Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
«134567

Comments

  • Kevin Cash was our owner? That's a shock

    Jimenez mislead a long time friend? That's even more of a shock

    "Although the loan was repaid, Khakshouri will argue that it subsequently became apparent that there had never been any intention of securing the land deal prior to the sale.

    And that's the key point to take in before people go off on a "we're leaving the Valley" acid trip
  • Very interesting. I wonder if they seriously intended to or planned to move or whether Swiss Tony just used it to squeeze some cash from him.
  • Also if Kevin Cash is reportedly worth $500m (not something I've ever believed) then why would they need to borrow £1.8m to keep the club afloat?

    It looks as though Mr Khakshouri has some previous in this area: http://nypost.com/2012/05/08/my-own-cousin-ripped-me-off/

    Because Cash got bored and pulled all funding from the club. I'm sure others on here will be able to shed more light on it.
  • My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.
  • My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.

    yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.

  • Just shows how much was buried in the small print when prospective buyers were looking at us.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited November 2015
    There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.
  • There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.

    Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
  • My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.

    yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.

    The money became a problem in March 2012.

    TJ and MS insisted they were the majority owners.
  • There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.

    Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
    Could be a points deduction though.
  • Essex_Al said:

    And you lot want RD out!!

    Because he isn't as sh*t in a money way, just much sh*tter in a management way - this is a reason to want RD in..?

    image
  • My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.

    yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.

    The money became a problem in March 2012.

    TJ and MS insisted they were the majority owners.
    Could they not have been the majority owners and merely borrowed money from Cash at a high rate??
  • Sponsored links:


  • My recollection is that the "mystery backer" and TBF Jiminez and Slater always said that they were fronting for a third party, pulled the rug out after we won L1.

    yes, although I seem to recall @Airman Brown reckoning it was as early as March of that season. Doubtless he'll clarify.

    The money became a problem in March 2012.

    TJ and MS insisted they were the majority owners.
    Could they not have been the majority owners and merely borrowed money from Cash at a high rate??
    Read the story.
  • There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.

    Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
    Could be a points deduction though.
    Why would there be a points deduction? The club has not gone into administration.
  • Read the story. smoke and mirrors.
  • There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.

    Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
    Could be a points deduction though.
    Why would there be a points deduction? The club has not gone into administration.
    Especially as QPR are far more blatant offenders.

    Actually this is something we 'd be able to campaign on to highlight the hypocrisy of the League on FFP, if they tried to punish the current regime
  • edited November 2015

    There is potentially a big issue with the ownership as presented to the Football League and fans being different from the reality - the club could still be punished, even under different ownership.

    Hopefully it bites RD hard in the pocket....
    Could be a points deduction though.
    Why would there be a points deduction? The club has not gone into administration.
    Especially as QPR are far more blatant offenders.

    Actually this is something we 'd be able to campaign on to highlight the hypocrisy of the League on FFP, if they tried to punish the current regime
    Of course, but what I am saying is that this is dangerous territory. It's not just the ownership issue described here that might come out. And in considering matters the FL would be bound to look at the fact that one of the owners in 2011-13 is the current chairman. Do you really think he didn't know about Slater/Cash?
  • Hopefully, the FL investigate the sale of the club to RD from Jimenez/Slater. It may not all be as clean as we'd like to imagine, and if it's a dodgy dealing then there would be big repercussions.
  • I wanted to read the rest of the article but kept getting that damn question wrong.
  • Looks like the relevant punishment is indeed a fine:

    The League shall have the power to prescribe fixed fines pursuant to Regulation 81 of the Regulations, in respect of a failure by a Club to comply with the reporting requirements of Rule 2. There shall be no appeal against such penalties;

    (b) where a Club:

    (i) fails three or more times, following written demand from The League, to provide The League with a Declaration or an update to a Declaration and/or any other information required pursuant to Rule 4;

    (ii) intentionally, recklessly or negligently provides to The League a false Declaration in respect of any Relevant Person; or

    (iii) fails to ensure within 14 days of receipt of written notice from The League (or within such other period as is specified by The League in that notice) that a Relevant Person of the Club complies with the requirements of Rule 2 and Rule 3,

    then The League may give notice requiring the Club to transfer its membership to the Company Secretary (the ‘Notice’) in accordance with Articles 4.5 and 4.7 of the Articles of Association. Article 4.8 (suspension of the Notice) shall apply in the Board’s absolute discretion. There shall be no appeal against the service of the Notice.

    Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/appendix3.aspx#PkgGgW1BUTMqABJz.99
  • Looks like the relevant punishment is indeed a fine:

    The League shall have the power to prescribe fixed fines pursuant to Regulation 81 of the Regulations, in respect of a failure by a Club to comply with the reporting requirements of Rule 2. There shall be no appeal against such penalties;

    (b) where a Club:

    (i) fails three or more times, following written demand from The League, to provide The League with a Declaration or an update to a Declaration and/or any other information required pursuant to Rule 4;

    (ii) intentionally, recklessly or negligently provides to The League a false Declaration in respect of any Relevant Person; or

    (iii) fails to ensure within 14 days of receipt of written notice from The League (or within such other period as is specified by The League in that notice) that a Relevant Person of the Club complies with the requirements of Rule 2 and Rule 3,

    then The League may give notice requiring the Club to transfer its membership to the Company Secretary (the ‘Notice’) in accordance with Articles 4.5 and 4.7 of the Articles of Association. Article 4.8 (suspension of the Notice) shall apply in the Board’s absolute discretion. There shall be no appeal against the service of the Notice.

    Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/appendix3.aspx#PkgGgW1BUTMqABJz.99

    I thought it had been widely reported that Slater was on the board and an official owner BUT he was not the supplier of the money. the money man wanted to be behind the scenes. the way I understood it was that Jiminez owned a proportion of the club and Slater owned a proportion of the club, but Slater was 'given' his proportion by the mystery owner (cash). The problems started because Slater is a football fan and wanted us to succeed but didn't have any of his own money to put in. Cash pulled the plug on 'Slater's' investment and Jiminez didn't have the funds himself to support the club. I don't think we will ever know the true reasons why cash pulled out, just speculation.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!