Confimred new owners of Raeding Footbal Club

[TBM]

[Royal Ginger]

I thought he was dead.

[East Grinstead Royal]

As I stated last week, Reading Football Club (Holdings ) Limited has 5 directors: the two mentioned by CholsleyRoyal above, plus Ian Smith, Camilla Morris and Helen Morris, each of whom was appointed on 19 May 2014. The rest of what Cholsey states is, according to the report I have, correct (or was as of yesterday!).

None of which answers the question, of course...

Surely Ian Smith is Ian Wood-Smith, can't count him twice.

Ian Smith - born 24 November 1959
Ian Wood-Smith - born 16 March 1959

Hence I assume they are two separate people. Has anyone seen them both at the same time?

[Tilehurstsouthbank]

I thought he was dead.

No chance. No chance in Hell!

[From Despair To Where?]

Why the fcuk is he walking like a Thunderbirds puppet? Plenty of strings attached if he''s interested.

[Tilehurstsouthbank]

Why the fcuk is he walking like a Thunderbirds puppet? Plenty of strings attached if he''s interested.

That's his Power walk. He's worth a few quid so I doubt he gives a flying Fcuk what people think of his walk.

[sandman]

Why the fcuk is he walking like a Thunderbirds puppet? Plenty of strings attached if he''s interested.

Because he's Vince McMahon dammit!

[multisync1830]

Another potential new buyer emerges according to Dellor on Berks this morning. Unnamed consortium offering to clear all debts and due to meet this week. Apparently the HMRC debt has been paid off by a "lender" and this would also be cleared.
Dellor - according to sources the deal could be completed in the next 48 hours - hot off the 8.30 news

I have my doubts over this as SJM has left the country for a few days apparently

[CholseyRoyal]

On Charles Watts lunchtime web chat he made the following comment. A huge relief if true and I would trust Charles more than most on here.


Charles Watts
I understand TSI handed its 51% back to RFC Holdings on January 31

He also pointed out TSI are no longer vetting likely buyers. They will have an interest as creditors though.

[Uke]

On Charles Watts lunchtime web chat he made the following comment. A huge relief if true and I would trust Charles more than most on here.


Charles Watts
I understand TSI handed its 51% back to RFC Holdings on January 31

Also reads as

"I understand TSI handed its 51% to RFC Holdings on January 31 leaving RFC with sole responsibility for the debts"

Which again ties in with the timing of this crisis

TF they had someone to hand the 51% to! Otherwise we would have been in administration by the end of February

Even if SJM is only in it for the kudos, the publicity, the ego, etc. I'd prefer that to the ones that keep quiet in the background and say nothing

[Wycombe Royal]

The situation with regards to the debts is unchanged. Who owns the shares is pretty much irrelevant.

[CholseyRoyal]

On Charles Watts lunchtime web chat he made the following comment. A huge relief if true and I would trust Charles more than most on here.


Charles Watts
I understand TSI handed its 51% back to RFC Holdings on January 31

Also reads as

"I understand TSI handed its 51% to RFC Holdings on January 31 leaving RFC with sole responsibility for the debts"

Which again ties in with the timing of this crisis

TF they had someone to hand the 51% to! Otherwise we would have been in administration by the end of February

Even if SJM is only in it for the kudos, the publicity, the ego, etc. I'd prefer that to the ones that keep quiet in the background and say nothing

Weren't the debts covered back then by taking out a loan against the parachute payments for one or even more years?

[dizzynewheights]

imagine living your life without knowing about Vince McMahon and his awesome walk

[Uke]

The situation with regards to the debts is unchanged. Who owns the shares is pretty much irrelevant.

Dunno, if you were only 49% liable for the debt you may not be overjoyed at suddenly becoming 100% liable for it

[winchester_royal]

The situation with regards to the debts is unchanged. Who owns the shares is pretty much irrelevant.

Dunno, if you were only 49% liable for the debt you may not be overjoyed at suddenly becoming 100% liable for it

Fairly sure that, as both RFC and RFC Holdings are limited companies, Sir John isn't 'liable' for any of the debt other than what is owed to him.

[kwik-silva]

The situation with regards to the debts is unchanged. Who owns the shares is pretty much irrelevant.

Dunno, if you were only 49% liable for the debt you may not be overjoyed at suddenly becoming 100% liable for it

Fairly sure that, as both RFC and RFC Holdings are limited companies, Sir John isn't 'liable' for any of the debt other than what is owed to him.

I have no idea of how companies work, but surely Sir John would have to accept the 51%, you can't literally force them onto him.

[Wycombe Royal]

The situation with regards to the debts is unchanged. Who owns the shares is pretty much irrelevant.

Dunno, if you were only 49% liable for the debt you may not be overjoyed at suddenly becoming 100% liable for it

It's a Ltd company so individuals aren't liable for anything. The debt is still owned by the same company as it was before.

[TheWhisper]

He could well have given a personal security over the debt

[Schards#2]

My (latest) best guess would be that TSI are both shareholders and creditors. They accept that the shares are worthless so have returned them, but this does not affect their entitlement as creditors to repayment of all debts outstanding.

[kwik-silva]

Forgive me, if they've returned the shares, how can they be shareholders?