I think the LLDC will be arguing that a sale has been done at an X price but payment deferred till after a fixed period of time. It will come down to what is written in the agreement signed. If the wording has anything such as "intent" to sell or anything along those lines that muddies the water around what constitutes the sale of the club and when that triggers, then the LLDC will have a case when taking WHU to court over payments not been made with the 2023 clause.
Takeover talk
Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:20 am
- Total likes: 51 likes
Re: Takeover talk
- paulhs1
- Posts: 11560
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:32 pm
- Location: Just South of the Thames
- Has liked: 1736 likes
- Total likes: 1483 likes
Re: Takeover talk
I personally would like our muggy owners to cough up and lose a few quid but legally they have no obligation to do so.YeOldHammer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:01 am I think the LLDC will be arguing that a sale has been done at an X price but payment deferred till after a fixed period of time. It will come down to what is written in the agreement signed. If the wording has anything such as "intent" to sell or anything along those lines that muddies the water around what constitutes the sale of the club and when that triggers, then the LLDC will have a case when taking WHU to court over payments not been made with the 2023 clause.
As a property developer I've dealt with numerous option agreements, its how many (most deals) are done and I can tell you categorically that theres no legs in this argument.
Imagine going down the pub later and agreeing with your mate that you'll get a round of shots in if Antonio scores the first goal. Knowing you're a tight git he asks you to confirm it in writing so you write it on the back of a beer mat and both sign it.
You've not bought any drinks, you've just agreed that you MIGHT buy some drinks and if you do have to buy the drinks you wont do so until after 2pm when theres a happy hour at the pub and you get it at a discount.
A contract has been entered into which entails that Kretinsky MIGHT buy the club in 2023. That is all.
- RichieRiv
- Posts: 20858
- Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 2:35 pm
- Location: https://www.hireahero.org.uk/
- Has liked: 307 likes
- Total likes: 803 likes
Re: Takeover talk
It would bd interesting to see the contract, but I would wager that owners (all of em) can afford far superior legal counsel than the LLDC.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:20 am
- Total likes: 51 likes
Re: Takeover talk
I don't disagree, I was playing devils advocate on the side of LLDC. Their line of attack will be to say what constitutes a sale of the club. Much like has been done in football transfers with the "Obligation to buy" when a team loans a player with a potential sale at the end of the season with said clause inserted. This is what the LLDC will be looking to attack as the "potential sale of the club" to and whether he has entered negotiations to agree to fully buy the club at a future date.paulhs1 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:27 am I personally would like our muggy owners to cough up and lose a few quid but legally they have no obligation to do so.
As a property developer I've dealt with numerous option agreements, its how many (most deals) are done and I can tell you categorically that theres no legs in this argument.
Imagine going down the pub later and agreeing with your mate that you'll get a round of shots in if Antonio scores the first goal. Knowing you're a tight git he asks you to confirm it in writing so you write it on the back of a beer mat and both sign it.
You've not bought any drinks, you've just agreed that you MIGHT buy some drinks and if you do have to buy the drinks you wont do so until after 2pm when theres a happy hour at the pub and you get it at a discount.
A contract has been entered into which entails that Kretinsky MIGHT buy the club in 2023. That is all.
Whilst I am not a legal expert, if like in your analogy someone did make that bet and write down on the back of beer mat with both parties signing it to commit to such a "deal." I have seen in a small claims court that that is actually a valid contract. It wouldn't come down to "might" buy some drinks if you have agreed that, the trigger of the bet is Antonio scoring first. You could argue that "it wasn't the first goal in this specific game," "the timeframe for shots to be paid." But the expectation in a small claims court would make the expectation that both parties were at said pub to watch said game and the bet was made before said game, I don't think either of those arguments would wash and payment of said round of shots would be expected to be paid if Antonio did score the goal first and provide those shots on the same day that the bet was made unless stipulated otherwise.
You don't for example bet a tenner that West Ham will beat Man City with a mate with an intention to pay that money in 40 years time unless that time frame for payment was originally agreed upon by both parties, it would never hold up in a small claims court to simply say i will give you the tenner in 40 years time.
- HamburgHammer
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:06 pm
- Location: Too far away from Upton Park, Hamburg, Germany, to be precise
- Has liked: 2 likes
- Total likes: 7 likes
Re: Takeover talk
Daniel Kretinsky is a lawyer by trade. He is also owning various companies, in part or full, running some of them.
Which means he will know every legal trick in the book when it comes to business transactions and if he himself doesn't know for sure he will be in touch with a legal expert who knows.
I think with Kretinsky we can be certain that West Ham will be safe in terms of having watertight contracts which will stand up in court.
Unless we get the old chap from the Sheffield United tribunal again...
Which means he will know every legal trick in the book when it comes to business transactions and if he himself doesn't know for sure he will be in touch with a legal expert who knows.
I think with Kretinsky we can be certain that West Ham will be safe in terms of having watertight contracts which will stand up in court.
Unless we get the old chap from the Sheffield United tribunal again...
- paulhs1
- Posts: 11560
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:32 pm
- Location: Just South of the Thames
- Has liked: 1736 likes
- Total likes: 1483 likes
Re: Takeover talk
Yeoldhammer
Let's say you're correct. What's to say that at 12.01 pm on the said day in 2023 that agreement is ripped up and that at 12.01 and 1 second a new agreement is signed at an additional cost to Kretinsky of £1.
Let's say you're correct. What's to say that at 12.01 pm on the said day in 2023 that agreement is ripped up and that at 12.01 and 1 second a new agreement is signed at an additional cost to Kretinsky of £1.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:20 am
- Total likes: 51 likes
Re: Takeover talk
If its after the allotted time period. Then there would be no legal leg to stand on. The problem is with newspaper speculation and other media sources, the narrative is that a deal for the sale and majority ownership for the club has already been made, but to take effect at a later date. That is what is what I imagine the LLDC is kicking a fuss over and is trying to prove whether that is a factual statement and is what is happening.
I personally cannot see how the LLDC would be able to ever prove it, beyond similar to a Club trying to prove that another Club has "tapped" up a player without some iron clad evidence. I doubt the LLDC has anything beyond trying to Muddy the waters over wording in the contract to say the clause has been triggered already.
I personally cannot see how the LLDC would be able to ever prove it, beyond similar to a Club trying to prove that another Club has "tapped" up a player without some iron clad evidence. I doubt the LLDC has anything beyond trying to Muddy the waters over wording in the contract to say the clause has been triggered already.
- York Ham(mer)
- Posts: 9644
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: In exile up north
- Has liked: 111 likes
- Total likes: 149 likes
Re: Takeover talk
As I understand it, Kretinsky has an option to buy shares. He may never exercise that option. That being so, it cannot be said that there’s an obligation to buy the club or that it has been sold.
- paulhs1
- Posts: 11560
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:32 pm
- Location: Just South of the Thames
- Has liked: 1736 likes
- Total likes: 1483 likes
Re: Takeover talk
Also likely that the LLDC contract played a huge part in this and that the clubs lawyers would have made sure that any clauses in that contract was adhered to in the option agreement
- bonzosbeard
- Posts: 13224
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:48 am
- Location: somerset
- Has liked: 2115 likes
- Total likes: 1336 likes
Re: Takeover talk
He might be asking for a bit of discount if not signed yet.
Joking aside, and I liked our effort against Spurs, hopefully the recent performances will show we are glaringly missing in central defence, left back, striker, and even a spare in defensive midfield positions.
I dont mind loans but next summer some improvements to push on.
Joking aside, and I liked our effort against Spurs, hopefully the recent performances will show we are glaringly missing in central defence, left back, striker, and even a spare in defensive midfield positions.
I dont mind loans but next summer some improvements to push on.
- Shabu
- Posts: 11940
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:38 am
- Location: San Diego, CA
- Has liked: 4167 likes
- Total likes: 2019 likes
Re: Takeover talk
Since this Kretinsky bloke joined the club we've won one game out of eight.
I'm not saying he's a **** but he's definitely a ****.
Brady needs to boot him in the b*llocks.
I'm not saying he's a **** but he's definitely a ****.
Brady needs to boot him in the b*llocks.
- Cuenca 'ammer
- ex 'ouston 'ammer
- Posts: 40715
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
- Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
- Has liked: 1905 likes
- Total likes: 1614 likes
- Vic_Watson
- Posts: 8033
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:25 pm
- Location: Brazil
- Has liked: 167 likes
- Total likes: 259 likes
- Shabu
- Posts: 11940
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:38 am
- Location: San Diego, CA
- Has liked: 4167 likes
- Total likes: 2019 likes
Re: Takeover talk
She has him under her complete control now.Cuenca 'ammer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:18 pm she probably got another 1M bonus for finding him....
https://images.perthnow.com.au/publicat ... 2.jpeg.jpg
Last edited by Up the Junction on Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Image changed to link.
Reason: Image changed to link.
- Albie Beck
- Posts: 9648
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:42 am
- Has liked: 617 likes
- Total likes: 639 likes
- Cuenca 'ammer
- ex 'ouston 'ammer
- Posts: 40715
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
- Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
- Has liked: 1905 likes
- Total likes: 1614 likes
- funky chicken
- Posts: 9761
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:36 pm
- Has liked: 320 likes
- Total likes: 1232 likes
Re: Takeover talk
We’re 6th in the table, 7 points away from 4th spot. But equally hanging in a European place by just 3 points, ahead of the team currently in 8th. If Kretinsky doesn’t give as much support to Moyes as possible in January, then what was the actual point of him investing in the club?
- aaronhammer
- Posts: 10052
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Milton Keynes
- Has liked: 168 likes
- Total likes: 38 likes
Re: Takeover talk
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... download=0
Updated confirmation statement
Updated confirmation statement
- S-H
- Posts: 49113
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:05 am
- Location: Kumb Inn
- Has liked: 5739 likes
- Total likes: 9649 likes
- aaronhammer
- Posts: 10052
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Milton Keynes
- Has liked: 168 likes
- Total likes: 38 likes
Re: Takeover talk
Agreed.
Comparing to pre Kretinsky, there are 688 new shares which he was allocated. He’s now up to 928 (the reported 27%), which have come from:
- Gold decreasing by 103 shares
(-100 Gold Group International and -3 David Gold)
- Sullivan decreasing by 84 shares
(-84 Sullivan Trust)
- Harris decreasing by 44
- Brown halving to 9