The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

Sara Pascoe wrote:It will be a miracle if they stay up but fair play to this guy, optimism all the way:

the real ace wrote:What is needed is £3 off all prices for the remainder of the season, bigger crowds and improved results. With this package we will be able to go into next season with greater confidence and make a credible challenge to be BSP champions, and that goal of League football will at last be acheived by what we all know is the best football club in England.

The guy is a new 'fan' that has just appeared on the scene. Looks like a stooge to me. Even some Ploppies are calling him George. ;)
Oh and George's new mate, Richie Jeune, had a Computer Security Company which went bust in November with debts of over £1million.
Deja Vue anyone?

I wonder if any of the Ploppy fans have the bottle to stand up on the 14th at the fans forum and ask Mr Rolls what was the exact amount of the 5 figures he boasted about investing.

You get the faint sniff of a pre-pack administration in the offing and that smell will get stronger if results do not go well this month.

Come April if Kettrin are too far behind a ten point deduction will not matter and Rolls will no doubt be the largest ceditor taking over Sadacts debt so he can manipulate the Administration and CVA to his advantage just like he is alledged to have done at Weymouth.

I may be ignorant when it comes to business affairs, but if the Trust has two Directors on the board with 24% of the shares, then it seems to me that at best either the Trust or the two directors concerned need to have big pockets, because they are either going to inherit the liability of 24% of the Club's TOTAL debts, or if Rolls does his usual trick re: administration or a CVA, then they'll have to accept that for their money they'll own 24% of bugger all. Either way, it's going to cost them money, not George Rolls or Jeune.

I think it depends, Alan, whether these two 'directors' are formally registered as proper directors with the relevant authorities or merely just fans representatives attending and voting at board meetings as to the potential liabilities that they and/or Poppies Trust may or may not have with this arrangement.

That question of liability is an excellent one.

It was (arguably) the reason R&DFC are no more, when those who'd put themselves forwards to be first on the Trust Board, and then on the Club Board got cold feet when finding they might have inferred liabiliities for trading whilst insolvement, even though they didn't have full director status. Hence they transferred all the assets to Cousins for a minimal commitment on his part.

Looking at the league table, my feeling is that after Alfreton's stomping victory last night, it would appear that they are all but dead and buried with regards to retaining their Conference Premier status. With just 25 points to date, after the recent deduction, this means that with just 11 games remaining they will need play off form to get a further 21 points to give a final total of 46 points. OBN used to reckon that the absolute safety line from a 46 game season was 50 points. Last season Southport finished fourth from bottom and should have been relegated on 46 points but were only reprieved by the unfortunate expelling of of a well known local club.

Formic wrote:That question of liability is an excellent one.

It was (arguably) the reason R&DFC are no more, when those who'd put themselves forwards to be first on the Trust Board, and then on the Club Board got cold feet when finding they might have inferred liabiliities for trading whilst insolvement, even though they didn't have full director status. Hence they transferred all the assets to Cousins for a minimal commitment on his part.

I'm sorry, I don't want to raise old ghosts but in fact the three RDFC directors at the time of the transfer all had full director status - as in registered as directors at Companies House.
More interesting perhaps is that the detail of the transfer to Keith Cousins was negotiated by two other members of the then Trust Board - and one other - without any involvement by two out of the three registered directors.

Thanks for that insight Chammie - and although it's going over old ground, it might be re-enacted anytime soon at Nene Park.

I had misunderstood the sequence of events, but looking back at the documents from that time I can see who you are referring to in both cases.

In doing that I came across a statement from Paul Hadjuk which might also be replayed soon :-

"What most people do not realise is that directors of a business have strict legal responsibilities. One of these is not to trade wrongfully, which in simple terms means that you can only buy things if you have enough money to pay for them. A business is just like a person, and a person that spends more money than they can earn quickly gets into trouble.

"In a business, the directors are personally responsible for debts incurred if they knowingly buy things when they know they may not have the money to pay for them. Most directors are willing to accept this situation because it is the risk they take in order to enjoy the good times that come from being successful. When the directors are volunteers there is no upside, and it is totally unreasonable for them to be asked to accept the personal risks involved in running an insolvent business.

"When a business becomes insolvent the responsibilities of the directors change from focussing on the needs of the owners to focussing on the needs of the people who are owed money, the creditors. One way in which they can do this is to pursue a rescue package from an outside investor that is aimed at giving the creditors a better deal than they would get if the business went belly up
If the directors through their actions cause financial damage to the creditors then they are personally liable. One way in which this can happen is if information about the financial state of the business becomes public. What happens then is that the creditors close in, the administrator arrives or liquidation follows. And everyone loses: the club; the trust; and the fans.

"So when we realised we were in trouble we took professional legal advice. That advice was twofold. First, while negotiations with a "white knight" were underway we could continue to trade but only if the financial situation was firstly kept under control and secondly confidential. Second, the Trust itself was likely to be a director of the club because in order to meet our members' needs we had set things up so that on some important matters the Club Board had to refer to the Trust Board. This meant that the Trust itself would be under threat if things that should be kept private got out into the public domain.

"Faced with this situation there was only one course of action; to make sure that we kept everything as watertight as possible. Consequently the amount of communication we were able to make was reduced greatly and that's why we have not been in a position to say very much for a while about what has been going on."

There seem to be a few pro-Rolls attack dogs on Poppynet, which is so strange considering his history and the warnings being given by Cambridge and Weymouth fans, who are all neutral in regards to their feelings about K*ttering.

http://cambridgeunitedfc.proboards.com/ ... hread=2591

http://www.theconferenceforum.co.uk/for ... cle=156450

Weymouth Fan wrote:Just to give you a heads up, a scheme was announced to sell season tickets at 99 quid if we reached 1000 at WFC.

People were asked to send in post dated cheques so they could not be banked before the 2nd April, good idea I hear you say.

It now seems before departing WFC he tried and was successful in cashing some of these cheques, even though they were postdated which means some of our fans' hard earned cash which they wanted a season ticket for has now gone and probably ended up in that 20k us fans raised as ransom money to get rid.

Sara Pascoe wrote:There seem to be a few pro-Rolls attack dogs on Poppynet, which is so strange considering his history and the warnings being given by Cambridge and Weymouth fans, who are all neutral in regards to their feelings about K*ttering.

http://cambridgeunitedfc.proboards.com/ ... hread=2591

http://www.theconferenceforum.co.uk/for ... cle=156450

Weymouth Fan wrote:Just to give you a heads up, a scheme was announced to sell season tickets at 99 quid if we reached 1000 at WFC.

People were asked to send in post dated cheques so they could not be banked before the 2nd April, good idea I hear you say.

It now seems before departing WFC he tried and was successful in cashing some of these cheques, even though they were postdated which means some of our fans' hard earned cash which they wanted a season ticket for has now gone and probably ended up in that 20k us fans raised as ransom money to get rid.

If what is alleged is found to be true then he is a conman and will be in jail before he has a chance to do anything at Nene Park.

Perhaps I have too much faith in the British justice system. He'd probably get 50 hours community service.