Reply With QuoteWill the 'Notts Barrister' be charged for contempt of court for the previous two occasions the judge was misled then?Originally Posted by MagpieMike
Hall Of Fame
Probably the latter. Don't think the FA would be allowed to assume we would cease to exist ahead of it happening. Suggests they believe a deal is imminent. Only spanner in the works is who is the source of info from Ilkeston? Not our beloved owner by any chance?
For the Notts Barrister to be so clear in court the deal has to be close. Contempt of court is a very serious offence, so presenting evidence in court has to have a basis in fact - not just wishful thinking from NCFC. We had the assurance about the fit and proper person test. This is what the Post reported of the proceedings:
"Miss Stonefrost told the court that, although the petition has already been adjourned twice before, the club needed more time.
She said two groups had been interested in buying the club. Unfortunately, one prospective purchaser had had a heart attack and withdrew, and in the other consortium an investor had dropped out.
But she told the court that now a Danish consortium, with funds, had entered the picture so a further adjournment was being requested for the league to approve the directors and the share transfer.
The next session of the league is scheduled for July 17, so approval of the share transfer could be given then, she said.
She added: “This morning a letter from the Football Association has been received approving the directors as fit and proper, so that is one step forward.""
A Danish consortium with funds, who ave already passed the FA fit and proper person test, and the possibility of the transfer of shares being approved on 17th July. That all looks very positive.
Hall Of Fame
Will the 'Notts Barrister' be charged for contempt of court for the previous two occasions the judge was misled then?
Hall Of Fame
Or it could be the FA just haven't noticed, until someone points it out.
I mean, seriously. Take the rule that you cannot field an ineligible player. It still happens though, doesn't it? The offence is addressed after the act. It's not like the FA\League check the team sheet before the game. It's like that, no-one at the FA is going through each club's director list to check for connections.
Last edited by Bohinen; 12-07-2019 at 02:22 PM.
Hall Of Fame
Well it's not that simple is it. If we are in admin Hardy (Paragon Int) will still be owner of Notts and Ilkeston. So jacob makes a good point.
Hall Of Fame
The wording was different. I can't seem to find it because I keep getting the court appearance from the other day but at the second hearing, the wording was very much, the owner has told me that a deal is close.
That negates the contempt of court, basically saying, I've been told this by the owner, I'm not stating it as fact. This third hearing seems to be staying it as fact
Hall Of Fame
I understand what you are saying, but it still doesn't mean there wasn't wishful thing. Clearly there was been. Hardy was confident the deal would be done before the 10th, it didn't happen. Then it was in the coming days, only there's no sign we're any closer.
It could be the Danes have been cleared by the FA, but equally, I could apply for a loan and pass a credit check, or apply for a job and have a DBS check done. It doesn't mean the loan or the job will happen, it's just part of a process and either party can back out. Only signing the contract will mean the deal is done and due diligence will have to come first. Maybe Hardy's terms will be unacceptable too.
Hall Of Fame
Still showing on Companies House as current officer.
Hall Of Fame
I might be wrong, and legally they still might own Notts, but i believe once you appoint an administrator you basically hand over the company to them, Hardy would have no say it what goes on at the club at all.
Plus I'm not saying it is not a good point made, but I don't think it means the club is going to be with new owners any moment now.
Hall Of Fame
"She said two groups had been interested in buying the club. Unfortunately, one prospective purchaser had had a heart attack and withdrew, and in the other consortium an investor had dropped out."
If the barrister is referring to the SA and May bids here, neither of those are being represented particularly accurately (based on press reports).
According to the SAs, they only dropped out when they were told the club was being sold to the Danes - and Terry Pritchard was allegedly only the middle man, not the "prospective purchaser." As for the May bid, "an investor had dropped out" isn't how I would describe events unfolding. Then again, I don't suppose you would want to say "One of the bidders included a convicted fraudster whose actions were highlighted in the national media, forcing the council to wash its hands of the group" in the High Court.
Hall Of Fame
Yes, you're wrong. The administrators take over management but there is no change in ownership. If the administration is successfully completed then the company is handed back to the directors so it's just managing the assets while the process is completed. Whether Hardy's got any say or not he would still breach the FA rule particularly as he could have control again in a short time if the debts were settled. So the FA wouldn't allow it.
Posting Permissions