Aidam McCartney’s piece

[Siderite]

We have made the nationals.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/inside-scunthorpe-uniteds-owner-battle-30440579

[Siderite]

Sorry Aidan. Typo for your name.

[Deereyme66]

Interesting piece, particularly to see some fresh discussion from the pair. Trying to choose my words carefully – sounds like Hilton was hoping against it going to court and is now banking on it being a long process. I’ll resist saying anything more about either of their characters – but we all have our views.

[CMC]

Finally we get something from the Two parties. Credit to Aidan for it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Awaywego]

Wouldn’t be Chancer and Wanker the Characters would it Deerey.

[Richgy]

Hilton’s paperwork and this article suggest he is willing to pay 10k a month rent for GP.

Yet at the fans forum he’s on record as saying he would pay 20k a month .

Maybe a small detail but a 50% drop seems quite a lot .

[sufc_not_on_tour]

Richgy wrote:

Hilton’s paperwork and this article suggest he is willing to pay 10k a month rent for GP.

Yet at the fans forum he’s on record as saying he would pay 20k a month .

Maybe a small detail but a 50% drop seems quite a lot .

He said many things at the fans forum.
None of them have come to fruition.

1 user thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons

[Deereyme66]

Awaywego, wash your mouth out with soap and water!

2 users thanked author for this post.

Awaywego, Richgy

[Anonymous]

Again, I’m no legal expert.
Swann owns the ground.
Hilton has a plan b (Gainsborough)
I’m guessing the judge will rule in Swann’s favour.

[lesgeo]

Is the Begbies Traynor firm acting dishonestly? – I seriously doubt it!
Will the judge be easily prepared to effectively; destroy a local asset, hurt a town and cause job losses?
How impressed will he/she be with the gambling history of PS?
If the alleged broken promises made to fans are admitted into evidence – which from a contextual point of view, they might perhaps be – the damage to the PS case from that and assorted peripherals may be significant.
This is well outside my own dealings from criminal cases in Crown Court but judges, by and large, do like to take a broad overview – especially in cases which are finely balanced. They do try very hard to bring fairness whenever they can.
There is more than a chance that, prior to the hearing of the case, the judge may even act as arbiter and make suggestions which both parties would do well to heed.

[Deereyme66]

The best outcome has ťo be an out of court settlement to stay at GP this season renting, eventually buying. Playing at Gainsborough or elsewhere will be financially disastrous IMO

[sufc_not_on_tour]

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

2 users thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons, Brassy sharman

[lesgeo]

If that is correct, won’t that mean that Begbies Traynor have acted improperly?

[Deereyme66]

That’s pretty much how I read it snot, particularly stalling and 1899, though again, just my opinion. And the stadium outline, bonkers timelines and would cost a Kings ransom.

1 user thanked author for this post.

North Lincolnshire Irons

[Deereyme66]

Not sure about that Les. Who knows? Raises questions though.

[Iron-awe]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Not sure about that Les. Who knows? Raises questions though.

They either saw proof of funds or they didn’t, can’t have it both ways. Swann states he was informed by his advisors that DH had shown proof of funds, the courts will decide.

[sufc_not_on_tour]

I’m in no position to accuse Begbies Traynor of anything Les, they are respected experts in their field.
If Hilton had the funds he claims from the beginning then why did he not pay the asking price then, he’s offering to now along with £10000 a month while it completes, he could’ve saved himself £60000 in the last 6 months?
None of this makes sense to the experts who clearly say so in the article over the past days, so how is it supposed to make sense to us supporters who have no legal knowledge?

[Deereyme66]

I’m not doubting they’ve seen proof of funds I-A

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Interesting piece, particularly to see some fresh discussion from the pair. Trying to choose my words carefully – sounds like Hilton was hoping against it going to court and is now banking on it being a long process. I’ll resist saying anything more about either of their characters – but we all have our views.

Yep. I think you’re right. One seems more confident in their position, and it’s not Hilton. His methods seem to be buying time to me, and the changing in deal offers suggest he hasn’t got a firm leg to stand on.

[Iron-awe]

Deereyme66 wrote:

I’m not doubting they’ve seen proof of funds I-A

Ok get that, so if people are saying Hilton hasn’t got the money to buy the ground and land despite showing proof of funds and the advisors for Swann being fine with that, then surely proof of funds is a flawed means of somebody having the ability to buy and run a football club as stated by the football authorities. If that’s the case then you are back to the old situation of any Tom, Dick or Harry just buying a club and it going bang very quickly which means the genuine football fan is in the same shitty boat?

[Deereyme66]

I don’t know I-A, maybe? Maybe this court case will shed more light on processes? For example, it’s been widely known the fit and proper person’s test isn’t robust for a long time. Just look at numerous disgraced former owners, the latest being Andy Pilley, owner of Fleetwood, jailed fir fraud.

[Richgy]

Did the land for the new ground actually get bought by the club in the end?

[Richgy]

The proof of funds in general seems ridiculously flawed ,otherwise all these clubs that end up in mess would not be .

I have heard it mentioned by quite a few people that a requirement for new club owners should be to put a % of the funds down on the purchase of clubs , like a deposit which is held in a neutral account much like used in housing rentals / mortgage etc .

Does not sound a bad idea in theory , and would in some scenarios offer clubs a degree of protection .

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ferrite

[Ferrite]

Richgy wrote:

The proof of funds in general seems ridiculously flawed ,otherwise all these clubs that end up in mess would not be .

I have heard it mentioned by quite a few people that a requirement for new club owners should be to put a % of the funds down on the purchase of clubs , like a deposit which is held in a neutral account much like used in housing rentals / mortgage etc .

Does not sound a bad idea in theory , and would in some scenarios offer clubs a degree of protection .

Yep, some sort of performance bond. In other countries, clubs are required to lodge a bond (usually backed by a bank) with the authorities to cover the operating costs of the club for the season. Then, if the club runs into financial difficulties during the season, the bond is called on and the club can continue at least until the end of the season.

Other systems include required the club to submit a business plan & accounts before the start of the season to ensure that clubs can operate within their means for the season. If they can’t/don’t, they’re kicked out.

[Dawson]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

To put that into context it’s like you paying half of the house you’re buying off, before even owning it. It just wouldn’t happen.

[Ferrite]

Dawson wrote:

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

Is that what the article actually says?

[Interested Bystander]

Dawson wrote:

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

To put that into context it’s like you paying half of the house you’re buying off, before even owning it. It just wouldn’t happen.

I think you’ve got a bit carried away there.

Swann wants £1.5M upfront (on completion) so that he can satisfy the charge on the freehold. The balance can be on the drip.

[Richgy]

Surely it should be the case that any club/assets can only be sold as a ‘whole package ‘ at the same time .

It seems seperation of tangible assets and the name of the club causes serious problems . Completion of a deal should actually be completion of the whole lot and that’s when change of ownership occurs .

The game is really badly governed .

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ferrite, Dawson

[Dawson]

Interested Bystander wrote:

Dawson wrote:

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

To put that into context it’s like you paying half of the house you’re buying off, before even owning it. It just wouldn’t happen.

I think you’ve got a bit carried away there.

Swann wants £1.5M upfront (on completion) so that he can satisfy the charge on the freehold. The balance can be on the drip.

I potentially am, as I am not sure on property law. How would Hilton be able to purchase the property without paying the full amount upon completion? My assumption was if Hilton doesn’t have the 3 mil cash, he would have to take out a loan/mortgage for the rest to complete?

[sufc_not_on_tour]

Dawson wrote:

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

To put that into context it’s like you paying half of the house you’re buying off, before even owning it. It just wouldn’t happen.

I’m certainly no financial expert but I do have an ability to read and understand English.
I suggest you read the article again, come back to me and point out where it says “ Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues”.
I’ll wait!

[Author]

Posts