-   Lost Password?   -   Register
  -   Lost Password?   -   Register

members do not see advertisements

Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Author Message
tangerinejezza Away
Pottys stalking victim

Posts: 22,637
Joined: Jun 2012
Post: #16
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
(12-06-2017 13:55)GynnSquarePhoenix Wrote:  [Image: DCHNficXUAAS234.jpg]

Why's he dressed like Paul Reymond?
Looks like a 70s porn entrepreneur.
12-06-2017 15:14
Find Posts Quote
McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,108
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #17
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
(12-06-2017 15:14)tangerinejezza Wrote:  Why's he dressed like Paul Reymond?
Looks like a 70s porn entrepreneur.

Only looks like?
12-06-2017 15:18
Find Posts Quote
McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,108
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #18
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
(12-06-2017 14:56)tangerine77 Wrote:  Is one of Owens eyes lower than the other?

Everytime i see the scruffy cunt he is wearing bent glasses.
I see what you mean.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
12-06-2017 15:23
Find Posts Quote
GynnSquarePhoenix Online
mod

Posts: 16,417
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #19
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Bad 80's tie, unmatched pocket square to sneak in a bit of tangerine is desperate. The suit is not as well-made as it should be...see shoulders and lack of drape at the front. The shirt cuffs?
12-06-2017 15:30
Find Posts Quote
thetruth1953 Offline
Registered User

Posts: 2,334
Joined: Jul 2014
Post: #20
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
(12-06-2017 15:30)GynnSquarePhoenix Wrote:  Bad 80's tie, unmatched pocket square to sneak in a bit of tangerine is desperate. The suit is not as well-made as it should be...see shoulders and lack of drape at the front. The shirt cuffs?

He will of bought it from some seedy back street tailor's in Thailand whilst visiting with Bill Roache and Stuart Hall
12-06-2017 15:47
Find Posts Quote

members do not see advertisements

GynnSquarePhoenix Online
mod

Posts: 16,417
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #21
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Who wore it best?


[Image: DCHdN1ZXYAAV7mz.jpg]
12-06-2017 15:59
Find Posts Quote
munkle Offline
Hooligan Apologist

Posts: 4,100
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #22
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
(12-06-2017 15:30)GynnSquarePhoenix Wrote:  Bad 80's tie, unmatched pocket square to sneak in a bit of tangerine is desperate. The suit is not as well-made as it should be...see shoulders and lack of drape at the front. The shirt cuffs?

The cuffs are the fucking end. Who wilfully doesn't wear cufflinks on a double cuffed shirt?

Answer? Me in 1998. I was 18 and thought teenage girls would like...

Oh.

I've just got it Owen. Just got it.
12-06-2017 16:02
WWW Find Posts Quote
GynnSquarePhoenix Online
mod

Posts: 16,417
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #23
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
The cuffs are the fucking end. Who wilfully doesn't wear cufflinks on a double cuffed shirt?

Elvis impersonators in Reno.

__________

Does he finish dressing inside court or is this it? Loose tie, cheap shirt with no collar stays, cuffs dangling like fucking sails.
12-06-2017 16:20
Find Posts Quote
seasider Offline
Administrator

Posts: 55,388
Joined: Feb 2012
Post: #24
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
So apart from Owen's dress sense, how did the day go?
12-06-2017 16:39
Find Posts Quote
Bally Offline
1 = 20

Posts: 19,578
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #25
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
He's got the look of a man that's just knocked one out over the pic on the upturned seat
12-06-2017 16:45
Find Posts Quote

members do not see advertisements

GynnSquarePhoenix Online
mod

Posts: 16,417
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #26
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Posted on fansonline by Justice4fans...I'm sure they'll be ok with the share on this one...


COURT 1 ROLLS BUILDINGS

BEFORE MR JUSTICE MARCUS SMITH

PETITIONER’S CASE

Original negotiation was for 50% of the shares for £4.5m but this was changed at the request of Owen Oyston because his opportunity to recoup tax losses would be lost.

Consequently VB paid £1.8 for shares and soft loans for £2.7m on an informal understanding the loans could be converted to equity to achieve parity.

There was an understanding that save for loans to OO and Segesta there'd be a clean break with the past i.e. OO's previous investment in BFC.

There was an agreement that BFC can use the stadium rent free. Major feature of Respondents case re BFC loan to Segesta was club’s use of the stadium rent free.

The loans - £2.7 plus £1.8 comes to £4.5m originally discussed. VB says this is compelling evidence the loans part of overall agreement not stand alone. Loans a mechanism by which balance of £4.5 m for parity of shareholding was paid. Once tax losses utilised additional shares would be issued to achieve parity.

Respondents case loans separate commercial investments once VB decided not to invest more than £1.8m in BFC.

Interest free and unsecured and might not ever recover full amount. Made no commercial sense as free standing agreement rather part of a wider transaction and method of providing balance of price originally discussed.

Second loan of £1.7m interest free and unsecured. Also £850k would be transferred to BFC as a gift with balance being used for south and south west stand. So VB guaranteed to lose £850k again so can't be regarded as a free standing agreement.

Segesta failed to comply with order in the Manchester proceedings. Appealing but no stay agreed.

Trust agreement £1.5m for players. Originally 70/30 split in favour of VB and he was carrying all losses. VB voluntarily agreed to reverse the split. Generous approach by VB consistent with quasi partnership.


RESPONDENTS CASE

Not unusual for stadium to be held in a separate company from the football club. So not unusual for money to pass from club to holding company.

Bread and butter of the club is the gate money by attracting fans. Improve the stadium.

Club virtually bankrupt when OO took it on.

VB experienced businessman; could have used UK lawyers to advise.

Loans separate from the shares: if they'd been repaid couldn't be used to convert into equity.

VB pleaded case flawed.

No binding agreement re additional shares.

No enhanced rights for VB that you'd expect in a quasi partnership.

When untold wealth came into the company VB wanted additional shares. OO refused "as he was entitled to do". VB very upset. Wanted to exit the club as he considered "trust irrevocably broken down between us".

Club always run on prudent grounds £60m spent on players and wages since 2010 season.

After 2011 VB’s goal was to get out of the club with maximum amount from the Os. Wanted £24m for shares and interest under the investment agreement.

To the Press and fans VB held himself out as knight in shining armour and suggested he wanted to take over the club. But no offer ever made. When asked if he wanted to buy the Os shares he wasn't interested.
Money taken out was spent on football projects. £4.2m to Protoplan: VB amicable afterwards.

Also looking for businesses to produce non-football revenue for the club.

Vb wanted dividends. Do the fans know?

Complaints re new articles contrived.

Compared with old articles that VB accepted. Claimed dividends not permitted.

VB encouraging media and fans. Wining and dining them in Latvia. Led to pitch invasions and boycott. Aim was to pressure the O's to buy him out.

Zabaxe payment. Had effect of reducing tax bill. Dividends would have had adverse tax effect.

O's felt morally entitled as compensation for 20 years support.

VB offered £2m div in 2011 but no response. Os would also have been entitled but suggested they would have waived.

Zabaxe would have lent money back to the club.

Payment approved retrospectively by Normunds Malnacs.

Couple of days after board approved it was leaked to the Daily Mail. Only VB or NM could have done it. Deliberately leaked.

Only £1.6m or £1.7m used on non-football projects.

BFC have a state of the art stadium.

Application for valuations to be dealt with in a separate trial. Declined. Will try to deal with everything in one hearing but will keep under review.

VB giving evidence 10.30 start tomorrow.
12-06-2017 16:47
Find Posts Quote
McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,108
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #27
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
So £60m spent on player's in seven years.

How much were the seven years earnings and player sales?
12-06-2017 18:01
Find Posts Quote
Tangerinenick Offline
Old Skool

Posts: 3,903
Joined: Feb 2013
Post: #28
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
(12-06-2017 16:45)Bally Wrote:  He's got the look of a man that's just knocked one out over the pic on the upturned seat

LOL.
He looks like a shit pimp.
12-06-2017 18:12
Find Posts Quote
tangerine77 Offline
Administrator

Posts: 31,589
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #29
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
State of the art stadium, must be the sprinklers that earn it that state of art title, can't be the temp stand. I mean how many state of the art stadiums have a temp stand FFS!
12-06-2017 18:25
Find Posts Quote
thetruth1953 Offline
Registered User

Posts: 2,334
Joined: Jul 2014
Post: #30
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
How many state of art stadiums are funded by a Football League grant?
12-06-2017 18:51
Find Posts Quote

members do not see advertisements





User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Back Henry Street | Return to Top | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication | Forum Rules