|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 15, 2017 18:38:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by adycrean on May 15, 2017 19:18:53 GMT
Wow
When exactly was that written? Certainly likes to big himself up - could've easily been written by David Brent....
Succinctness clearly wasn't his strongpoint either
|
|
|
|
Post by triumphdave on May 15, 2017 19:20:11 GMT
It's arrogant enough to be genuine but is so incriminating it beggars belief!
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on May 15, 2017 20:49:29 GMT
I thought to ask this afternoon how much Hallmark, Lancaster, Brown, Boddy etc were paid in "consultancy" fees. Obviously Hallmark at least benefitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 15, 2017 21:29:05 GMT
Oooh that little chode. I've gotten angry just reading that drivel.
What an odious little arsewipe
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 15, 2017 21:31:11 GMT
I thought to ask this afternoon how much Hallmark, Lancaster, Brown, Boddy etc were paid in "consultancy" fees. Obviously Hallmark at least benefitted. Some digging into which local solicitor allegedly represented landowners alongside the corridor of the M5 between J6 & J7 who stood to make money off sale of land once planning permission was granted for one development on that stretch of land which would then allow landowners in the whole stretch to do the same would open eyes. I think that first development was called Wunnery Nay or something similar... |
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 15, 2017 21:46:14 GMT
noboddy
If only the club had held AGM's between the EGM's of 2008 and 2016 and produced full sets of audited accounts to be examined by shareholders, perhaps you might have got your answer ?
I wonder why Hampson, Layland and Wilcox have chosen not to ?
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on May 15, 2017 23:11:08 GMT
noboddy If only the club had held AGM's between the EGM's of 2008 and 2016 and produced full sets of audited accounts to be examined by shareholders, perhaps you might have got your answer ? I wonder why Hampson, Layland and Wilcox have chosen not to ? This is the crux of the matter. The lack of disclosure is the breeze that continues to fan the flames of discontent. Just going back the plan was viable at its inception. The ground was possibly worth £8m or even more. The bank overdraft had grown and reached its limit. There was a credit crunch and residential land values collapsed. The bank was already demanding repayment in full and in the circumstances refinancing was all but impossible. The club only had one viable asset. You could not expect Carey's to pay above market value for the land. Irrespective of whether the net proceeds after the repayment of the bank were suffficient to deliver a new stadium or not the asset had to be sold. The additional site value accruing from the beneficial planning consent with regard to social housing might very well be adequate to compensate for the eventual £0.5m settlement with St Modwen. So far so good...not ideal but what other options were there? There would be nothing wrong with paying for proper legal and other professional advice in relation to a complex and high value transaction. The shareholders were promised an opportunity to vote on the contracts for sale but this was eventually denied and that is where things started to turn sour. Did the then directors believe that shareholders would reject a deal where the alternative was to have the bank appoint a receiver under the law of property act to recover monies owed to them? I don't recall any white knight around at the time offering to pay off the club debts so the ground sale was a fait accomplis. I am sure someone will correct me if I have not summarised things accurately. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 16, 2017 6:50:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on May 16, 2017 10:07:03 GMT
I'm sure that the recession and house price collapse occurred after the contract with Careys was signed. It was the clause that Careys would pay less should they not get planning permission for the number of houses they wanted to build. You know this area better than anyone on here Blue Dragonstander, but the property lawyers I have talked to have said that a clause to reduce the payment is unheard of. They may have to pay more - but never less. Unless of course you're dealing with someone completely out of their depth, and unwilling to take advice. Enter D Boddy esquire.
On top of that fiasco, there was talk of WCFC earlier being offered £10 million for SGL, but for some reason Hallmark turned it down for the £9 mill offer. In the end we got £3.5.
|
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 16, 2017 12:15:12 GMT
Yes this is a genuine letter and it is the tip of the iceberg. This particular letter mentions Barry Ward, as a person who Hallmark thought should be on a team of people to take the club forward and it was written before Barry saw the contracts for Nunnery Way. Unfortunately for Hallmark, Barry wasn't a Yes man. Other people on the list didn't even know they were on it. Moving forward a bit there were enough Yes men to do Hallmarks bidding and deny shareholders the right to vote on signing the deadly NW contract and the very small Board agreed with Hallmark that they did not have to consult shareholders (which was funnily enough the same size Board as we have now). Just as now, there were still enough people around who will believe any old rubbish, they don't want evidence, they just want a fairy story. If you thought this letter presented Hallmark as a pompous, arrogant and anything else you care to think of, you ain't seen nothing yet, (which reminds me, we recorded a lot of meetings from the time). I don't think you will see Hallmark Hulme jumping to his defence, unless of course me and a couple of other people are wrong and their partners did know what he was up to, which if true opens up a whole new ball game. Do you still wonder why Hampo is hanging around? We are stuck with him, but not for much longer. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on May 16, 2017 12:44:54 GMT
Yes it is completely genuine and I highlighted the highlighted bits, I thought there might be 4 or 5 phrases worthy of highlight that stood apart as showing the level of arrogance, but after the third page I realised, I might as well have highlighted the whole letter.
The whole exercise is one of commercial wizardry which few if any speculators would have
undertaken with all the contingencies and risks at the outset and would have stayed with such
stamina for so long and which I did
Well it sure was commercial wizardry, he made a football ground and 7 million disappear, I doubt Paul Daniels could have got close to that magic!
|
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on May 18, 2017 13:12:07 GMT
Who is this Brain Lancaster bloke? And who are WCFFC, of whom Boddy was the chairman?
I really think we should be told.....
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 18, 2017 14:02:40 GMT
What I'm finding hard to grasp is: If there is so much proof & much more to follow, after all this time why haven't these misdemeanours been passed to The Police Fraud Squad, Customes & Excise & HMRC ? They have a duty, the rights, the right tools & I would think the will to expose it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on May 18, 2017 14:24:06 GMT
I have already been down that avenue. Ineptitude and incompetence is not a crime. And trying to prove that any kind of unlawful deeds have taken place is too costly for police forces to get involved in, unless there is real public interest. Corporate fraud and wrongdoings fall into a grey area between criminal and civil offences. Been there, done that, just haven't had the T Shirt made yet!
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 21, 2017 10:02:44 GMT
The Police have little interest in corporate white collar fraud and wrongdoings. They struggle to catch the simple criminals in Worcester who pinch bikes from cycle racks, and power tools from the backs of vans, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for anything that involves a bit of thought and digging around !
|
|
