Many people have been asking for a lot of the shares info to be kept together in one place - so here goes - I'm certain it isn't definitive - but I will endeavour to modify this post with additional things as and when they present themselves.
It is a long post, but hopefully it will concentrate much of the information that has been spread over the multiple threads over the past few weeks. The aim is to highlight what is planned, the basic history, what’s happened recently to result in the current stand off, what the fans can do to make a difference, things to use and pass on, and who to contact.
Wednesday 18th January – delegation to Kirklees Council meeting at 5.00pm to give a statement and ask questions, on behalf of the fans - can be watched online www.kirklees.public-i.tv/core/ Thursday 19th January – live interview on BBC Radio Leeds Breakfast Show, and then another on Talksport with Richard Keys and Andy Gray Friday 20th January (or earlier) – the launch of a dedicated blogger website – www.soldfor2quid.com Saturday 21st January – 7300 lime green ‘£2 – Do The Right Thing – Give Us Back Our Shares’ t-shirts to be distributed at all the stadium footprint’s access points – the more helpers we have, the better- and the continued boycott of KSDL catering kiosks Tuesday 24th January – meeting with Adrian Lythgo (Kirklees Council’s Chief Executive) and Mehboob Khan (Leader of Kirklees Council) .......and much more
It is important to keep “emotions” under control and FOCUS the pressure and tactics: • Persuade not bully • Have Issue based discussions, not personal attacks (even if that is hard at times) • Avoid “he” said, “she” said • Build momentum • Use all media – especially Social and twitter • It is a two club issue, for all fans, not just Town’s
Facts • 54 acres and a stadium sold for £2 by Ken Davy to his private company in 2003 – council consented! • Council / Public funds KSDL – 60% private owned – scale of use of public money is secret • Stated reason for share transfer in 2003 has gone – protection is no longer needed – Mr Davy is no longer in charge • Ownership is an issue for both Clubs – could happen to Giants also • Ownership is a Public interest issue – big risk to Council and tax payer; not transparent • No individual should profit from shares – now or ever – including Dean Hoyle • No individual should control KSDL • Needs resolving quickly – its damaging • HD1 has no prospect of success without a resolution • HTAFC and fans want to back stadium to bring prosperity
So • We are only asking for what is “fair and just” • We are only asking to get back to the vision 40/40/20 • “Do right thing” • “Return the shares for £2” • “No individual should profit from owning the shares – not now, or ever – including Dean Hoyle” • We won’t go away
In 2003 the football club ran into financial difficulties that led to Administration.
The supporters rallied immediately and were solely responsible for providing funding to prevent the Club’s liquidation by raising upwards of £100,000.
At a late stage, the Giants’ chairman, Ken Davy, came forward to take control of Huddersfield Town, making it quite clear that his motive was to safeguard the future of the stadium for the rugby club. But many supporters became disenchanted as the new chairman refused to honour the 4-year bondholders who had also helped the club in their hour of need.
As the Huddersfield Town Supporters Trust discovered in 2005, Town’s stadium shares were transferred by Ken Davy to his own private company (Huddersfield Sporting Pride) in December 2003 for the princely sum of £2 – this only months after taking ownership of the club. This meant he had taken control of KSDL as 60% shareholder (with 40% KMC) and had acquired 40% of the Galpharm Stadium and the 54 acres of land for just £2 – with the consent of Kirklees.
This meant Mr Davy took overall control of KSDL as a 60% shareholder (with Kirklees Council holding the remaining 40%), and in doing so had acquired 40% of the Galpharm Stadium, and the 54 acres of land, for just £2.
Over the following years the fans started to investigate how the football club was being run and if it was gettin full value from having a chairman who ran both sporting clubs, and had control of the stadium. Many of the things that were found were worrying but we were assured the club was in good hands, and Mr Davy had sidetracked the shares to 'protect the football club from future liabilities'. He assured us that the rental formula was 'set in stone'.
Dean Hoyle then got involved, and over time his stake in the football club (but not the stadium!!) grew from 30% to 70% to 100%. Even then Mr Davy did not feel able to unburden himself of the duty to 'protect the football club from future liabilities'. He did not return the shares.
Two years ago, agreement was reached for the return of those shares, subject to all 3 parties agreeing to the deal, and returning to the original vision of 40/40/20 split of the shares. But this new deal collapsed last month in acrimony. The Council and KSDL have, of course, since agreed a new funding deal for KSDL.
This is a public interest issue - the Council consented to the sale of the club's shares for £2 in 2004, but refused to consent to the sale back in 2010.
We believe the Council, and public, have a huge financial risk in KSDL, and it is clear that HTAFC should have a return of its shares in KSDL for the same £2 value they were transferred away for.
From what is public, up to the meeting on Thursday 12th January 2012, Ken Davy’s position is seemingly based on 5 arguments:
1. Davy was willing to complete the Feb 2010 deal 2. He never sought to change 1. 3. The rental formula is irrelevant as it is nothing to do with 1. 4. Even if the rental was relevant, he always intended to revert back to the 13/13 formula – as the 15/13 formula was only ‘temporary’. 5. Arbitration is/was irrelevant as it’s nothing to do with 1.
Dean Hoyle says Davy's arguments are flawed because:
a. The Feb 2010 deal could never have been changed, as it was signed. b. 2 & 3 are blown out of the water by the ‘Ken Davy Myth’ thread c. That makes 4 & 5 the crux of the collapse of the deal/
Ken Davy does not dispute he sought to change the rental formula – but he says “everyone knew it was temporary”.
Dean Hoyle says the 15/13 rental formula is, and always has been, permanent.
Ken Davy is trying to stop the rental formula being linked together with the shares deal in people’s understandings, as he admits he wanted to move the goalposts on the rental formula.
Ken Davy knows that the rental formula/shares deal link is in the end indisputable – even though he publicly tries to refute it. So to try and cover his tracks, he is saying that the rental formula was ‘temporary’, as a direct consequence of people cottoning on to the link between both factors.
Ken Davy says the 15/13 rental formula is’temporary’ on the basis that: - all parties knew it all along – he sought to change it but never got round to doing it - it was not being fair to the Giants
Dean Hoyle says the 15/13 rental formula is permanent on the basis that: - it has been in place for eight years, including three years since Dean bought into Town - Davy said nothing to him to say he was seeking to change it before April 2008 (when Dean bought into Town) or before the deal in February 2010 - Davy told him just before the December 2011 breakdown of the deal that he “wished to revert back” – he has never actively sought to do it. - Davy has repeatedly over the years said in his public statements that the rental formula is “set in stone” and “cannot be altered” - There is nothing in any formal discussions or documents to say it was to change - There was a clear understanding on the rental formula before they shook hands, and Dean bought into Town - Ken Davy understood and accepted that ‘15/13’ was part of the transfer deal
This all boils down to who you believe – Ken Davy or Dean Hoyle. More importantly perhaps, it boils down to who those with clout with regard to the deal believe.
KEN DAVY’S MYTH:
Let's try and put a stop to this myth that Ken Davy is pushing in his statements that the rents and the shares have been unconnected!! It is totally misleading, and is hiding his guilt!!
When anyone buys into any business and becomes a joint shareholder, you do two things:
1. You agree the deal price and any other 'considerations' (how much you pay and when you pay etc). This is usually called the sale agreement.
2. You agree what rights and rules each joint shareholder has to follow in the business when they start working together e.g what happens when you want to sell your own shares or you want to change the rules (It's designed to stop disputes and give direction about who does what and when). This is usually called the shareholder agreement.
Both 1 and 2 go hand in hand. It is pointless agreeing one and not the other as there would be no deal.
In the KSDL shares transfer deal, 1 is the February 2010 Agreement and 2 is the Collaboration Agreement. But because of the peculiarity of KSDL there was also a 3 - the council consent.
2 was to be drafted, but could only be signed when 3 was given by Kirklees Council. (The plan was to get this signed quickly in early 2010, then draft 2, and get it signed - job done).
But 3 did not happen and was long delayed - in fact it still hasn't been given yet formally!!!
In this KSDL shares transfer deal, 2 (Shareholder/Collaboration Agreement) should have been easy - because all the shareholders (HTFC, Giants, KSDL, Dean Hoyle, and Ken Davy) had been working together for years.
Everyone knew the rules already, as they were operating under them, and had been for a long time. All they had to do was write them down, formalise them, and sign them. Simples!!?? Especially as nobody had said before 1 (The Sale Agreement) that they had any new rules they wanted to operate under!!
But then Ken Davy asks to change the way everyone works together under the shareholder agreement - he wants the rental formula changing.
Dean Hoyle says No - so 2 was not agreed.
It is irrelevant that Ken Davy says he has not changed 1 - he couldn't - it was signed in February 2010!!
What Ken Davy has sought to do is change the rules for 2 - and without 2 the deal is dead!!
A CHRISTMAS CAROL:
A man agrees to sell a house he bought on the cheap - with the terms and price agreed with the buyer.
The buyer agrees to buy - despite suspicions that it is way over the odds - not just the house as that would create bad headlines but the buyer agrees to pay other monies to the seller that he would probably have not got elsewhere, as owning the house means a lot to the buyer.
When it comes to signing the final contract the seller says he has 'forgotten' to ask for a bit more money, and says to the buyer that the price has gone up.
The buyer says "no way....why didn't yoiu say anything before".
The seller says "I want more".
The buyer says "you're joking".
The seller says "no I'm serious".
The buyer won't agree and says we shook hands on a deal and the terms.
The seller says "I want more".
They are in deadlock, so a trusted 'middle man' says "as a last resort let's get a third party to decide on the 'extra' so we can get this deal resolved and get the house transferred".
The third party says "you've both got one week to decide or the deal is dead as whilst you delay the house is falling down and becoming less viable by the day".
The buyer immediately tells the middle man "ok, that's fair and I'll take my chance - I just want to get the house asap"
The seller, unbelievably, waits until the last minute of the deadline and then tells the middle man "No, I want my extras".
The middle man then tells all interested parties what the seller has said, and all hell breaks loose.
The seller panics and tells anyone who will listen that he wanted to sell and that he still does.
However, he forgets to tell these people that he asked to change the terms of the deal, that he always intended to ask for more money, and just how much he was actually going to profit from the original deal anyway.
He forgets to mention the deadline given to him, or that everyone else had agreed.
Everyone in the town blames the seller because of his past history, how he came to own the house, and because the buyer was so desperate to own the house that he was paying over the odds for the whole deal in order to make things right.
The seller then regrets his decision and tries to shift the blame as he realises he is getting himself into deep trouble.
The seller hopes the buyer will come back and complete the deal, and he tells everyone that he will still sell but that the buyer won't now buy.
The buyer knows the house is about to collapse, that the seller faces repossession, and he opts to have nothing to do with the seller anymore.
The seller becomes more and more desperate, so he baits the buyer in the hope they can get into a public war of words.
The buyer simply ignores the seller who now has no friends to help him prop up his failing house.
The moral of the story is: Be honest. Be truthful. Think of others in what you do. If you treat good people badly, and are selfish and greedy, things catch up with you and you get badly bitten.
THE HOUSE THAT KSDL BUILT: Once upon a time there were three friends who had a new house built for them all to share.
For nine years they lived happily together, paying the mortgage between them, all until one of the friends hit upon hard times and almost went bankrupt.
The two remaining friends hit upon an idea and went to see the bank to try and do a deal.
They found that someone had already come up with a good plan to help out their down on his luck friend.
But the two friends hatched on a deal and the one with the most spare money said he would take over the slack on the mortgage, and transferred his share in the house into a secret cupboard, and all for £2.
The wealthier friend started to put his weight about and kept a very tight reign on the monies that his down on his luck friend kept bringing in.
All the while he insisted that his friend could continue to live in the house but must pay him the vast rent which helped to cover the house's mortgage.
This went on for years and years until the down on his luck friend found a long time friend of his wanted to help get him back on his feet, and he took over his finances.
But still the wealthy friend kept receiving the vast rent.
Until the day when the wealthy friend realised that the newcomer had more money than him and the house which was becoming very unkept needed lots of things replacing.
He told the newcomer that as he was far richer than himself he should pay for them, but if he did he still couldn't get his share of the mortgage back.
The newcomer wasn't happy but he paid what he could as he didn't want the house to fall into ruin.
Several months later, and after a lot of negotiations and upset, the newcomer shook hands with his friend's friend on a deal....a very lucrative deal for the man in control of the mortgage.
The newcomer offered him what he had paid to get the mortgage changed (£2), and he offered to repay to him the monies he had invested into the house (£3m), and he even offered to give him interest on all that from that date to the day the deal was signed.
The negotiations and proceedings lasted months. 21 months in fact. But at the very last minute the friend told the newcomer that he wanted to change the way his own mortgage payment was calculated.
The newcomer was most upset about this, at this very late stage, and after much deliberation he instructed his lawyers to stop the deal there.
The friend was being greedy, and showed his true ungenuine motives. But that cost him a lot of money as the newcomer refused to put the same deal on the table again. After the friend said he wasn't going to pay the price anymore, he told all his own friends how badly he had been treated.
Those people were very very very upset because they knew how much their friend wanted what he had been promised a long time ago. They knew their friend was a decent guy, who told the truth, and had tried his hardest.
Years earlier - before his friends knew him - they had all visited the house, and when the previous mortgage holder had been on hard times they had tried to stop him going bankrupt.
After he had had to leave, they didn't like the wealthy new mortgage holder and his ways, and now seven years later it was all happening again.
All the friends decided enough was enough. One owner of the house was now very worried indeed. He didn't want all the villagers looking at his house and asking about it, and quizzing him on how much he spent to keep the house viable.
He also had no money to spend on the house, and he was frightened he would now have to pay more to keep the house from falling down.
He had hoped to build a massive extension onto the house, but the rich greedy mortgage holder said "it's not my fault, but we can carry on".
The two of them sat alone in their house hoping their former friend would come back and they could be friends again. One hoped he would still be a friend and help them, and the other thinking he might still be able to get his money he had been promised.
They rang him, and rang him. Each time, no matter how much they begged, he told them that their actions had upset him so much he didn't think they could be friends again.
Everyone in the village started to ask what was going on at the house. Even the local newspaper ran a story on the big fall out.
The villagers and their friends told both mortgage holders that they needed to get their rich friend back on board or the house might fall down and bury them both.
Very quickly all the villagers started jumping up and down and creating a fuss, and the cracks started to show in the house's foundations.
The more pragmatic mortgage holder realised that maybe he shouldn't be friends with the wealthier mortgage holder, and secretly hoped that he would leave him before the house fell down, but he feared he would never leave because he was a greedy man.
He knew he had backed the wrong friend, and he didn't want all the villagers to start to hate him. But he had always struggled knowing which side to take.
The villagers soon got tired of all the unrest caused by the two lonely mortgage holders and kept jumping up and down, day and night, week after week, until the house eventually fell in.
The 'newcomer' then came back, moved back in, and restored the house until it prospered.
STADIUM HOLD 'EM
Two men sit down to play a game of cards.
They both have a big stacks of chips but one man, the younger man, has a stack 10 times bigger than the older man’s. The old man likes the look of the younger man's big stack.
They play a few hands and the younger man with the biggest stack starts to watch the older man play, to see how he works.
When the younger man wins a hand the older man complains a lot and refers to new rules the younger man had never heard of. The younger man is unhappy but hands over the chips to the older man who says he has done nothing wrong and if he doesn’t like it he doesn’t have to play.
The younger man has no one else to play cards with so he carries on but he becomes wary and watches the older man more and more closely.
Over the years they have lots of card games and the younger man keep thinking he is going to win a game, but always at the last minute the older man pulls another trick. After a while, the younger man starts to realise what is going to happen and starts guessing right.
Eventually they sit down for the biggest game. They both agree the rules, shake hands and start playing.
The game lasts a long time but the younger man is happy. He expects the older man to finish up with a lot of his chips but he is not bothered because he will be happy with the end result.
The younger man eventually puts a huge pile of chips into the pot.
All the cards are dealt, and they are both about to show them when, just like all the previous times, the older man says wait.
He ask the younger man to put some more money in the pot before he will turn his cards over.
The younger man can’t believe it. He asks the older man why he should put some more in, and tells him that is not what was agreed when they shook hands and started playing.
The older man tells the younger man that he is lying, and demands more chips are put in!
The younger man decides he’s had enough and tells the older man to stick by the rules or he is off.
The older man thinks the younger man is bluffing and that he won’t stop playing - he thinks the young man likes the game too much, and as he has lots of chips he won’t miss a few more.
But the older man has misjudged the younger man this time – he is not bothered about the chips or playing with the older man anymore - he is sick of the tricks.
He gives the older man one last chance, but again he refuses. The younger man then simply stands up, collects his massive stack of chips, and takes the pot with him and says this game is over.
The older man is left at the table on his own, and the stack of chips he prized has gone!
He shouts the younger man to come back, but it’s too late he has gone. He rings him, but is told the game is off. He tells his friends to tell the younger man if he comes back they can finish the game. But, if he does, he will have to put all his chips back in again so they can carry on like nothing has happened.
The younger man tells him again the game is over, and that he had his chance to play that game.
The younger man then tells the older man that the only game he will play with him is now is on his terms, and not the older man's.
The older man sits alone at the table and realises if only he had turned the cards over he would have got all the chips – now he has nothing and no one to play with.
All the younger man's friends hear about the story – and ask how big the stack of chips was but the younger man won’t say.
Those friends also ask the older man why he played the game like that? But they are told it's his game, he makes up the rules, he didn’t change them, and the younger man just didn’t want to turn his cards over.
Some of them say to the older man - you changed rules before didn’t you, and actually they aren’t the same rules you told us the last time we asked either!
The older man says that was a mistake then – sorry – he should have said earlier! He tells them to forget all that - he’s a good chap and will still play with the younger man if he wants to come back – its not his fault.
Some people tell the younger man to play again, but when they ask about the rules the older man says its not a new game – he wants to continue the old game, with all his old cards, the old rules, and the younger man's big stack of chips!
They ask him what will happen if the younger man plays again – and are told by the older man that they'll just finish the old game like they had previously agreed.
They ask who gets the chips, and the older man says he will.
The friends scratch their heads and say why should the younger man come back and play with you after last time, and then just give you all his chips?
The older man says because those are my rules and its my game. The friends, and the younger man, can’t believe the older man's nerve, and they all agree it's best to leave him to play on his own.
The older man writes to the local newspaper, and says please tell the younger man, and everyone in the town, I will still play with the younger man - even though he walked off. Tell him and them, all I want to do is finish the game – if the younger man will come back to the table I will turn my cards over this time, I promise! No harm done.
But the older man doesn’t tell the town how big the stack of chips in the pot is.
They all think it is just 2 chips, and some ask what’s the fuss is about, and the younger man should go finish the game.
The younger man says I promised the older man I wouldn’t tell and I’m a man of my word – I won’t copy his shoddy tactics. His friends like that, but wish he would tell the town, but know he can’t.
They tell the older man what they think, but he ignores them, and just says he wants to finish his old game.... again, and again.....
LOAN STOCK EXPLANATION:
The February 2010 agreement allowed for Davy to receive, from Dean: £2 - the price of the shares £3,000,000 - the return of Davy's loan stock £? - interest from Feb 2010 to the date the deal was finalised
However, before finalising the deal, and at the last moment, Davy wanted more. When owners (Davy) puts cash into clubs they 'loan' it to save tax - but in reality they never ever expect to get it back - as clubs make losses.
So, when they sell the club the owners (Davy) have to write the loans off as the new buyer generally refuses to repay the loans - they say it sunk into a black hole or at best they say IF the club ever makes a profit you'll get a bit back....so in reality, there's no chance.
To get any loan stock repaid is extraordinary. Getting 100% of the loan stock returned is dreamland. To be offered 100% of the loan stock plus interest returned would be a ridiculously fantastic offer - unheard of in fact.
As Ken bought the shares for £2, he would get slaughtered if people found out he got £2 plus £3m plus interest back.
That is why Davy states Dean is paying £2 - but then pleads confidentiality so nobody knows he is also getting £3m. That is why he says he "will do the deal as per the February 2010 agreement" and does not say "I will sell for £2".
If asked if he will sell the shares for £2, he has replied "I will do the deal as per the February 2010 agreement". He wants the £3m plus but he doesn't want the fans and public to know.
If asked what were the terms of the February 2010 agreement, he will say it is confidential.
If asked if Dean agrees to make it public will you Ken, he will ignore you.
It's not about £24,900. It's about far more than that, including honesty, integrity, trust, and shaking hands.
o Why is Ken Davy doing his negotiating in the Examiner? It is the latest in a series of statements, pre and post xmas.
o Mehboob Khan, the Leader of the Council, only days ago said he would be arbitrator and asked for “space” for discussions – yet Ken Davy immediately goes public with another statement of his position!
o This is not the way arbitration works, is it?
o Surely Ken Davy should have sent his offer to Dean Hoyle rather than the publish in the papers?
o It is hardly going to build trust in an arbitration process and help get a deal is it?
o It is disrespectful to Councillor Khan – how can he do his job, if Ken Davy goes to the papers every five minutes? Maybe the editor of the Examiner is the new arbitrator!
o How is Dean Hoyle going to feel about the process reading that over his cornflakes this morning?
o What about Councillor Khan – it has just made his job harder – he said to the HTSA delegation he couldn’t comment in public about certain issues as it would be damaging - yet Ken Davy has just done so!!
o It is shoddy from Ken Davy. It's not what should be expected of Ken Davy – certainly hard to see how deals by headline will help build bridges with Dean Hoyle, or help Councillor Khan’s job.
o What is actually “new” in today's Ken Davy offer? - nothing whatsoever!!
o Ken Davy says he is still prepared to do “Feb 2010” if Dean will – that’s not new - just another restatement of his position again! KD has said the same thing many times since 16 December.
o Ken Davy is only saying what he said on 22 December – after the Feb 2010 deal was dead! “I will still do the Feb 2010 deal” – THAT OPPORTUNITY HAS GONE, AND ISNT COMING BACK!! THE CLUB AND DEAN HOYLE HAS MADE THAT VERY CLEAR – WHY SHOULD IT? THERE WERE NUMEROUS DEADLINES THAT PASSED, AND THE FINAL ONE WAS “FINAL”
o Dean Hoyle has also said that Feb 2010 “deal is off the table” as of when KD refused arbitration – all parties knew this on expiry of the deadline on 16 December; Ken Davy is STILL talking about an offer and deal that doesn’t exist any more – he appears in denial of that key fact.
o Ken Davy NEVER says he will sell back for £2 - only that he wants to have the deal from Feb 2010; Why?
o Ken Davy doesn’t say what that the terms of the deal of Feb 2010 was – maybe Dean Hoyle and Ken Davy should both agree to go public and lift the confidentiality? That would reveal to everytone the true details!!
o Ken Davy makes no mention whatsoever of the Collaboration Agreement – is Ken Davy still after 13/15 or not? – or is that “still non-negotiable”?
o YES – It is good news for the Giants that Ken Davy will put their shares in trust – he has had 8 years to do it! ; But that is nothing to do with returning the Town shares for £2!
o Ken Davy says if Dean Hoyle signs “I will be more than happy to transfer the KSDL shares to a Charitable Trust” - that’s an interesting view on ownership - It is not for Ken Davy to do anything at that stage! The shares are not his anymore! They will belong to the Club – it is for the Club to decide what to do with them - Dean Hoyle has already said what he will do with them – he is already committed to a trust!
o It's interesting Ken Davy says he will use a “trust” only days after Dean Hoyle says that is what he would do with Town’s! It's a great idea but one Ken Davy hasn’t mentioned before despite having the opportunity to so for all those years!
o Overall the news for the Giants is potentially good but for HTAFC supporters there is absolutely nothing new. The manner of Ken Davy’s statement being done by tabloid headline could be damaging and counter-productive to the process the Leader of the Council outlined earlier in the week.
o All Town fans clearly should continue to campaign simply for Ken Davy to “do the right thing” – transfer back for £2!!
If you stick to the facts then Ken Davy cannot get litigious.....
I've been saying the same things for several years now. To his face. In print, On the radio. On tv. At no point in all that time has Mr Davy served me with anything.....apart from a cup of coffee once. I'd summise therefore that a) he's got better things to do with his time or b) I haven't said anything that he can get me on....
There is no vendetta!
Increasingly I note that:
• tough questions challenging Ken Davy’s behaviour and claims in his statements are not being answered
• instead there is just lots of claims of vendettas, but no supporting evidence as to why
• cries of it being personal against Ken Davy
It may be uncomfortable to have a stream of challenging questions about what has been going on, motives, explanations and statements but that goes with being chairman of a club with 100 years of history and a large fan base and 14000 regular watchers!
With the responsibility of the Chairmanship of any football club come a duty of care to the fans, and the club, and a high degree of scrutiny of your behaviour. There is no hiding place, and nor should there be.
Just because the questions are uncomfortable does not mean there is a vendetta or they should not be answered.
Also if the answers are not pleasant – should you blame the person asking the questions? No! – that is not personal, or a vendetta, it is public interest and scrutiny.
Does anyone think any Chairman should not be accountable for his actions?
Or because they bought the club when it was on its knees it gives them licence for all conduct thereafter to have a “blind-eye” turned to it?
Ken Davy had total control of HTAFC/HSP/Giants from 2003 to April 2008. Since then he has continued to control HSP and 60% of KSDL and 100% of Giants.
The questions would not be being asked now if during that time Ken (and no one else) - had: • not transferred the shares from the Club to HSP
• paid more than just £2 - for 54 acres and the stadium in 2003
• used the Administrator’s value to justify his own value – interesting concept – the price you pay for something that you bought it for (£2 worked in 2003 but not in 2012!)
• not transferred the KSDL shares after publicly promising he would not
• disclosed he had done it, or was going to do it – rather than being exposed afterwards
• said he was transferring the shares to make money and protect his own personal position rather than “protecting the club”
• not valued the shares at £1.8m after buying for £2
• not tried to wriggle out of his audited accounts valuation when the valuation uplift was exposed
• said the 15/13 was “temporary” at the FFA meeting in 2007 rather than “it cannot be changed”
• changed the 3 July 2007 town website transcript – rather than leaving it with “inaccuracies” for 4 years before mentioning it
• said 15/13 was “temporary” at the Patrons meeting in May 2009 – rather than saying “thats the deal. I have not sought to change it”
• saying in David Conn's Guardian article that the Administrator transferred the sales to HSP not HTAFC – despite the Administrator saying he did not! – he sold them to HTAFC and Ken Davy moved them
• not retained the KSDL shares when he sold the club to Dean Hoyle
• agreed for 13/13 rent in 2008 when Dean came in, or with Dean in 2009 before the Feb 2010 deal was finished
• not asked for 13/13 after February 2010
• gone to arbitration at the “final attempt”
• not sought to try to justify his position by saying his 13/13 rent change and the share deal were unconnected
• not dismissed the Collaboration Agreement as unconnected to the share deal
• not told fans in December 2011 by email – the 15/13 was always “temporary” – 4 years after leading FFA to believe it “could not be changed” and saying with “hindsight” the FFA statement should have been changed earlier
• taken responsibility for the 3 July 2007 web site story rather than blaming the HTAFC media team and saying he never read the Club website despite being Chairman
• not told fans in December 2011 the 15/13 no longer was in place – a unilateral change made by himself despite never telling HTAFC or KSDL
• not claimed to make a new offer when there was nothing “new” in it
• not taken Dean Hoyle’s trust proposal and claimed it as his own – despite having 8 years to do it himself
• told Dean Hoyle of his “new offer” like any professional business man – rather than seeking headlines and negotiation in the Examiner on 20 January 2012
• given Councillor Khan the “space” to arbitrate as he asked for 3 days before - but Ken Davy made his newspaper offer to Dean Hoyle instead
Sorry the list is long, and the details unpleasant, but these are public FACTS (never mind all the gossip and hearsay!), either from Ken’s own lips, on video, or in the papers, or companies house – can anyone dispute any of them.... ?
Listed out in black and white says it all. No one forced Ken do to this, or say it.
Ken Davy still has an opportunity to “do the right thing” and return the shares for £2.
The media reports say HDOne will cost £100m to build
That will include the cost of the land to build HDOne on
If it makes a 20% return (??) that is £20m profit. That money goes to the people who put in the £100m investment to build it
How much is KSDL going to put in to that deal? It has no money!! All KSDL has is the land
If that’s worth £20m (??) and KSDL gets a stake for giving the land, that is a 20% interest in the project
So KSDL gets 20% of any profit (in this theoretical example - £20m) = £4m
HTAFC is hoping to have returned its 40% stake of KSDL - that makes Town’s stake in HDOne to be worth £1.6m
If the land is worth £10m then the 40% becomes worth £800k
If the land is worth £5m then the 40% stake becomes worth £400k
With over £100m in the bank, and losing £4m a year on Town, do you think £1.6m to £400k is life or death to someone like Dean? That is a Robbie Simpson, or two of Jordan Rhodes’ socks!
For the town, HDOne might bring 1000 jobs and a big boost to the economy – that’s why the council need it to happen.
But it cannot go ahead if Ken wont sell for £2 - another good reason why Ken Davy should do the right thing and return the shares for £2!........
The more money it looks like HDOne makes, the more it weakens Ken Davy’s arguments, and favour’s Deans because:
Big profits means it appears the real motive for Davy hanging onto the shares was money all along – not the ‘community saviour’ or ‘protecting HTFC’
Shareholders in KSDL (currently 60% of which is Ken Davy) get the profits from KSDL’s interest in the scheme
HDOne was Ken Davy’s idea to the KSDL Board which he suggested when he only owned the rugby club
If Ken Davy looks set to make a load of money from HDOne, after all he said about why he took the shares, that makes very bad reading in anyone’s book! – and so helps Dean
Remember in 2005 Ken Davy explains to the FightForAnswers group that he transferred the KSDL shares to HSP to protect HTAFC from the debts of KSDL: “with KSDL’s debts of £8m, I sought to protect Town from these debts" and he added "the finances of KSDL are far from robust"
Dean says the KSDL shares will stay in trust, with Town getting the benefit of any income – so if HDOne makes no benefit to Dean either – why pay a rumoured £3m+ for the shares if he can’t get his hands on the cash
It’s public record that Ken Davy could make money from HD1 from the Zone though:
He bought the building which is now The Zone, using Town’s money, but in the name of KEJ LLP – the directors of which are Ken Davy and Jennifer Davy
The building is actually included in the HDOne planning for the scheme!
So KEJ LLP gains with the increase in the value of The Zone building, from its proximity to HDOne
Did Ken Davy know a big scheme was coming on The Zone’s doorstep, and he profited from that insight? Or was it just a lucky coincidence that he bought it, only to find that a scheme, run by a company of which he owns 60%, was on the cards?
Even better transfer Town’s and Giants community activities into the building and get them to pay the rent, to you, to pay for the building!
So after 5 years the building has cost you nothing and its value has gone up guaranteed - all whilst being a community facility. Good PR and a nice earner!!
What’s Ken Davy's motive? Personal gain? Or community? Or personal gain dressed up as community? Whatever it is it smells doesn’t it – or maybe it’s just more conspiracy?
Like any football insolvencies, for an administrator to get a sale they need a deal that fulfills 2 criteria:~
1. The Football League need to approve - their criteria is a) all football creditors must be paid in full b) somewhere to play c) a credible plan to recover
2. 75% of creditors would vote for the CVA Deal - in Town's situation that meant keeping barry Rubery happy as he was 25% of the creditors - and he could vote the CVA down.
But in Town's case there was a third element because of the way the stadium was financed/managed....
3. Council approval was needed - otherwise they could have stopped Town playing at the stadium - if Town didn't have a ground then the administrator could not have got the Football League's vote.
Whether Davy, or anyone else, offered the administrator £2 or £100m would be irrelevent if they could not tick 1, 2and3 as they wouldn't be classed as 'viable' - as the administrator could not have completed a deal.
Other bids, and interested parties, were frightened off or could not agree to the Council's terms, due to their onerous nature - £1.2m of debt, and a £600k annual rent.
Simply, they couldn't have made Rubery or Council happy.
Davy's bid made the Council very happy.....why?....because his bid meant:~
- HTAFC signed up to the same crippling KSDL rents as Rubery suffered with - HTAFC took on £1.2m of debt on The North Stand - debt that would otherwise have been written off as part of the administration process, or left for the Council to cover - it saved KSDL which was nearly bust - it saved the Council from the effect of the collapse of KSDL
It was a great deal for the Council, but also for Ken Davy as he got 60% of the stadium, it protected the Giants, and it ensured there was 2 clubs to share the rent. He had control and it was better than an outsider coming in. Plus HDOne was on the horizon.... To sweeten the deal, it appears that the Council repaid the favour by:~
- letting him have the KSDL shares for £2 - agreeing to put £275k a year into KSDL until its debts were paid off
Of course, it could be coincidence that all these things happened at the same time!!
The Council liked Davy because they knew him and it kept all their deals in house!! No wonder they were their preferred viable bid!!
So, technically, there were no other viable bids because the administrators hands were tied by the Council's demands to protect the stadium and cover its debts.
That's life. But for Davy to dress it all up around self righteous 'saviour' nonsense is laughable. The whole episode was about opportunism, pure self interest, and saving KSDL. Nothing else!!
Nobody can ever say what would have happened if Davy had not taken his opportunity - it might have been better - it might have been worse. It's irrelevent anyway. That's not the issue now.
The issue is honesty, integrity, doing the right thing, telling the truth, not accusing someone of lying, doing what you say, sticking to your word, that a handshake is your bond, and not trying to continually rewrite history.
Davy's history on all of those criteria is pitiful, and his list of breaches is long and continues to grow almost daily.
1) Page 61 - "Kirklees Stadium Development Ltd – 40 shares, carried at nil value. Valuation is based on an assessment of share of future cash flows. The Council has no intention of disposing of its interests in the company" Kirklees Council state that their 40 shares in KSDL have £nil value
On the same basis, surely the 40 shares (that everyone wishes to see returned to Huddersfield Town) from Huddersfield Sporting Pride have the same £nil value?
In the context of the Council’s own share valuation (in its public accounts 2010), do you agree HTSA’s campaign for a “return of the shares for £2” seems totally consistent with the Council’s view on value?
2) Page 108 - "The Council is participating with Huddersfield Sporting Pride Ltd, in the development, construction and running of a sports stadium at Bradley Mills Road, Huddersfield, through Kirklees Stadium Development Ltd (KSDL). The Council originally guaranteed the financing of the construction of the stadium, pending the receipt of funds. The loan has been restructured and the Council has guaranteed the new loan of £7.4 million, to be repaid over twenty years commencing in February 2001. As at 31 March 2011, the balance on the loan was £4.8 million (£5.2 million at 31 March 2010). The Council has also agreed to guarantee English Partnership's investment of £1.7 million in the North Stand development of the project and a loan of £0.9 million to the Company in respect of the construction of an indoor sports facility at Leeds Road Playing Fields. As at 31 March 2011, the balance on the loan was £0.33 million (£0.45 million at 31 March 2010)"
Clearly, Kirklees Council and the tax payer has a lot of risk in the stadium via guarantees of these loans. It is obvious that KSDL needs to be able run to its full potential in the current recession in order for them to continue repaying the outstanding £6.8m over the coming years.
As everyone can plainly see without Huddersfield Town's and its supporters’ full and active participation in KSDL, it will be very much harder, perhaps impossible, for KSDL to achieve that potential will it not?
That would increase the risk attaching to the guarantees. If HSP continues to hold 60% of KSDL shares with HTAFC at 0%, KSDL risks spiralling into decline leaving the Council and the tax payer to pick up the pieces. It’s hard to see the Council letting KSDL go bankrupt so that can only mean more public money to bail KSDL out or leave it to go bust.
Would the Council bail KSDL in those circumstances while having to make tough choices on public services? The public outcry would be huge, surely?
3) Page 132 - "Kirklees Stadium Development Limited - The company occupies land owned by the Council under leases for which a premium of £0.9 million is payable. The Council pays the company a rental for the use of office space at the stadium. In the year ended 31 March 2011, the Council paid rent of £210,000 (2009/10 £140,000). The Council also provided funding of £275,000 (2009/10 £275,000). The Council paid the company a further £106,000 in various rents and maintenance in year ending 31 March 2011 (2009/10 £106,000)."
Kirklees Council provided KSDL with £591,000 of cash in 2010/11 (and 2009/10) for funding, rents and maintenance. This money is vital to KSDL and clearly couldn't be maintained in the current financial climate - £275,000 funding per year, every year for another 10 years is a significant amount. There are to let signs out at the stadium for the council offices so that’s more income at risk for KSDL.
As has been announced recently, Kirklees Council has agreed to make a capital payment each year for the next three years to replace the revenue subsidy (presumably the £275,000 per year).
If KSDL remains solvent over the next ten years, Kirklees Council will make the significant savings the public statements suggest.
But what happens if KSDL goes bust in that time or if more Council cash is needed to prop KSDL up?
Those savings will be lost, which they may well be, if HSP does not return the shares for £2 and as a result Huddersfield Town do not have an active 40% ownership participation in KSDL
This is a public interest and council tax payer issue.