|
Post by seanyd1brit on Jan 12, 2012 15:03:37 GMT 1
His replies have been erratic to say the least, albeit carefully worded. It's clear he doesn't like Mids hounding him and is now also irritated that others have joined in (and are blatantly being guided by Mids' knowledge). So if, as we believe, he's hiding things, any time we get him to respond is a chance to have him make a mistake.
My own position is simple... Ken Davy owning 60% of the KIRKLEES stadium, which is what it has always been at its core, is 100% wrong. Since he alone can relinquish his share, regardless of the price and other negotiations, I will judge him to be doing wrong until that day comes. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jan 12, 2012 15:16:30 GMT 1
|
|
cj01
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
High above Huddersfield.
Posts: 1,595
|
Post by cj01 on Jan 12, 2012 15:19:36 GMT 1
His replies have been erratic to say the least, albeit carefully worded. It's clear he doesn't like Mids hounding him and is now also irritated that others have joined in (and are blatantly being guided by Mids' knowledge). So if, as we believe, he's hiding things, any time we get him to respond is a chance to have him make a mistake. My own position is simple... Ken Davy owning 60% of the KIRKLEES stadium, which is what it has always been at its core, is 100% wrong. Since he alone can relinquish his share, regardless of the price and other negotiations, I will judge him to be doing wrong until that day comes. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. :appl: Well done. That's the best short summary of the situation I've seen so far and exactly mirrors my feelings on the subject. Wish I'd thought of that!! How can anyone, Town or Giants fan, disagree with that statement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 16:52:22 GMT 1
Today at 14:59, mids wrote: From the meeting today, 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. Read more: downatthemac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=63980#ixzz1jG9XuXxU
|
|
|
Post by keepmoving on Jan 12, 2012 17:02:52 GMT 1
The contract is signed and someone needs to honor it.
|
|
|
Post by impact on Jan 12, 2012 23:09:29 GMT 1
On twitter it says there is a statement from the council in tomorrows examiner
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 12, 2012 23:19:55 GMT 1
On twitter it says there is a statement from the council in tomorrows examiner Hopefully the content will be thought out and they will want the deal to be revived. At the very least, we'll see what their considered stance is....
|
|
|
Post by jqhtfc on Jan 12, 2012 23:53:44 GMT 1
Mehboob Khan tweeted: issued a statement on the councils position for a return to original arragement on stadium share holding.
|
|
aca00js
Frank Worthington Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,982
Member is Online
|
Post by aca00js on Jan 13, 2012 0:19:32 GMT 1
I saw people mention that they wanted to get some proof that Davy stated the formula was "set in stone".
I watched back the famous leaving video and he shows another one of his lies. He states that it wasn't him that changed the formula to be 13/15 but it has always been that ratio. Have a look around 15 minutes in the video.
How can we trust what he says?
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 13, 2012 0:30:12 GMT 1
No reply from any councillor to my email today? Are they being gagged? perhaps others might have better luck? To: adrian.lythgo@kirklees.gov.uk; mehboob.khan@kirklees.gov.uk; gareth.davies@kirkleesstadium.plus.com; dean.hoyle@htafc.com; christine.smith@kirklees.gov.uk; peter.mcbride@kirklees.gov.uk; kenneth.sims@kirklees.gov.uk CC: ann.denham@kirklees.gov.uk; linda.wilkinson@kirklees.gov.uk; james.blanchard@kirklees.gov.uk; ken.smith@kirklees.gov.uk; jean.calvert@kirklees.gov.uk; cath.harris@kirklees.gov.uk; hanif.mayet@kirklees.gov.uk; mahmood.akhtar@kirklees.gov.uk; amanda.stubley@kirklees.gov.uk; shabir.pandor@kirklees.gov.uk; gwen.lowe@kirklees.gov.uk; peter.o'neill@kirklees.gov.uk; andrew.palfreeman@kirklees.gov.uk; elizabeth.smaje@kirklees.gov.uk; robert.light@kirklees.gov.uk; kath.pinnock@kirklees.gov.uk; john.lawson@kirklees.gov.uk; andrew.pinnock@kirklees.gov.uk; david.ridgway@kirklees.gov.uk; nicola.turner@kirklees.gov.uk; donna.bellamy@kirklees.gov.uk; molly.walton@kirklees.gov.uk; carole.pattison@kirklees.gov.uk; mohammad.sarwar@kirklees.gov.uk; rochelle.parchment@kirklees.gov.uk; cliff.preest@kirklees.gov.uk; john.cook@kirklees.gov.uk; jim.dodds@kirklees.gov.uk; elaine.ward@kirklees.gov.uk; paul.kane@kirklees.gov.uk; cathy.scott@kirklees.gov.uk; eric.firth@kirklees.gov.uk; khizar.iqbal@kirklees.gov.uk; masoodg.ahmed@kirklees.gov.uk; salim.patel@kirklees.gov.uk; karam.hussain@kirklees.gov.uk; mumtaz.hussain@kirklees.gov.uk; darren.odonovan@kirklees.gov.uk; christine.iredale@kirklees.gov.uk; andrew.marchington@kirklees.gov.uk; hilary.richards@kirklees.gov.uk; mohan.sokhal@kirklees.gov.uk; judith.hughes@kirklees.gov.uk; steve.hall@kirklees.gov.uk; viv.kendrick@kirklees.gov.uk; david.sheard@kirklees.gov.uk; beryl.smith@kirklees.gov.uk; terry.lyons@kirklees.gov.uk; edgar.holroyd-doveton@kirklees.gov.uk; donald.firth@kirklees.gov.uk; nigel.patrick@kirklees.gov.uk; adrian.murphy@kirklees.gov.uk; derek.hardcastle@kirklees.gov.uk; christine.stanfield@kirklees.gov.uk; cahal.burke@kirklees.gov.uk; tony.brice@kirklees.gov.uk; margaret.bates@kirklees.gov.uk; david.hall@kirklees.gov.uk; lisa.holmes@kirklees.gov.uk; martyn.bolt@kirklees.gov.uk; vivien.lees-hamilton@kirklees.gov.uk; kath.taylor@kirklees.gov.uk; andrew.cooper@kirklees.gov.uk; graham.simpson@kirklees.gov.uk; julie.stewart-turner@kirklees.gov.uk; barry.gibson@examiner.co.uk; andrew.hirst@examiner.co.uk; neil.atkinson@examiner.co.uk Subject: KSDL/Kirklees Council Financial Settlement Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:40:35 The Huddersfield Examiner reported on 7th January 2012 (http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2012/01/07/ksdl-chairman-in-plea-to-huddersfield-town-and-giants-owners-to-get-back-around-negotiating-table-86081-30075014/): “Sir John (Harman) – who pledged to do all he can to end the deadlock – also revealed that a new financial commitment from Kirklees Council to the stadium was close to being agreed. That would end the annual revenue payments made by the council to the Stadium company and replace it with capital sums, under new agreements. Sir John Harman is quoted as saying: “But by early 2011, KSDL became concerned that prolonged uncertainty over the transfer was not in the best interests of the company, and over the summer months it negotiated a financial settlement satisfactory to the council which commutes the annual revenue payment into capital contributions to be made under agreed conditions. That would mean valuable savings for council taxpayers – thought to be tens of thousands of pounds each year. At its next Board meeting KSDL has to decide whether to proceed with the financial settlement with the council in the absence of an agreement on the rental formula”. A KSDL Board meeting was held this morning at the stadium. Therefore, can you confirm: · Will Kirklees council disclose the terms of its financial settlement with KSDL? If not why not? The public have a right to know how its our money is being spent · Is the council giving KSDL more money? It is 60% owned by Ken Davy – surely he should put the money in to keep it going · How is the financial settlement better for tax payers than the existing one? – you have kept the old deal secret for year what was it? · Was the deal approved by KSDL? This is not solely a Huddersfield Town matter. This is a tax payer, and public interest matter. Stop the secrecy. Regards
|
|
|
Post by keepmoving on Jan 13, 2012 11:49:10 GMT 1
Mehboob Khan tweeted: issued a statement on the councils position for a return to original arragement on stadium share holding. but it's like every politician's statements - bereft of actual substance. Seriously if this is the state of things then I forcast trouble ahead for mr Meh Boob, Kirklees council (if DH takes his business elsewhere), HTAFC - but guess who would be left ok after this all blows over....... :suicide:
|
|
|
Post by jacko1950 on Jan 13, 2012 12:41:43 GMT 1
we just have to accept, we have the dummest and most ignorant Council in britain. Kirklees is an absolute joke, headed by a dictator Khan, spineless, weak, cheating and smug ! We vote these people into office, so I guess we get what we deserve...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2012 13:13:55 GMT 1
There has been a lot of intense speculation on this issue over recent weeks including statements from KSDL, Hoyle and Davy but for me the summary below sums up the situation perfectly: Consider this....
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.
These three pieces of the jigsaw were detailed in the 24th December 2009 announcement made by Dean Hoyle on the Town website www.htafc.com/page/FromTheBoardroomDetail/0,,10312~1914687,00.html.
As part of this KSDL shares transfer deal:
1 was finalised and signed in February 2010.
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!!
Read more: www.downatthemac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=63981#ixzz1jL0zMbWzTaking the above as a decent summary of what has happened I think there are serious questions about whether Davy had any intention of transferring the 40% stake in KSDL from Huddersfield Sporting Pride to Dean Hoyle / Huddersfield Town. I was quite surprised when the deal over the transfer of the shares was first announced as I believed it would be something Davy would cling on to. I suspected at the time that HTAFC, Dean Hoyle, Nigel Clibbens etc had backed Davy into a corner whereby he felt he had no choice but to agree a deal to transfer the shares back to Town. I suspect there had been some digging about the transfer of the shares for £2 and exposure of the circumstances that surrounded it could have meant serious ramifications for Davy and or Kirklees Council. Agreeing to the transfer of the shares bought Davy time, he kept hold of the shares but also stopped any further digging. He banked on Kirklees holding up the transaction that they duly did by refusing to agree to the transfer without certain changes and expecting the financial liability to be underwritten by HTAFC/Dean Hoyle rather than Kirklees as had previously been agreed. Through pressure, negotiation, lobbying etc Kirklees eventually indicated a willingness to sanction the deal and complete the transfer. Davy was bound by the terms of the deal he signed with Dean Hoyle and as per the summary above could not seek changes to them so he is telling the truth on that score. He however knew that by trying to change the rental formula the agreement for the share transfer was not worth the paper it was written on. Refusing arbitration was the final move to ensure the deal broke down and he retained ownership of the shares. After the concessions Hoyle and HTAFC had already made to do the deal it was the straw that broke the camels back. Hoyle has come out and said the monetary value was immaterial it was more the principle and I suspect there is a suspicion that had he agreed to a rental change then there would be yet another condition to agree to. The rental formula is also something Town post Davy have tried to change to make things like free tickets for schools etc more viable and come up against the brick wall of Davy and Kirklees so agreeing to a rental change in favor of the Giants would also be galling. Speculation is the transfer of the shares would mean Davy received his loan stock back and interest on the money a deal worth £3million+. Why would someone try and sabotage a £3million+ deal of a few thousand pounds a year? To me it is because holding a 60% stake in KSDL is worth a lot more long term to Davy and his family that £3million+ windfall. I think Davy has manipulated the situation to ensure that he keeps hold of 60% of KSDL and stops 40% returning to its rightful home.
|
|
|
Post by keepmoving on Jan 13, 2012 13:24:14 GMT 1
There has been a lot of intense speculation on this issue over recent weeks including statements from KSDL, Hoyle and Davy but for me the summary below sums up the situation perfectly: Consider this....
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.
These three pieces of the jigsaw were detailed in the 24th December 2009 announcement made by Dean Hoyle on the Town website www.htafc.com/page/FromTheBoardroomDetail/0,,10312~1914687,00.html.
As part of this KSDL shares transfer deal:
1 was finalised and signed in February 2010.
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!!
Read more: www.downatthemac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=63981#ixzz1jL0zMbWzTaking the above as a decent summary of what has happened I think there are serious questions about whether Davy had any intention of transferring the 40% stake in KSDL from Huddersfield Sporting Pride to Dean Hoyle / Huddersfield Town. I was quite surprised when the deal over the transfer of the shares was first announced as I believed it would be something Davy would cling on to. I suspected at the time that HTAFC, Dean Hoyle, Nigel Clibbens etc had backed Davy into a corner whereby he felt he had no choice but to agree a deal to transfer the shares back to Town. I suspect there had been some digging about the transfer of the shares for £2 and exposure of the circumstances that surrounded it could have meant serious ramifications for Davy and or Kirklees Council. Agreeing to the transfer of the shares bought Davy time, he kept hold of the shares but also stopped any further digging. He banked on Kirklees holding up the transaction that they duly did by refusing to agree to the transfer without certain changes and expecting the financial liability to be underwritten by HTAFC/Dean Hoyle rather than Kirklees as had previously been agreed. Through pressure, negotiation, lobbying etc Kirklees eventually indicated a willingness to sanction the deal and complete the transfer. Davy was bound by the terms of the deal he signed with Dean Hoyle and as per the summary above could not seek changes to them so he is telling the truth on that score. He however knew that by trying to change the rental formula the agreement for the share transfer was not worth the paper it was written on. Refusing arbitration was the final move to ensure the deal broke down and he retained ownership of the shares. After the concessions Hoyle and HTAFC had already made to do the deal it was the straw that broke the camels back. Hoyle has come out and said the monetary value was immaterial it was more the principle and I suspect there is a suspicion that had he agreed to a rental change then there would be yet another condition to agree to. The rental formula is also something Town post Davy have tried to change to make things like free tickets for schools etc more viable and come up against the brick wall of Davy and Kirklees so agreeing to a rental change in favor of the Giants would also be galling. Speculation is the transfer of the shares would mean Davy received his loan stock back and interest on the money a deal worth £3million+. Why would someone try and sabotage a £3million+ deal of a few thousand pounds a year? To me it is because holding a 60% stake in KSDL is worth a lot more long term to Davy and his family that £3million+ windfall. I think Davy has manipulated the situation to ensure that he keeps hold of 60% of KSDL and stops 40% returning to its rightful home. And that is possibly the best post i've read on here for a very long time. of course i'm not saying i agree or disagree with it (note admins) :suicide:
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 13, 2012 14:58:19 GMT 1
Good summary that Donnie :nodding:
|
|
cj01
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
High above Huddersfield.
Posts: 1,595
|
Post by cj01 on Jan 13, 2012 15:07:48 GMT 1
[/quote] And that is possibly the best post i've read on here for a very long time. of course i'm not saying i agree or disagree with it (note admins) [/quote] Why note admins? I think that is an excellent post and some entirely reasonable speculation. I think that may just have hit the nail on the head. Sad thing is, if that's true, heaven only knows what it will take to get Ken to finally transfer the shares.
|
|
yoho
Chris Hay Terrier
Posts: 66
|
Post by yoho on Jan 13, 2012 17:41:47 GMT 1
There has been a lot of intense speculation on this issue over recent weeks including statements from KSDL, Hoyle and Davy but for me the summary below sums up the situation perfectly: Consider this....
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.
These three pieces of the jigsaw were detailed in the 24th December 2009 announcement made by Dean Hoyle on the Town website www.htafc.com/page/FromTheBoardroomDetail/0,,10312~1914687,00.html.
As part of this KSDL shares transfer deal:
1 was finalised and signed in February 2010.
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!!
Read more: www.downatthemac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=63981#ixzz1jL0zMbWzTaking the above as a decent summary of what has happened I think there are serious questions about whether Davy had any intention of transferring the 40% stake in KSDL from Huddersfield Sporting Pride to Dean Hoyle / Huddersfield Town. I was quite surprised when the deal over the transfer of the shares was first announced as I believed it would be something Davy would cling on to. I suspected at the time that HTAFC, Dean Hoyle, Nigel Clibbens etc had backed Davy into a corner whereby he felt he had no choice but to agree a deal to transfer the shares back to Town. I suspect there had been some digging about the transfer of the shares for £2 and exposure of the circumstances that surrounded it could have meant serious ramifications for Davy and or Kirklees Council. Agreeing to the transfer of the shares bought Davy time, he kept hold of the shares but also stopped any further digging. He banked on Kirklees holding up the transaction that they duly did by refusing to agree to the transfer without certain changes and expecting the financial liability to be underwritten by HTAFC/Dean Hoyle rather than Kirklees as had previously been agreed. Through pressure, negotiation, lobbying etc Kirklees eventually indicated a willingness to sanction the deal and complete the transfer. Davy was bound by the terms of the deal he signed with Dean Hoyle and as per the summary above could not seek changes to them so he is telling the truth on that score. He however knew that by trying to change the rental formula the agreement for the share transfer was not worth the paper it was written on. Refusing arbitration was the final move to ensure the deal broke down and he retained ownership of the shares. After the concessions Hoyle and HTAFC had already made to do the deal it was the straw that broke the camels back. Hoyle has come out and said the monetary value was immaterial it was more the principle and I suspect there is a suspicion that had he agreed to a rental change then there would be yet another condition to agree to. The rental formula is also something Town post Davy have tried to change to make things like free tickets for schools etc more viable and come up against the brick wall of Davy and Kirklees so agreeing to a rental change in favor of the Giants would also be galling. Speculation is the transfer of the shares would mean Davy received his loan stock back and interest on the money a deal worth £3million+. Why would someone try and sabotage a £3million+ deal of a few thousand pounds a year? To me it is because holding a 60% stake in KSDL is worth a lot more long term to Davy and his family that £3million+ windfall. I think Davy has manipulated the situation to ensure that he keeps hold of 60% of KSDL and stops 40% returning to its rightful home. And that is possibly the best post i've read on here for a very long time. of course i'm not saying i agree or disagree with it (note admins) I'll 2nd that :appl: :udders:
|
|
|
Post by mids on Jan 13, 2012 18:39:22 GMT 1
Following Town now making a further statement on the official site, the ball is now firmly back in the Council and Davy's court....
If they can't get something sorted, KSDL will in time go bust.
Time will tell what happens behind the scenes I guess. I'm sure they'll have been told so in no uncertain terms :nodding: :nodding:
|
|
|
Post by justanothertownfan on Jan 13, 2012 20:10:27 GMT 1
Dean Hoyle has said on numerous occasions that he doen't want to be chairman in the long term. Whilst Ken Davy holds the 40% of the shares its unlikely that Dean would be able to sell the club to another party. The club has very little value without the shares. Could Ken be holding the shares to keep Dean as chairman. Sounds a bit far fetched, but some of the other suggestions are as equally daft.
|
|
|
Post by Tupper on Jan 13, 2012 20:14:52 GMT 1
The simple point remains that until our shares are returned to us, we are reluctant tenants, and that on our behalf no partnership exists and we have no incentive to make KSDL succeed.
Indeed we have quite a large incentive to see it fail.
I doubt the current shareholders would like that.
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Jan 13, 2012 21:09:23 GMT 1
I think the truth is we've been let down by the other partners in the KSDL set-up. When Huddersfield Rugby League club were in administration and struggling badly the other 2 parties in KMC and HTFC thought that the best way to resolve their woes were to have them included in KSDL which would ensure a light at the end of the tunnel. When HTFC were in trouble and ultimately in financial trouble the other two parties thought it a good opportunity to interfere and install what they thought was the best financial solution for the position. What KMC didn't realize was that Ken Davy is a very very good businessman and that with his acumen it wouldn't be the football team that prospered or KMC themselves. They ended up paying through the nose for their interference and the regrets are now being shown and unceremoniously undone.
Contradictions, lies and untruths have littered the Davy era. He relies on pedantries , sarcasm and ignorance.
The supporters of HTFC need top let KMC and KSDL know that we are disgusted at their past management and force them to look again at 40-40-20 and get the shares where they belong.
|
|
|
Post by Essex Terrier on Jan 13, 2012 21:33:54 GMT 1
Dean Hoyle has said on numerous occasions that he doen't want to be chairman in the long term. Whilst Ken Davy holds the 40% of the shares its unlikely that Dean would be able to sell the club to another party. The club has very little value without the shares. Could Ken be holding the shares to keep Dean as chairman. Sounds a bit far fetched, but some of the other suggestions are as equally daft. Ahhh this is where DH has HIS financial interest then?
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Jan 13, 2012 22:34:05 GMT 1
Yeah.. He knows a bargain does Dean. Invest 5 million into a football club and then sell it for £3 million.. Makes sense does that..
|
|
|
Post by huddstownjimmymac on Jan 14, 2012 0:24:47 GMT 1
what gets me is we bailed fartown out before the mcalpine was built,,,,,,we helped them out coz they did,nt have a ground,,,,we let them into leeds road to play there,,,,,now what i cant understand the giants are calling the shots,,,,we bailed the basterds out and now we are 2nd class citizens in the staduim,,,,,JUST CANT GET MY HEAD ROUND THAT,,,INFCT IT STINKS,,,,,WE BAIL THE BUGGERS OUT HELP THEM OUT,NOW THEY SHIT ON US....really cant believe whats happened,,,,,should of stayed at leeds road in my opinion,,,,galpharm is shite anyway,,,,,,,we need to move out and build another staduim and let the giants rot in peace!!!!!!!!HUDDERSFIELD TOWN AS BEEN SHAFTED BY THE RUGBY CLUB WHO USED TO BE WATCHED BY 1 MAN AND HIS DOG,,,,''@@@@@@@rsholes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2012 1:01:20 GMT 1
Could not have put it better myself jimmymac, trust in Dean things will work out in our favour.
|
|
realmadkid
Steve Kindon Terrier
Screwed yet again!
Posts: 1,745
|
Post by realmadkid on Jan 14, 2012 10:02:49 GMT 1
what gets me is we bailed fartown out before the mcalpine was built,,,,,,we helped them out coz they did,nt have a ground,,,,we let them into leeds road to play there,,,,,now what i cant understand the giants are calling the shots,,,,we bailed the basterds out and now we are 2nd class citizens in the staduim,,,,,JUST CANT GET MY HEAD ROUND THAT,,,INFCT IT STINKS,,,,,WE BAIL THE BUGGERS OUT HELP THEM OUT,NOW THEY SHIT ON US....really cant believe whats happened,,,,,should of stayed at leeds road in my opinion,,,,galpharm is shite anyway,,,,,,,we need to move out and build another staduim and let the giants rot in peace!!!!!!!!HUDDERSFIELD TOWN AS BEEN SHAFTED BY THE RUGBY CLUB WHO USED TO BE WATCHED BY 1 MAN AND HIS DOG,,,,''@@@@@@@rsholes Well said sir.
|
|
yorik
Tom Cowan Terrier
Posts: 774
|
Post by yorik on Jan 14, 2012 10:29:45 GMT 1
tried posting a view on examiner mb about davy got censored off. are they backing davy? davy was only into town for what he could get out of it. all town fans should boyott the food outlets at the ground and hi him where it hurts in his pocket.
|
|
|
Post by rooo on Jan 15, 2012 12:27:49 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2012 12:54:06 GMT 1
A well thought through letter that points out many aspects of the moral issue, without getting anti Ken. A few more like that will change opinions. Congratulations to the author.
|
|
|
Post by Larry David on Jan 16, 2012 8:49:39 GMT 1
A well thought through letter that points out many aspects of the moral issue, without getting anti Ken. A few more like that will change opinions. Congratulations to the author. This guy is a regular mehboob khan knocker and also stands as a tory candidate in local elections....its a good letter though and spot on...sure khan and Davy are good mates as they are both part of the birkby massive!
|
|