Dave O'Neil statement - Page 7

Kiwi John · 07-10-2009, 08:07

A SIMPLISTIC VIEW;
As the DON is such a successful businessman , like I and DEVON STANLEY above (and others ) have mentioned, he would've discovered the debt(s) when conducting due diligence prior to purchase. Therefore, it is safe to assume that he would have worked out how to repay it (them) to keep alive his investment BEFORE he concluded the deal with ERIC. Therefore,there is no need for any concearn for the future of ASFC.

If MR O'NEILL honestly didn't know of the debt(s) , then he is a total incompedent and isn't fit to hold a broom let alone own a football club.

glosterred · 07-10-2009, 08:54

Kiwi John you have it in a nutshell! none of this can have come as a surprise to the DON, if it did then some one should hide the broom

yonmon · 07-10-2009, 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by glosterred

Kiwi John you have it in a nutshell! none of this can have come as a surprise to the DON, if it did then some one should hide the broom

Alfred.E. writes.....Of course it's above me to comment thus.. but I can predict with some certainty that some of the more cynical postees on our Forum will be thinking..' And where would you suggest might be the best place to hide it then ??...'

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again.".

'LEST WE FORGET !!!'

Fatso · 07-10-2009, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiwi John

A SIMPLISTIC VIEW;
As the DON is such a successful businessman , like I and DEVON STANLEY above (and others ) have mentioned, he would've discovered the debt(s) when conducting due diligence prior to purchase. Therefore, it is safe to assume that he would have worked out how to repay it (them) to keep alive his investment BEFORE he concluded the deal with ERIC. Therefore,there is no need for any concearn for the future of ASFC.

However, bear in mind that at the time of the takeover the October 28th deadline had not been given; was there the assumption, at this time, that there was more time to pay off the taxman, with any such payment plan being centred around this assumption?

Revived Red · 07-10-2009, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatso

However, bear in mind that at the time of the takeover the October 28th deadline had not been given; was there the assumption, at this time, that there was more time to pay off the taxman, with any such payment plan being centred around this assumption?

Surely any businessman would know that you don't make assumptions with HMRC. You deal in factual knowledge.

Let's not forget that the powers-that-be "assumed" that the Fraser Eagle shirt sponsorship lasted for five years when it was in fact only three. And that was before Fraser Eagle found itself in financial difficulties.

glosterred · 07-10-2009, 10:13

Yonmon.... the question of where to hide the broom will open a whole other can of worms..... but my very sensible suggestion would be to place it in a cupbboard to be on the safe side

Fatso · 07-10-2009, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

Surely any businessman would know that you don't make assumptions with HMRC. You deal in factual knowledge.

Let's not forget that the powers-that-be "assumed" that the Fraser Eagle shirt sponsorship lasted for five years when it was in fact only three. And that was before Fraser Eagle found itself in financial difficulties.

You would think so, yes... but from looking at announcements at the Fishy site;

Quote:

The club have put forward proposals to clear the debt over the next twelve months, and HMRC are satisfied that the club are serious about clearing the debt and will continue to work with the club to that end.

Quote:

Just over twelve weeks ago HMRC agreed not to oppose an initial request for an adjournment after the football club submitted details proposals to repay the petition debt of £300,000 over a twelve month period. However in recent weeks it became clear that HMRC were going to seek a much shorter period of repayment ahead of the second hearing scheduled for today, and although negotiations continued until late last night it was not possible to avoid having to travel down to the court this morning.

and

Quote:

With our original twelve month plan we had sought to repay the money owed from the club’s annual turnover, by significantly reducing costs in some areas and increasing revenue streams in others. Because of this it would not have been necessary to go out and fundraise specifically for this cause.

It's not an unreasonable assumption that any initial plans were based on a 12th month repayment plan.

But, yes, when it comes to owing money to HMRC as any fule kno; you make sure you get the facts from them before doing anything.

Revived Red · 07-10-2009, 11:05

All those comments from the fishy site were based on an assumption, not an agreement. Look at David O'Neill's statement at the bottom of the SOS website home page.

yonmon · 08-10-2009, 07:09

OCTOBER 8th 2009 (Another 24 Hours 'crucial to the fate of Accrington Stanley ??')

AND MY CRUSADE CONTINUES !..(Because time is getting so Short!)..

Can I remind our Non-Villainous Joint Chair-person ??...Like Nelson Mandela's Chiropodist once said 'Defeat is just unthinkable !!'...and of his..(Do'N's not the Podiatrist!) pledge made to us all....

"I assure you that I will not let Accrington Stanley fold again.".

'LEST WE FORGET !!'