One thing I find very odd about the whole thing

Something he wasn't found guilty of.

 

Just my inquiring mind nit if the present iwners decided enough was enough they would SELL not walk away, as they are business men and would want a return on their initial outlay.
The question i have is, from accounts available have we ascertained where their £8 million and subsequent payments for the club and potential ground purchase came from?
Ie did they pay out right, loan it, borrow it etc etc

 

Have I read you right there. (investigations/probe) It was dealt with twice in court. ( the most expensive case of its kind in history) The case would have gone to appeal again but the prosecution decided against due to the huge amounts spent on the first case and the appeal.
One thing is. he was found not guilty of the offences brought against him and his co directors. Who are we, as mere mortals, not knowing the full implications of the case to disagree.

 

[

 

It was dropped because prosecutions failed, precisely.

 

**** happens mate. Not everything can be sorted with a cosy chat. Certainly where big bucks is involved.

 

But that’s not how you put it. It appears from your initial post, allegations were dropped. ( as often happens) before it gets to court. Just wanted people to be aware.
And it was not dropped purely because prosecutions failed it was dropped because they thought they still had a case. But weren’t prepared to take the gamble. Given the costs involved.

 

Didn't another key witness die?

 

Precisely. After much effort, they failed to prosecute and had to drop the case.

 

Wasn't it public knowledge that the council owned half the ground or had an interest in it or summat? I'm sure it's been discussed on here previously.

 

Patrick didn’t attend trial along with his co defendants due to ill health and was given leave to attend so to speak. So didn’t appear in person to defend the accusations. As for the key witness. Not aware of the death Or indeed aware if the person was on the defence or accusing side.

 

A few important points that people don't seem to have latched on to.

if the ground was such an important key part of there plan as they say (Conway said in a interview they had a exclusive 6 month window to buy it)
why did it then take years to allegedly get round to trying to buy it ,when in theory anybody could have bought it after the 6 month window had expired

Patrick Cryne agreed the investors could buy the club using a 5 year payment plan and then they couldn't afford the first payment !!

the price was significantly reduced and extended
presumably extended over year/s to lower the amount per year
why on earth would you agree to a significant reduction of the agreed price which took months to negotiate is baffling in itself.
because they were scared that if they couldn't come up with the money and the agreement went sideways with the llc being based offshore they would have no recourse ?

also near the bottom of the statement

The money is owed by the Hong Kong group not the club
meaning it cannot be payed from season ticket sales etc or selling a player or players and then use that money to pay the monies owed.
correct or not correct ?
a very important point if my interpretation is correct

 

Theres nothing to stop them selling players, paying that money to the shareholders through dividends, then reinvesting it through some other fund or investment vehicle though.

 

It'll all come out in the wash. I was hasty taking sides and would like to perch myself back on the fence. I apologise for my negative comments towards the Cryne family.

 

That’s not ‘dropped’ though, it’s concluded.

They’re not even close to the same thing.

 

But that’s a million miles away from their behaviour to date. So why speculate they might do it in future?

 

Who said it was their behaviour? I was replying to the bottom paragraph.

 

It was dropped. They chose not to continue.

 

Wasn’t aware of the detail, someone else seemed to suggest differently (skulks off)