• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Pearson Consortium

Status
Not open for further replies.
ab 65 said:
Must admit that although he has been correct on SAFC related stuff previously he seems to be flailing about on this.
Click to expand...
I honestly can’t decide whether he really has information which is why he’s not saying it’s over because he wants to say he was right or, as you say flailing about
 

scott934 said:
But he's also keeping it open by implying it's not as simple as them pulling out and to watch over the bext few days.
Click to expand...
ive not seen directly what he said, but I do agree with you.

really does seem strange that he publishes the article and the group pulls out.

I feel if his informant is good enough to give him the correct information, they would also have given him the info they had pulled out or at least tell him there was an issue, so he could publish prior to the pull out.

I do feel there is still legs in this, but I am not an ITK and can only make certain presumptions, but the situation is so fluid it could go anyway
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
But nothing happens to the debt. The loan was made to Sunderland Limited, and remains with Sunderland Limited. For sure, the new management has the normal corporate responsibility to ensure that debts are paid as they fall due - standard insolvency law. No-one is walking away from the debt. Sunderland Limited has and will have the obligation to repay the loan, and failure by the company to do that will result in the lenders calling in their security by appointing administrators. The obligations of Sunderland Limited are unchanged by the fact that there are new shareholders. Sunderland Limited cannot walk away from the debt unless it puts itself into insolvency, and, where there is a floating charge in place, it could only appoint administrators itself with the consent of the chargeholder. You appear to be confusing sales of the assets of unlimited liability businesses with the transfer of shares in a limited company. A loan agreement exists between Sunderland Limited and SBC. The shareholders are not and will not be a party to that agreement.
Click to expand...

I do work for a fund manager, we place capital for the likes of Blackrock, Ardent Capital, Topland, Legal & General and Triplepoint. About 70% of the capital we place is for the acquisition of operational companies. I can guarantee you that the loan provider will endeavour to make sure that the full amount of the debt remains serviceable not only by the legal entity with whom the loan sits but also with the shareholders. There are precedents in property law and company law that ensure this is the case. It’s entirely standard that a loan agreement will have a section dealing with the event of assignment of a loan to a third party. In this case, a third party would be a prospective purchaser and new owner.

An ordinary deal would be done on the basis of “cash out debt out” where none of this would apply. This won’t be, as every conversation to date has alluded to transferring the debt to new owners. That and the fact that I don’t see sufficient assets within the business to satisfy the debt in full anyway, meaning ES must be carrying a personal guarantee.
 
So where the heck are we with this takeover business then? When I want news I want it to be 100% accurate and positive with a very good source I know to exist and be true.

I don't want it to be from a forum member who happen to be friends of neighbours whose uncle's nephew's best friend from school is part of a business that is a supplier to the catering of Sunderland AFC.

I don't want someone on a forum who happens to be from a general financial company not connected to the club or Mr Pearson who leaves people in a daze over complex financial waffle.

I don't want it to be from some social media account.

I don't want it to be from some rag who is widely known for not having accuracy in their articles and having a reliable network of reputable contacts.

I want it to be from a place the world and his wife could tell me is a very good place for reliable, accurate info and can give me assurances of past truths said.

Problem is regarding Mr Person one person is saying one thing and another person something else totally contradictory. Who is more truthful? The one who says Mr Pearson isn't taking over or the one who says he is taking over?
 
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
So where the heck are we with this takeover business then? When I want news I want it to be 100% accurate and positive with a very good source I know to exist and be true.

I don't want it to be from a forum member who happen to be friends of neighbours whose uncle's nephew's best friend from school is part of a business that is a supplier to the catering of Sunderland AFC.

I don't want someone on a forum who happens to be from a general financial company not connected to the club or Mr Pearson who leaves people in a daze over complex financial waffle.

I don't want it to be from some social media account.

I don't want it to be from some rag who is widely known for not having accuracy in their articles and having a reliable network of reputable contacts.

I want it to be from a place the world and his wife could tell me is a very good place for reliable, accurate info and can give me assurances of past truths said.

Problem is regarding Mr Person one person is saying one thing and another person something else totally contradictory. Who is more truthful? The one who says Mr Pearson isn't taking over or the one who says he is taking over?
Click to expand...
Might as well log off then, incase you didn't realize, this is a message board.

Don't want much do ya, ffs :rolleyes:
 
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
So where the heck are we with this takeover business then? When I want news I want it to be 100% accurate and positive with a very good source I know to exist and be true.

I don't want it to be from a forum member who happen to be friends of neighbours whose uncle's nephew's best friend from school is part of a business that is a supplier to the catering of Sunderland AFC.

I don't want someone on a forum who happens to be from a general financial company not connected to the club or Mr Pearson who leaves people in a daze over complex financial waffle.

I don't want it to be from some social media account.

I don't want it to be from some rag who is widely known for not having accuracy in their articles and having a reliable network of reputable contacts.

I want it to be from a place the world and his wife could tell me is a very good place for reliable, accurate info and can give me assurances of past truths said.

Problem is regarding Mr Person one person is saying one thing and another person something else totally contradictory. Who is more truthful? The one who says Mr Pearson isn't taking over or the one who says he is taking over?
Click to expand...
:eek::lol:
 
Billy Batts said:
Might as well log off then, incase you didn't realize, this is a message board.

Don't want much do ya, ffs :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you not read all the post? Or just the bits that fit your narrow minded view of me? I said categorically all I wanted is to read news from a place everyone knows is a very good source of info with a very good and renowned, known list of equally reliable contacts. Nothing else, which I state above, gives me any hope or assurance that what is being said is true. Not some forum member who has some friend whose neighbour's uncle's nephew's school friend from years back supplies the lager to the bar. Not some vague guess on some social media account. Just a place we all know is 1000% reliable with a 1000% reliable contact with the absolute gospel.
 
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
So where the heck are we with this takeover business then? When I want news I want it to be 100% accurate and positive with a very good source I know to exist and be true.

I don't want it to be from a forum member who happen to be friends of neighbours whose uncle's nephew's best friend from school is part of a business that is a supplier to the catering of Sunderland AFC.

I don't want someone on a forum who happens to be from a general financial company not connected to the club or Mr Pearson who leaves people in a daze over complex financial waffle.

I don't want it to be from some social media account.

I don't want it to be from some rag who is widely known for not having accuracy in their articles and having a reliable network of reputable contacts.

I want it to be from a place the world and his wife could tell me is a very good place for reliable, accurate info and can give me assurances of past truths said.

Problem is regarding Mr Person one person is saying one thing and another person something else totally contradictory. Who is more truthful? The one who says Mr Pearson isn't taking over or the one who says he is taking over?
Click to expand...
Have you ever thought that a football forum might be the wrong one to be on?
 
Abu Dhabi Red and White said:
Have you ever thought that a football forum might be the wrong one to be on?
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought about shutting the hell up and just allowing a person to have his or her view without grief and aggro? I am 100% correct with the view I have. I am 100% allowed it. All I wish for, as I have said twice already, is just somewhere where I can get a good, authentic, reliable, trustworthy bit of info about Mr Pearson and his group and where we are at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top