumstances changed - for example, if you lost your job - the Halifax might withdraw their offer.

The Club is in exactly the same position.

And nobody should read into that any suggestion that I think the Albion's circumstances are changing as a result of the Sporting Options episode. I have every confidence that DK will emerge unscathed. All I have said is that questions will need to be answered.

 

[The Large One]

If I was an investor why should I commit this early to a club who have no money to pump in of their own, who don't know what division they will be playing in, a board that changes every 5 mins with a financial scandal hanging over them?

If I had any money I wouldn't look to be putting it into a football club, and certainly not the Albion. I know that sounds harsh, but in a world where the UK economy is strong and there are a plenty of opportunities for investment, it is a fair point.

That's understood. I probably wouldn't put money into the Albion unless I resigned myself to the fact that I would almost certainly not see it again. 'An investment of the heart' DK has called it. Investment would only ever come in once we get the green light on Falmer.

But I think it's possible we're talking at crossed-purposes.

I was talking about the money required to build Falmer - which is a capital project. Is there not some tax break for firms investing in large capital project? As I understand it, the club will be getting grants and investments to the tune of x million. The rest of the money will be borrowed in the form of a sort of a long-term mortgage (for want of a better term), payable over 40-50 years, at a rate which the club can afford.

As is fairly obvious from my posts, I am not a financial expert, but this is the gist of what has been said by MP about the funding structure.

 

[aftershavedave]

The financing IS in place to the extent that the sources of financing have been identified. But the money has yet to be handed over, because planning permission is still awaited.

If you planned to build a house in a green field, you could get the Halifax to promise you a loan, but you wouldn't see the money until you'd got permission to go ahead with the project.

And if your circumstances changed - for example, if you lost your job - the Halifax might withdraw their offer.

The Club is in exactly the same position.

And nobody should read into that any suggestion that I think the Albion's circumstances are changing as a result of the Sporting Options episode. I have every confidence that DK will emerge unscathed. All I have said is that questions will need to be answered.

excellent, that's reassuring-ish.

so at least we have agreement in principle from named (but undisclosable for obvious reasons) financial institutions. not as strong as i hoped, but much better than i feared.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Lending money is inherently risky, it's all about how much confidence the lender has that the money will be repaid by the borrower.

We haven't got a pot to piss in now, so if I was a lender I would sense that giving the Albion money was inherently risky.

If I then found out that the shareholders / recent board members had been involved in a scam to defraud the public via an internet company I would be even more worried.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but as a questioning fan I'm worried.

 

[spidey]

From what I know of Kevin, as far as BHA is concerned, he only has the best of intentions.
He made what I believe to be two substantial donations prior to being invited to join the board. I'm not sure what the position is over his shareholding, but, as has been mentioned elsewhere this would have to be sold rather than becoming a financial burden on the club. I don't believe he made any Director Loans, but I may be wrong.
We will have to see if there are any repurcussions to the club due to DK's role in SO, however the they obviously moved to distance themselves some months ago.
Wouldn't surprise me if DK lost some money in this failed venture, hopefully not too much.

 

[Faldo]

Pav - The loans and funding would be secured against an asset. In this instance, a nice big plot of brownfield land with a shiny stadium on it. Plus there would be cross guarantees between the stadium company, the club and the trading company. Not idel security, given the net worth of the assets, but the earning potential and the whole business plan would bolster the deal. in addition to investments, sponsorships and donations, the whole deal would be pretty sound.

Obviously, all of this would be subject to planning approval, and other parties agreements in principal. A balancing act really.

 

[FG aka FOOTBALL GENIUS]

"We haven't got a pot to piss in now" yep thats right DICK TIGHT!

 

[Easy 10]

"We haven't got a pot to piss in now" yep thats right DICK TIGHT!

Pipe down FG. The grown-ups are talking.