You can be a director without owning any shares though. No idea why he is still named.
It doesn’t mean the 49ers don’t own 100% of the club. We would need to see the share ownership documents.
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 9 minutes ago
You can be a director without owning any shares though. No idea why he is still named.
It doesn’t mean the 49ers don’t own 100% of the club. We would need to see the share ownership documents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know but AR and Marucci still directors doesnt make sense.
Re ER, 49ers and their football investment fund (assume that's them too) dont own all shares, Greenfield (AR) still a shareholder.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
"The sale hadnt fully gone through "
What?
You mean it's still going through?
FFS
Looks like the Beeb have been asking them about Leeds ownership for a while, but they've not responded.
I hinted at this close season when there were no pre-season friendlies played at Elland Road. My guess was at that time the 49ers did not have control of the stadium to hold an home pre-season game. Looks like I was pretty much spot on there sadly.
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
This is absolutely shocking. It calls for another call of “Radz, Marathe, Kinnear et al are bunch of incompetent chancers”.
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------you were talking about the reasons, not the filings…you said “it’s nothing to do with contacts”. Hence why I asked you the question…. is your statement that it’s nothing to do with contracts based on facts or supposition?
I don’t know whether certain contractual issues need to be resolved before all parties are happy to make the appropriate companies house filings..do you?
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------you were talking about the reasons, not the filings…you said “it’s nothing to do with contacts”. Hence why I asked you the question…. is your statement that it’s nothing to do with contracts based on facts or supposition?
I don’t know whether certain contractual issues need to be resolved before all parties are happy to make the appropriate companies house filings..do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that's the whole point, ie either its a done deal or not and if AR still a director and if AR is still a part owner of ER, then its not a done deal...is it.
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------you were talking about the reasons, not the filings…you said “it’s nothing to do with contacts”. Hence why I asked you the question…. is your statement that it’s nothing to do with contracts based on facts or supposition?
I don’t know whether certain contractual issues need to be resolved before all parties are happy to make the appropriate companies house filings..do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that's the whole point, ie either its a done deal or not and if AR still a director and if AR is still a part owner of ER, then its not a done deal...is it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s obviously not a done deal, otherwise companies house would say otherwise!
You said it’s not to do with contracts, so what is it? You must know, or otherwise you can’t say it’s nothing to do with the contracts!
Sorry to be pedantic… but otherwise you’re just making glib statements of no substance which you’re asking readers to just believe.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Elland Road
Page 1 of 1
posted on 7/9/23
You can be a director without owning any shares though. No idea why he is still named.
It doesn’t mean the 49ers don’t own 100% of the club. We would need to see the share ownership documents.
posted on 7/9/23
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 9 minutes ago
You can be a director without owning any shares though. No idea why he is still named.
It doesn’t mean the 49ers don’t own 100% of the club. We would need to see the share ownership documents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know but AR and Marucci still directors doesnt make sense.
Re ER, 49ers and their football investment fund (assume that's them too) dont own all shares, Greenfield (AR) still a shareholder.
posted on 7/9/23
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
posted on 7/9/23
"The sale hadnt fully gone through "
What?
You mean it's still going through?
FFS
posted on 7/9/23
Looks like the Beeb have been asking them about Leeds ownership for a while, but they've not responded.
posted on 7/9/23
I hinted at this close season when there were no pre-season friendlies played at Elland Road. My guess was at that time the 49ers did not have control of the stadium to hold an home pre-season game. Looks like I was pretty much spot on there sadly.
posted on 7/9/23
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
posted on 8/9/23
This is absolutely shocking. It calls for another call of “Radz, Marathe, Kinnear et al are bunch of incompetent chancers”.
posted on 8/9/23
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
posted on 8/9/23
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
posted on 8/9/23
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
posted on 8/9/23
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------you were talking about the reasons, not the filings…you said “it’s nothing to do with contacts”. Hence why I asked you the question…. is your statement that it’s nothing to do with contracts based on facts or supposition?
I don’t know whether certain contractual issues need to be resolved before all parties are happy to make the appropriate companies house filings..do you?
posted on 8/9/23
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------you were talking about the reasons, not the filings…you said “it’s nothing to do with contacts”. Hence why I asked you the question…. is your statement that it’s nothing to do with contracts based on facts or supposition?
I don’t know whether certain contractual issues need to be resolved before all parties are happy to make the appropriate companies house filings..do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that's the whole point, ie either its a done deal or not and if AR still a director and if AR is still a part owner of ER, then its not a done deal...is it.
posted on 8/9/23
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Jonty (U4614)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by salonika73 (U4688)
posted 15 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by AndDonRevieistheKing (U7852)
posted 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Sadly as usual theres a reason things aren't moving as quickly as we would like and its not the 49ers fault, cant say too much except the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides, its frustrating and typical Leeds United,
This is what i was implying when i posted this the other week, The sale hadnt fully gone through and it meant we were having to look at buy now and pay in 3 months in some cases.
-----
so, reading between the lines, is it something like or similar to …
when a company changes hands, all the contracts the original company had with all its ‘clients’ need to be reaffirmed, ie for instance that where monies are due or owed, the 3rd party has to agree the appropriate documentation reflecting that change in liability, and some of those companies who 49ers have engaged with have simply not taken the actions required?
Might not be exactly this, but if similar then that’s just what happens in business . Not sure its anything anyone need to get flustered about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s nothing to do with contracts with its customers (fans) it’s to do with ownership.
From companies house it’s clear AR still an owner at ER and when club are asked by press about it they refuse to answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRITK says it’s because “ the clubs we have done business with aren't exactly on the bones of their backsides”.
You say it’s due to the ownership.
You know more than ADRITK?
Just asking to clarify whether both comments are made based on any actual facts, or suppositions 🤷♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t get much more factual than these companies house filings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------you were talking about the reasons, not the filings…you said “it’s nothing to do with contacts”. Hence why I asked you the question…. is your statement that it’s nothing to do with contracts based on facts or supposition?
I don’t know whether certain contractual issues need to be resolved before all parties are happy to make the appropriate companies house filings..do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but that's the whole point, ie either its a done deal or not and if AR still a director and if AR is still a part owner of ER, then its not a done deal...is it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s obviously not a done deal, otherwise companies house would say otherwise!
You said it’s not to do with contracts, so what is it? You must know, or otherwise you can’t say it’s nothing to do with the contracts!
Sorry to be pedantic… but otherwise you’re just making glib statements of no substance which you’re asking readers to just believe.
Page 1 of 1