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

members do not see advertisements

Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Author Message
McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,796
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #31
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
How many state of the art stadiums have a temp stand that is overdue to be pulled down?
12-06-2017 19:08
Find Posts Quote
McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,796
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #32
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
http://news.sky.com/story/blackpool-fc-u...y-10913615
12-06-2017 19:15
Find Posts Quote
bfcpete Offline
Registered User

Posts: 1,061
Joined: May 2012
Post: #33
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
With the emphasis on security these days I hope that bag was properly searched
12-06-2017 19:20
Find Posts Quote
McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,796
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #34
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
(12-06-2017 18:12)Tangerinenick Wrote:  LOL.
He looks like a shit pimp.

Correct, he'd be no good as a pimp because he couldn't keep his hands off the merchandise.
12-06-2017 20:35
Find Posts Quote
seasider Offline
Administrator

Posts: 56,457
Joined: Feb 2012
Post: #35
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
State of the art training ground as well? Probably in their mind.
12-06-2017 20:46
Find Posts Quote

members do not see advertisements

TwelveAngryMen Offline
Registered User

Posts: 2,407
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #36
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Day Two ( Morning only )

From J4F

NOTE This is a BFC fan's summary of their understanding of the legal arguments presented to the court today
Any inaccuracies in their reporting is a reflection of that

COURT 1 ROLLS BUILDINGS

BEFORE MR JUSTICE MARCUS SMITH


VB gave evidence via interpreter.

Witness statement confirmed and cross examination started.

O's QC questioned VB on alleged contradictions between the pleadings and his witness statement. Involved his understanding of whether there was an agreement or just a common understanding that his loans would convert to additional equity and achieve parity once tax losses utilised.

VB said his understanding was it would be 50/50. O's case is that it was only a possibility the conversion might happen.

VB pressed on price to be paid for 50%. £4.5m less the £1.8m already paid for 20%. VB felt he'd already paid for the shares.

Loans by Vlada (VB's daughter). Also talk about Natalie becoming involved.

VB said he'd have gone ahead even if BFC hadn't been promoted.

When pressed on alleged discrepancies between various documents VB said he wasn't sure he'd read them before signing.

Put to VB that there was no reference to this agreement in the legal documents. VB said That would have resulted in loss of tax losses. The agreement was "private to private between gentlemen".

Counsel suggested this was potentially a fraud on HMRC if had an agreement not included in the legal documents.

Judge interrupted. Counsel making subtle points "Witness neither skilled in English law nor is English his first language".

VB pressed about whether when the agreement was reached other people were present. VB said he wasn't sure but both teams understood the intention.

There were several meetings in English without an interpreter present. Counsel suggested VB may have misunderstood.

VB didn't keep notes.

In Manchester case he gave evidence he didn't make informal agreements. VB said that was his practice with foreign clients.

VB pressed on when and where meetings occurred and who was present. He couldn't recall details.

Common ground that the initial discussions were for a 50/50 split via a new co. Not possible for tax reasons and EFL rules.

After a break VB questioned about the arrangements re running of the club pending conversion of the loans to equity. Were profits to be shared equally? VB replied

"Not just profits but also losses"

Counsel referred to early draft of subscription agreement which recorded 50/50 split and 50% split of profits. Put it to VB that this is what he was thinking of and he was confused.

"I don't agree"

It wasn't clear whether VB properly understood the question. Judge stepped in and emphasised the importance of the question. VB said he understood it was 50/50.

Counsel referred to correspondence from VB's in house lawyer and references to various draft documents (letter of intent and option) which recorded the 50/50 deal.

Counsel said proposals and counter proposals made. Usually look at the final signed agreement for definitive position. No references to 50/50 in that paperwork.

Counsel made the point the loan agreements made no reference to the equity conversion. They were stand alone agreements.

Counsel confirmed the option failed for tax reasons.

References in correspondence to a hand written agreement that no one has been able to find.

Counsel referred to a letter from VB in house lawyer that separated the shares from the loans - take it step by step. There would be further discussion about increasing his holding to 50 percent. VB was concerned the club wasn't doing well and was changing his mind. VB said that wasn't the case.

This step by step approach was reflected in the documents signed.

Break for lunch.

NB This report will be amended upon receipt of the summary of the afternoon session later today
13-06-2017 12:56
Find Posts Quote
Magic147 Offline
Not a penny more

Posts: 15,611
Joined: Sep 2012
Post: #37
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Doesn't sound great, but looks to be centred about the agreement / lack of agreement for Val to increase his share to 50% from the initial 20%.

Even if it's argued that no such agreement was made, the 20% would still stand, would it not?

20% of the £108m plus transfer fees received would still give them a hell of a problem.
13-06-2017 12:59
Find Posts Quote
GynnSquarePhoenix Offline
Moderator

Posts: 16,709
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #38
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
I'd heard when this case came up that it would be a hard one to prove. Too much "he said, she said" to prove intentional wrong doing. Belokon's testimony is not a good read. Let's hope the aces at Clifford Chance have something up their sleeve.
13-06-2017 13:32
Find Posts Quote
GynnSquarePhoenix Offline
Moderator

Posts: 16,709
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #39
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Matt Scrafton tweets on Belekon testimony ...

Belokon tells High Court: "Following the first payments in 2010, I was less involved in the club as I felt betrayed by Owen and Karl Oyston"
Goes on to say club would never have found itself in current position had it invested a "small proportion" of PL parachute payments.
13-06-2017 14:04
Find Posts Quote
GynnSquarePhoenix Offline
Moderator

Posts: 16,709
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #40
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Restart after lunch
Brief continues questioning of VB.
Details of whether VB understands the difference between believe and understand in the document are asked. Did VB have the understanding as Oyston?
VB claims OO did have the same understanding. There were discussions of how they would work together.
VB wanted to be a partner with OO.
Brief: Equal partners?
VB: Yes, the future would be based on common understanding.
Brief: Parity? What do you believe by that?
VB: We should be 50/50 partners.
Brief: Are you certain about that?
Brief: You can't remember the exact words used?
VB: I believe 50/50. We would be together for 1000 years.
Brief: Did you understand that no decisions could be made by BFC directors without the consent of your company?
VB: Yes. We were supposed to discuss everything. If not we go to court.
Brief: What if there's a disagreement about who chooses the team manager?
Would the Os be able to appoint if you said no? Did you have a right of veto?
VB: Yes
Brief: Nothing has been written about this. Nor has anything been written about shares.
B: Re Subscription agreement. Questions about the two days of negotiations follow. E.g. Provisions made to protect BFC but not VB's company.
VB: We don't have it on paper.
B: Why didn't you protect your company?
VB: I don't know
B: No clause for you to have a representative on the Board of D at BFC
However a doc from OO states that you will be a director at BFC but with far fewer responsibilities than a usual director.
Judge intervenes to clarify the point re appointment of director.
VB gives the appearance of either being remarkably trusting of OO or rather naive about the details of the agreement between them.
Judge asks if VB went through agreement.
VB: Somebody read it for me.
J: Who
VB: probably my lawyer.
VB says he doesn't quite remember the detail.
B: Is your memory of these events faulty?
VB: Possibly. Some things I don't remember
B: Did you mix up, after such a long time, the details?
VB: No. I understand what the partnership meant.
Detailed review of agreement follows.
VB shrugs his shoulders when asked about the detail of the agreement with OO. VB appears to be struggling with the detail of the B's very close questioning. He remembers discussions but not the detail. His team did not have the ability to make notes on the agreement. Segesta did take detailed notes. VB claims that it was only an oral agreement but Segesta wrote the agreement on paper.
O's brief building a case to suggest that any idea of parity does not appear on paper. Segesta always intended to remain majority share holders in BFC.
- A considerable amount of time is being added to the length of the case due to VB's frequent need for translation. -
B questions VB as to why his daughter, Vlada, was involved in dealings with BFC. £1m loaned to daughter for her to lend to Segesta. VB suggests that it was done due at OO's suggestion.
B: Do you have a loan agreement with your daughter?
VB: Yes
B: Where is it?
VB Struggles to provide written details.
Brief enters a period of close questioning of VB regarding his daughter's involvement in the development of the South Stand at Bloomfield Road. VB loaned her £4.5m to invest in the club. The financial situation changed very quickly over the loan with VB's daughter signing to loan back to VB's company. O's brief seems to hinting at money laundering on VB's part.
B: Where did the money come from to fund the South Stand?
VB: My private [bank] account.
Brief goes on to ask about the company that was set up by VB. The biggest shareholder was VB's Baltic International Bank. However, VB declines to name a substantial shareholder in the new company as to do so would break Latvian law.
Three rows of barristers and solicitors attended on their clients, Owen Oyston and Valeri Belokon. The entire afternoon saw the brief representing Mr Oyston question VB. He was supported by a team of advisors who were surrounded by small walls built of files containing what must add up to thousands of pages of documents relating to the dispute from both sides. Mr Belokon's assistant earned her fee as she worked tirelessly translating almost every question put to him.
Throughout the case both Owen and Karl Oyston remained impassive. Father and son sat either side of their representative, Karl on the row of seats behind and Owen on the one in front. No gestures or words passed between them.
Time and again VB claimed that he could not recall the details of agreements between the two men. The issue of a verbal agreement between Mr Oyston and Mr Belokon over the latter's claims to a 50% share of the club saw VB appear uncertain as to the details of the proposed deal.
VB struggles when it comes to the financial arrangements for funding the South Stand.
At 16:15, during counsel's questioning, the judge intervenes and brings to a close the day's work.
13-06-2017 17:28
Find Posts Quote

members do not see advertisements

McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,796
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #41
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
It doesn't sound good so far.
When are the O's due to be roasted?
13-06-2017 17:48
Find Posts Quote
Bentent Offline
Moderator

Posts: 10,688
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #42
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Not the whitewash we were maybe expecting but still a long way to go
13-06-2017 18:09
Find Posts Quote
Bally Offline
1 = 20

Posts: 20,102
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #43
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
Could Oyston come up smelling of roses, or is there to be a lot of twists and turns before the final whistle is blown on what could well turn out to be a bit of a non-event?
13-06-2017 18:13
Find Posts Quote
tangerine77 Offline
Administrator

Posts: 32,156
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #44
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
All that money and no paper trails, this isnt gonna go the way people want.
13-06-2017 18:27
Find Posts Quote
McPoolmob Offline
Registered User

Posts: 3,796
Joined: Jan 2014
Post: #45
RE: Blackpool FC high court battle with Belekon - thread
It's a shame that tax avoidance isn't a crime as that has already been admitted.
13-06-2017 18:32
Find Posts Quote

members do not see advertisements





User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

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