|
Post by timrankhan on Jan 6, 2009 11:14:50 GMT 1
One slight word of warning...it is not uncommon for ownership of stadiums to be transferred to a holding company, which is what has happened in this case, usually it is done to protect valuable assets in the event of bankruptcy...which in our case is not so
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 6, 2009 11:25:57 GMT 1
One slight word of warning...it is not uncommon for ownership of stadiums to be transferred to a holding company, which is what has happened in this case, usually it is done to protect valuable assets in the event of bankruptcy...which in our case is not so Ken claims he did it to protect HTFC from future debts.... However, as I put earlier: Would those much heralded debts be any larger than the debts HTFC have been, and continue to be, saddled with due to the duplicitous dealings of Ken Davy?
|
|
|
Post by timrankhan on Jan 6, 2009 11:44:31 GMT 1
Mids, I am not disputing his reasons for doing it. In the first instance yes it protected HTFC from losing an asset, however now that we are on a firmer footing they should be returned or at worst be given a guarantee of return in the near future.
My point was that to those outside of our club it will appear normal for such a transaction of shares/ground ownership to take place. Obv this would be different if it was like the bloke at Wrexham who wished to evict the football club, Town will never be evicted as without them it is a huge white elephant.
|
|
|
Post by henseventee on Jan 6, 2009 11:59:27 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jan 6, 2009 12:09:07 GMT 1
We never needed protecting. KSDL was in no danger whatsoever. Not my words, but DAVY'S just prior to him transfering our shares.
When the transfer was finally discovered 15 months later, it took them 2 weeks to respond to the demand for some kind of explanation, and that was the best they ( Davy and watson) could come up with, no doubt hoping no one would be vigilant enough to check back on what davy had said in the weeks leading up to the transfer, or research KSDL rather healthy looking year on year profits.
It was basically the reason why Davy had done a similar thing with the Giants 20% years earlier, when he removed them from the Giants and put them in their holding company HRLFC Ltd. That was understandable as ,with Town on rocky ground following the Rubery era, it was sensible to protect the Giants from KSDLs debts in the event of HTFC going bust.
By September 2003, the situation had changed completely. Town, with Rubery having written off almost all our debts and with bumper ST sales in the bank, were no longer in any obvious danger. A very managable 6 year timescale to repay the main bulk of the debt (to former players) meant that Town were suddenly in a healthy financial state all things considered. KMC had taken on the liability of almost half of KSDLs debts ,so.. "This removes all the fears hanging over the future of KSDL" -KD
So what was he protecting us from?
And why rebrand HRLFC Ltd into Huddersfield Sporting Pride? Did he think no one would notice what HSP actually is by changing the name, or that despite selling it as a joint umbrella company for Town and the Giants, that Town weren't actually even in it?
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 7, 2009 12:53:01 GMT 1
Did he think no one would notice what HSP actually is by changing the name, or that despite selling it as a joint umbrella company for Town and the Giants, that Town weren't actually even in it? Capt, who knows what he thought/thinks.....maybe he thinks we're all "myopic bigots"?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyzero on Jan 7, 2009 14:33:20 GMT 1
And why rebrand HRLFC Ltd into Huddersfield Sporting Pride? Did he think no one would notice what HSP actually is by changing the name, or that despite selling it as a joint umbrella company for Town and the Giants, that Town weren't actually even in it? Not sticking up for the Mekon headed tw*t in any way slaps, you are probably aware of my disdain for the carpetbagging opportunist, but it's not unusual to rename a 'shell' company for another use, HRLFC Ltd had effectively become a defunct entity when Fartown's place in SuperLeague had been assured after yet another season on the bottom, by taking Sheffield Eagles place. This was the company that was branded as Huddersfield & Sheffield Giants and then simply Huddersfield Giants, though in all other respects the current Superleague club is effectively Sheffield Eagles renamed. He's still a Mekon headed tw*t though. Are we having a street party when he f*cks off at the end of the season?
|
|
|
Post by johnnyzero on Jan 7, 2009 14:36:52 GMT 1
And furthermore, just to keep the subject alive and well. Isn't it a strange coincidence that Fartown were suddenly able to compete financially with the bigger SuperLeague clubs when they acquired a major income stream... cough... sorry, I meant when Davy acquired Huddersfield Town?
|
|
|
Post by rooo on Jan 7, 2009 15:33:36 GMT 1
And furthermore, just to keep the subject alive and well. Isn't it a strange coincidence that Fartown were suddenly able to compete financially with the bigger SuperLeague clubs when they acquired a major income stream... cough... sorry, I meant when Davy acquired Huddersfield Town? Of course, and in my opinion this was the main reason Uncle Ken transferred the stadium share to HSP (the Giants holding company) in the first place. So the Giants could benefit from the increased income (not profit) for the salary cap that Super League have (which is based on a percentage of the club's income). IMO, the HDOne scheme is the icing on the cake (as long as Uncle Ken can get the finance in place)
|
|
|
Post by anniehtafc on Jan 7, 2009 15:39:11 GMT 1
I genuinely feel that this should be made public to those outside DATM, as frankly it is criminal and hugely damaging not only for HTAFC but also football and sport! A national newspaper is looking into it as we speak. Oh i do hope this is true, it's about time it was brought to light for everyone to see
|
|
|
Post by Richard1986 on Jan 7, 2009 16:18:03 GMT 1
short-sighted, boring, blinkered, football fan accounting
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jan 7, 2009 16:28:56 GMT 1
short sighted, boring, blinkered, football fan
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 7, 2009 17:26:34 GMT 1
short-sighted, boring, blinkered, football fan accounting Awww you're back from China A very succinct post that Richard....but what does it refer to?
|
|
|
Post by Richard1986 on Jan 7, 2009 17:40:09 GMT 1
short-sighted, boring, blinkered, football fan accounting Awww you're back from China A very succinct post that Richard....but what does it refer to? just this thread generally
|
|
|
Post by Rigodon on Jan 7, 2009 17:54:39 GMT 1
I've scratched my head and tried to make sense of these "allegations" and for all those "facts" that could be "something else" innocent as they may be there are certainly more worrying "signs" that there has been some underhand tactics used for nothing other than personal gain!
Alot of it does not make any sense to me and I do believe there are "ignorant" town fans who for all they don't know, make up, which is or was quite damaging to our fan's "morale"... I've seen people here, wax lyrical about it, abusive and slanderous yet they've not done the reading up nor the research involved to make an articulate pint of view! At the time I thought it that misinfomation could be fatal for the club when it was dying for AP/DH style investment.
Now then, we don't have to worry about the "future" so much seeing as our card selling saviour is in charge. Has anyone had any further dialogue with KD to "clarify" the situation regarding the shares? In the public domain? Surely he can be pushed on the matter a little more now our short / long term future is NOT in KD's remit. I am sure it would be to his advantage - If he has nothing to hide! I wouldn't expect the books, but clarification please...!
Not so much on this site, but on the old one for sure, Bro and Slapp's had some compelling things to say about it, even mids onced said I'd have reason to join FFA! But I'd argued the toss about because "evidence" was there! And I dip my hat to these gents for looking. Bob etc.. Not some inane moron who's been told by his mate we are buying rugby players thus shouts Davy Out!
I'm sure the threat of this going to the press would be interesting to Ken and am sure would provoke a reaction. I know DH has already made some closed comments about the shares, in the public domain. But, as is still my issue, there are "parts" missing to the story which would either absolve KD or mean for certain he has been a naughty boy and draw a line under it once and for all..
|
|
|
Post by andyhudd on Jan 7, 2009 17:55:40 GMT 1
Rich, if you're gonna make accusations, write it all off like that - atleast back up your point ... ... just as Mids, Slaps, Bro & Co have ...
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Jan 7, 2009 18:53:28 GMT 1
Simple mathematics. HTAFC need around 15500 average attendance to break even according to Ken Davy.. (He actually said 12500 to lose £400,000 but our wage budget as risen since then.) Why, how , where and when did our costs rise to these extremities on a normal basis? How do Huddersfield Towns finances see us go into the black in 2004/05 with all administration footballing debts paid (quote:: Andrew Watson on official site) to us losing around £800,000 a season in 2005/06 and 2006/07? The short sighted, boring , blinkered Town fan accounting that Richard speaks of. ?.... Does Nigel Cribbens wear Glasses?
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jan 7, 2009 19:46:21 GMT 1
Think Richard's attitude typifies what Davy was expecting/relying on all Town fans to be like. Unfortunately for him ,it wasn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 8, 2009 0:16:24 GMT 1
Has anyone had any further dialogue with KD to "clarify" the situation regarding the shares? In the public domain? Surely he can be pushed on the matter a little more now our short / long term future is NOT in KD's remit. Yes there's been dialogue, but there's nothing further in the public domain. It's a touchy subject isn't it but let's hope in time things can be altered.
|
|
|
Post by anniehtafc on Jan 8, 2009 9:00:56 GMT 1
When is it likely to be printed? I never buy that newspaper so if you could let me know when it's out to buy then i'll get meself a copy
|
|
|
Post by pozza on Jan 8, 2009 22:16:51 GMT 1
%age wise, who owns what with regards to the stadium then?
Just out of intrest like....
|
|
|
Post by Scissett Terrier! on Jan 8, 2009 22:27:29 GMT 1
Has anyone had any further dialogue with KD to "clarify" the situation regarding the shares? In the public domain? Surely he can be pushed on the matter a little more now our short / long term future is NOT in KD's remit. Yes there's been dialogue, but there's nothing further in the public domain. It's a touchy subject isn't it but let's hope in time things can be altered. mids is davy aware of the national newspaper investigating?
|
|
|
Post by TerrierArmy on Jan 8, 2009 22:37:50 GMT 1
%age wise, who owns what with regards to the stadium then? Just out of intrest like.... 40% Kirklees Council (well us really..but it doesnt work like that) 60% Davy. Oh Davy has very close connections to the KMC, but we'll leave it like that...
|
|
|
Post by TomTheTerrier on Jan 8, 2009 23:08:22 GMT 1
When is it likely to be printed? I never buy that newspaper so if you could let me know when it's out to buy then i'll get meself a copy I think Mids answered your question above, look closely
|
|
|
Post by BradfordTerrier on Jan 12, 2009 12:00:00 GMT 1
lets all be thankful that hoyle came in when he did because one thing for certain is that the current optimism around the place certainly wouldn't be here if hoyle wasnt, it most definitely has got absolutely sod all to do with ken davy. cant quite believe some people still think the sun shines from you know where. looking forward to the day it all comes out(and it will) and see how many posts there are on the thread entitled HUMBLE PIE(not many i'll guess ) at least dick turpin wore a mask!
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Jan 12, 2009 19:00:35 GMT 1
It wouldn't be his 1st offence though Stants. There are compelling resemblances between his 1st offence and whats happening at HTAFC. The difference being that the governing of financial institutes have rules and regulations and the football world still relies on moral correctness and the honesty of chairmen .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2009 19:42:00 GMT 1
It wouldn't be his 1st offence though Stants. There are compelling resemblances between his 1st offence and whats happening at HTAFC. The difference being that the governing of financial institutes have rules and regulations and the football world still relies on moral correctness and the honesty of chairmen . sorry for the ignorance but his first offence being...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2009 19:51:32 GMT 1
It wouldn't be his 1st offence though Stants. There are compelling resemblances between his 1st offence and whats happening at HTAFC. The difference being that the governing of financial institutes have rules and regulations and the football world still relies on moral correctness and the honesty of chairmen . sorry for the ignorance but his first offence being...? merging fartown with sheffield eagles i think and basically just dispanded sheffield eagles despite them having a long history and fan base. Screwed them over big time from what i know
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Jan 12, 2009 20:09:52 GMT 1
Think Bro is refering to this-
FSA HAMMERS FIRM OVER MISLEADING AD THE arrogance of a major firm of financial advisers has cost it dear. DBS Financial Management, which has 3,000 investment experts across the UK, was ordered in March 2000 to clean up its misleading adverts. At the time run by millionaire chairman Kenneth Davy, the firm ignored the warning from the Financial Services Authority and the next year recruited customers with a sales pitch littered with lies. That pitch for so-called "protected ISAs" has cost DBS a #100,000 fine, the first of its kind by the City regulator. The ads appeared in the Daily and Sunday Telegraphs and Sunday Mirror. The 455 investors who responded to the ads have been offered their money back. The deceptions included: Promising "no initial charge" when there was a charge of up to 6 per cent plus an annual management fee of up to 1.2 per cent. Failing to explain that investors could receive "substantially reduced" returns compared with other ISA funds. Claiming "100 per cent capital security over five years". This only applied at the fifth anniversary of the plan. Making excessive growth predictions. DBS had previously been fined #425,000 for mis-selling personal pensions. It has since been bought for #75million by software giant Misys. Davy, 62, made #7million from the sale and is now chairman of the Huddersfield Giants rugby league club. He also runs a new money advice firm, SimplyBiz. He didn't return our calls yesterday. DBS managing director Steve Pearson said: "The FSA is fining DBS for the contravention of regulatory rules by the previous management, who have moved on elsewhere. It is very surprising that former management failed to improve procedures adequately after an earlier regulatory inspection in 2000."
Would you trust this man with your money? Or your football club?
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Jan 12, 2009 20:12:37 GMT 1
|
|