Hoosier Ranger

Has nothing legally to do with the court case. The Board has to raise 5m additional quid to pay off the loan. The club already needs 2.5m and loans from Directors is 4m. That's 11.5m quid needed to pay current debt and fund operations until the end of the season. Huge share issue.

I don't see how that is the case.

I don't doubt this...was just using that to show that the 5M from SD has already been spent and is a legal debt per our financials.

Are you sure about that? Our financials say something different as they say we are running out of money in January and will need 2.5M in additional loans to get through the season. That means the 5M in loans from SD have already been used up. In addition, Green was not around to sign off on the SD Loan agreement. He was gone well before the loan was accepted.

Money has been spent. The debt is a legal debt of the corporation.

Unless Sports Direct did something illegal in securing the retail contract, the retail deal cannot be voided just because Green is an unethical POS or was a total buffoon in signing the deal.

But he has legally accepted the loan as Director.

Not sure I follow you. The most recent audited financial statements disclose this debt as a legal obligation of the company. These statements were signed off by Dave King as Director. The 5M quid loan is a legal debt owed by the Club to Sports Direct.

Given the profits from the Retail JV (per our audited financial statements), Sports Direct will make an additional 500-600K in dividends as a result of the loan not being paid off. That is well over 10% on the original 5M loaned. In addition, our IP is currently in the hands of SD as well as the revenue from next season's shirt sponsorship. Would rather that money stay with the club especially with deep pockets on the Board.

Its a debt of the corporation...regardless of when and who incurred the debt.

I looked over this blog and there seems to be inconsistencies in writing style. I think the use of "hands" is more apt versus one person.

I don't think you have to worry about that.

Excellent stuff TLM....excellent stuff.

Was that from the RST or SOS?

Fixed this for you

Excellent explanation and summary

We need a new look. Teams have already figured out how to play us tactically. We need a few new players and a few minor tweaks

Huge war chest available. A few solid signings in January will give the team a different look

Tactics need to change. Folks have developed a strategy and it's time to throw a few new tactical wrinkles

I agree...plus he has been pretty healthy as of late and will be a good influence for new signings.

Can't use the fact that a player is injured to involuntarily charge them vacation days especially if that injury occurred on the job. Typically suspensions involve docking pay anyway or at least it give the club the right to do it if they want. Still probably not a valid reason unless they don't show up for a mandatory training or other event.

That is my understanding ...albeit...it comes from playing years of FM

Who said anything about SD? I said ALL contracts. If you have a track record for not honoring your contracts as a company, then you will pay the price later on with less than desirable terms from vendors, players, and contractors.

You can't selectively pick which contracts you want to adhere to and which ones you don't. Makes you look dodgy.

Fraser Aird got a senior call up with Canada. He did not get any minutes last night in Canada's 1-0 win over Honduras.