Legal threats to the Trust ISC.

[Brian Pedley]

Trust member 489 stepping up to support a great post from Chris. Always wise to maintain a healthy distrust of `suits`. Never more so than at this time.

 

[Daz]

Suppose it can be read both ways Mike, fact is it was the trust that mentioned lawyers first so Brendan would be stupid to not take advice on things.

 

[Anonymous]

Hissy fit alert! Hissy fit alert! Esmer's not happy again.

Not happy? I'm peed off.

Esmer, if Guilfoyle and Ridsdale were confident of the Heaney deal actually completing that would not have both reacted in such a personal way to Chris. Chris is doing a formidable job in asking probing and provoking questions that deserve proper and considered responses, particularly if you are an Officer of the Court.

Ill judged comments threatening legal action and a blizzard of e-mailing reflects what some might say as 'conduct unbecoming'. It is most unfortunate, but if they both think Chris and others will back off and wilfully submit they are very much mistaken.

It is no wonder that Guilfoyle has confessed to 'not sleeping at night'! He is worried and so he should be if your professional reputation was resting on Kevin Heaney's ability to provide the necessary funding and complete the deal within a generous and ever extended time limit.

 

[Anonymous]

Hissy fit alert! Hissy fit alert! Esmer's not happy again.

Not happy? I'm peed off.

Hey Esmer, I've received an anonymous text, saying that you're David Jones brother! :shock:

Care to comment?

 

[oggyale]

When I first started reading this thread, my initial reaction was to immediately join the Trust. Then I read further.....

On the Brendan Guilfoyle section of the post this has legs. Our understanding was that the SAP agreement was due to complete on Aug 5th. After conflicting reports that this maybe delayed I sent a short note asking Mr Guilfoyle to confirm either way. Things (feelings) lets just say, deteriorated over the next emails as I informed Mr Guilfoyle that the Trust was considering seeking legal advice and also considering writing to Westminster.

The last reply from BG included the line "My solicitors have been asked to monitor your press comments"

So, the Trust made the first legal action "threat"? Has the Trust taken any legal advice?

Has anything actually happened? Not that I can see.

So, what appears to have happened is akin to a couple of squabbling neighbours.

"I'm going to see a solicitor", "Me too".

On here though this is gradually escalating into the Trust fighting some sort of Custer's last stand!

AS PJ stated earlier "You couldn't make it up". Yes you could.

Don't you just love PASOTI.

It's getting to the point that I really don't care who takes over. I just hope that it happens soon.

I am in that camp now.

 

[N I Green]

Hissy fit alert! Hissy fit alert! Esmer's not happy again.

Not happy? I'm peed off.

Hey Esmer, I've received an anonymous text, saying that you're David Jones brother! :shock:

Care to comment?

Where's the popcorn eating smiley, when you need one?!! :greensmile:

EDIT:

(Cheers, Andy!)

 

[Shane Harris]

Hissy fit alert! Hissy fit alert! Esmer's not happy again.

Not happy? I'm peed off.

Hey Esmer, I've received an anonymous text, saying that you're David Jones brother! :shock:

Care to comment?

PASOTI here PAOSTI there PASOTI every blinkin where, la la la la la la la la laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :greensmile:

 

[MoistVonLipwig]

BG represents a large, wealthy, financial organisation, probably with lawyers on expensive retainers available at his beck and call and - because of the nature of his job - is probably very au fait with most of the legal aspects of the financial world.

Chris is a volunteer, representing a (relatively) poorly-funded organisation comprising no professional staff but consists solely of other volunteers.

I'd say BG's "threat" of legal action is much more sinister than the perceived "threat" of legal action from a voluntary body. BG has not been "threatened". He has been informed that the Trust may have to seek legal advice, probably to have a professional check over some of the comments made to Chris. To my mind a total understandable position to take if you're not "in the business".

If a solicitor turned up at your house of place of business stating that such-and-such legal postion was in force and you had to comply, would you just accept it without taking legal advice of your own?

Sorry Mike, but since when has "considering" had the same meaning as "may have to"?

I have read the OP again and as far as I can see, the Trust made the first "legal threat", and in response, BG said that his
would read any Trust press releases.

This really is a non story unless the Trust is/has taking/taken legal advice?

I'm fed up with all the "political" gesturing on here. I'd guess that a core of around 20 posters constantly post whereas the vast majority just read and say nothing. I also find it hard to believe anything written by anyone.

As I stated before, I really don't care who takes over, I don't believe in either camp. Just get on with it!

Roll on this time next week when we can talk about football again.

 

[Anonymous]

I think you've been there for a while Oggy. :greensmile:

I know exactly what you mean, but whilst we still have a choice of the escape route, or the devious suits, I know what I'm hoping for.

If Plan A goes ahead, I'll still supported my club, but in a very muted fashion.

I simply don't like the cut of their jib.

 

[Anonymous]

It's getting to the point that I really don't care who takes over. I just hope that it happens soon.

Good for you John, some of us, have more staying power! :greensmile:

 

[PAFC+]

I think the Trust should be seeking legal advice on Ridsdale's comments last night at the PASLB meeting:

Was unequivocal that Brenden's boss does not want the process to be reopened and as such would rather the club fold than expose his business any longer, hence the sliding deadlines - they're necessary to facilitate the Heaney deal.

The primary legal purpose of administration is the survival of the company as a going concern. Ridsdale's comments indicate that Brenda's boss might rather sidestep that legal requirement in the self-interest of not exposing his business any longer.

 

[Shane Harris]

So, the Trust made the first legal action "threat"? Has the Trust taken any legal advice?

Has anything actually happened? Not that I can see.

So, what appears to have happened is akin to a couple of squabbling neighbours.

"I'm going to see a solicitor", "Me too".

On here though this is gradually escalating into the Trust fighting some sort of Custer's last stand!

AS PJ stated earlier "You couldn't make it up". Yes you could.

Don't you just love PASOTI.

It's getting to the point that I really don't care who takes over. I just hope that it happens soon.

Good spot John.

As far as I can see the only person actually threatened with legal action is BG. From Chris' post BG has made no such 'threat'.

The chest thumping on here is unbelievable from people that don't seem to have actually read the details just the thread title.

BG represents a large, wealthy, financial organisation, probably with lawyers on expensive retainers available at his beck and call and - because of the nature of his job - is probably very au fait with most of the legal aspects of the financial world.

Chris is a volunteer, representing a (relatively) poorly-funded organisation comprising no professional staff but consists solely of other volunteers.

I'd say BG's "threat" of legal action is much more sinister than the perceived "threat" of legal action from a voluntary body. BG has not been "threatened". He has been informed that the Trust may have to seek legal advice, probably to have a professional check over some of the comments made to Chris. To my mind a total understandable position to take if you're not "in the business".

If a solicitor turned up at your house of place of business stating that such-and-such legal postion was in force and you had to comply, would you just accept it without taking legal advice of your own?

Bit more research is required on your part, Chris' day job more than qualifies him for his role in the Trust.

 

[N I Green]

Where's the popcorn eating smiley, when you need one?!! :greensmile:

Previous post edited accordingly.. :thumbup:

 

[MoistVonLipwig]

It's getting to the point that I really don't care who takes over. I just hope that it happens soon.

Good for you John, some of us, have more staying power! :greensmile:

LOL Ian.

I've never supported any board (never will), just the team.

Memories can be very short where football is concerned.

Sturrock went from saint to sinner, some have even forgiven Mac666 and Cockney Green!

All that really matters to (dare I say) most people is entertainment on a Saturday afternoon and hopefully some success
along the way.

Whoever finally buys the club will be judged by the success or failure of the team, not on who is the nicest guy or the
one with the best morals.

 

[MoistVonLipwig]

BG represents a large, wealthy, financial organisation, probably with lawyers on expensive retainers available at his beck and call and - because of the nature of his job - is probably very au fait with most of the legal aspects of the financial world.

Chris is a volunteer, representing a (relatively) poorly-funded organisation comprising no professional staff but consists solely of other volunteers.

I'd say BG's "threat" of legal action is much more sinister than the perceived "threat" of legal action from a voluntary body. BG has not been "threatened". He has been informed that the Trust may have to seek legal advice, probably to have a professional check over some of the comments made to Chris. To my mind a total understandable position to take if you're not "in the business".

If a solicitor turned up at your house of place of business stating that such-and-such legal postion was in force and you had to comply, would you just accept it without taking legal advice of your own?

Bit more research is required on your part, Chris' day job more than qualifies him for his role in the Trust.[/quote]

????