we'd rather go under than ...

maccawozzagod

maccawozzagod

Town Elder
Tackler
This is a jointly issued statement from ASSF/OSC/Ultras

On Saturday afternoon following the defeat at Chesterfield, the then Vice-Chairman Peter Marsden called a meeting of the following people:

Geoff Heap DIRECTOR Mark Turner DIRECTOR, Rob Heys CHIEF EXECUTIVE (which carries Director), Marcelle Lazarus JOINT CO-CHAIRPERSON, Frank Martindale EX DIRECTOR believed to be there in a minute taking capacity, Peter Marsden VICE CHAIR, Bill Holden DIRECTOR.

Not present who maybe would have been expected at such a meeting were Dave O'Neil JOINT CO-CHAIRPERSON, John De-Maine DIRECTOR and Jim Kenyon DIRECTOR

Peter called this meeting in order to try to garner support for a share issue. He, in his capacity as Vice-Chair, believed that re-capitalisation was the only way forward for the club in its present situation. Not only do we owe £308,000 to HMRC, but it is believed we are in debt to a sum of money in excess of twice this figure. Mr Marsden realised that without external funding this club could only continue to fight fires rather than move the club forward. He was trying to ascertain how much board room support there was to such a notion as a new share issue.

At the conclusion of this meeting it is alleged that a statement was made by two directors that included the words "we would rather the club go under than be run by ASSF or Ilyas Khan"

Members of the ASSF are very concerned by this derogatory comment aimed at a group, a collection of fans that undoubtedly have the absolute best interests of the club at heart. The second part of that statement is irrelevant. However the first part of that statement should be of grave concern to every supporter of Accrington Stanley Football Club. Two people who have the future of the club within their control have stated that they would rather the club go under than ....
We will take this opportunity to remind every director and every fan that as a director of a company one has a responsibility to act in the best interests of said company. With 23 days to go until the club closes its doors for the final time there were no alternative options on the table other than the one issued by ASSF. The best interests of the company were to work with that group and ensure that by the time of the next hearing there is £308,000 to give to HMRC.

Throughout the last four months since proceedings began, the three collective fan groups have tried at all times to act in what they, individually, believed to be in the best interests of the club. We don't believe that the board of directors, led by Dave O'Neil and Marcelle Lazarus as joint co-chairpersons have.

Furthermore it is of no surprise that these individuals have refused to listen to offers of help as neither of these are listed as shareholders nor directors in the latest available Companies House listings.

The collective fan based groups would appeal to all those concerned to put their collective weight behind a motion for the Board of directors to either step aside or carry out their legal, and moral, obligation to do what is in the best interests of the club.




Rob Russell
on behalf of Accrington Stanley Supporters Fund, Accrington Stanley Official Supporters Club and Stanley Ultras
 
Last edited:
If we did not know better, we would not believe it :eek: We would rather go under than let a group of loyal fans - if not true :rolleyes: Help us out!!! How can this be????
 
I need to sleep on this; it’s not what I feared but its bad enough. What level of information have you received from inside the meeting itself and what is hear say? I mean that with the utmost respect Rob.

If true and you have taken this collective step then perhaps you should name those responsible for these comments and what the response was of the other Directors that where there, other than Peter’s which we are aware of.

In respect of other debts. The lights are on, there’s water and the pitch is Green and only one, maybe two CCJs, what is this other debt? We can’t combat this if we don’t know.
 
:mad: If this is true that TWO of our Directors have said or ( alleged )to have said ,They should be named and shamed and resign from the board of Directors,whats wronge with these people:mad:
 
at this point in time we are not willing to publicy hang people - they must live with the consequence of their actions. The two names are known and will come out as and when the time is right.

Their was a discussion tonight as to whether we should wait a while before releasing this information. But the clock is ticking and you people are the ones who deserve to know what is said behind closed doors. If information is ever withheld it is done so for a reason. This information could not be held back. Two directors are willing to see the club fold. Those directors that are not willing to see the club fold need to head for the last lifeboat and hope that it hasn't already sailed.
 
Hate to say this .. but why are they directors if they'd rather see it go under .. and plus do they really, really understand what would happen to them if it does?
 
If there is substance to this latest announcement then I'm disgusted....:mad:

For two of our "so called directors" to alledgedly utter such a statement shows the utter contempt of which they hold the true lifeblood of our club (our loyal supporters) in.....:mad:

Talk about Deriliction of duty ???? If true, this latest statement beggars belief.:(

As for the true levels of debt, we had a good idea and Mr. Khan had the insight, that the true figure of debt this club owed was far more than the £308K owed to H.M.R.C.

Our Chairman has released a statement in the last 24 hours stating that he is aware of his responsibilities and states that he will not allow our club to fold again.

Despite this statement, The club and it's board have not offered any insight into:

a) How the initial debt to H.M.R.C. will be satisfied....

b) Any concrete offer of their own financial input...figures,amounts, dates???

c) The true level of debt the club is accountable for....

or

d) Why they, if as a collective???, have chosen to dismiss the offer from the ASSF, the very generous offer which includes funding from a very generous man, who, like all fans, wants to see the club survive.:confused:

Instead, we are offered statements which do nothing to appease our concerned fans. They do nothing to clarify the whole mess the club is in. They appeal for the help from the very people who they are treating in (my view at least) a very contemptous manner , asking us to work together in difficult times.....

If this latest statement (the so called attitude of two of our directors) has substance...IN MY VIEW.....the two involved have no sentiment for our club. And the two concerned have no place within this club....:mad:

If Mr O' Neil and the directors have the best interests of this club and it's survival at heart, then now is the time to step up to the plate:

a) Set in Stone, I.E. make as a collective a statement that will once and for all settle the matter.Put forward their collective response, i.e. their own offers of financial assistance and concrete plans on how they, as the board intend to satisfy all debts.....or

b) Admit that the clubs present board does not have the necessary collateral or any strategy to get us out of this mess, be it temporarily or long term....

If they (As the board of this club) choose to sit in their collective "ivory tower" and act in the manner with the attitude of the "supposed two" directors who "supposedly" have uttered this contemptous statement....then this sorry situation has only one outcome.....:(

The clock is ticking and ASSF's and Mr Khan's very generous offer of financial input, albeit to the present dislike of the current powers that be, has been rebuked, refused or whichever words the present board may wish to attach to this offer may choose....on numerous occasions. I hope like many, Mr Khan reconsiders and may yet step in to help avert this potential catastrophe.

If the club is to be saved, then actions speak louder than words...Time is short....and one thing I cannot understand and perhaps the present board can enlighten us all on, brings me to my final point......

IF Mr Khan (and ASSF's) offer is so unpalletable, what do the current board think their shareholdings will be worth if this club goes to the wall in 18 DAYS TIME????:confused:
 
Last edited:
This statement amazed me to say the least, as a person who is not a Stanley fan, but have contributed to the SOS fighting fund, I sit here shaking my head, if directors don't care what happens and would rather the club folded, what chance is there of survial. As carpon has said the curtain will come down in 18 days time, and unless there is a change of heart by these people, I will have witnessed the demise of Stanley twice in my lifetime, it sure as hell wasn't nice the first time around, but maybe those directors weren't here to see it and don't have any real love for the club, so I would ask why the hell did they get involved in the first place
 
Reading the above I only have questions (some might see it as a Devils Advocat angle but I dont care), not angry statements. Perhaps they truly do not see ASSF as the way forward for the club? Do we know for certain that ASSF is the only 'offer on the table'? It certainly was one that had a LOT of oomph behind it but was/is it the only one? Was this 'rather go under' statement just simply a case of engaging mouth before brain (easily done in these times)? Perhaps a more diplomatic response would have been the appropriate one?

Questions questions questions - as someone else's Gran said in another thread, there are 3 sides to every story...

Jimbo T :horn8:blower
 
What do i say? If we still have a club after all this i'll rename myself stanley! Just to reiterate that this is an alleged aligation and doubt that the truth will be known or admitted UNLESS there's EVIDENCE be careful what u say from a legal point of view.
 
If they did utter those idiotic words, then they are dickheads of the highest order.I tend to agree with JIMMY T re the making of the statement. I am very curious to know WHY there is this anomosity from within towards Ilyas and the ASSF. I seem to recall reading that ERIC had a gripe with Ilyas as well... No smoke without fire.
 
Kiwi John said:
I seem to recall reading that ERIC had a gripe with Ilyas as well... No smoke without fire.
Click to expand...

These two Directors are probably friends of EW and are carrying on his gripe. They should be named and shamed so that the fans can let them know what they think of them.
 
I think the key point here is whether or not the statement cited above is the genuinely held belief of those who said it, and that they really would rather have no club (and no investment) than have someone they disapprove of in charge, or rather if it's just bluff and bluster; fighting talk if you will.

If it's the former, then it will not just be them that lose their investments, but everyone else who is a shareholder. And, most importantly, there will be no Stanley.
 
Fatso said:
If it's the former, then it will not just be them that lose their investments, but everyone else who is a shareholder. And, most importantly, there will be no Stanley.
Click to expand...

According to the shareholders list the Directors don't have much shareholding investment to lose except Peter Marsden

Peter Marsden has 631 x £1 shares + 549 x £10 shares
Geoff Heap has 50 x £1 shares
John Demaine has 10 x £10 shares
Mark Turner has 1 x £10 share
J. Kenyon has no shares
W. Holden has no shares
 
I apologise that this message is a long one, but it will give you an understanding as to why Peter Marsden may have resigned. Directors need to protect their credibility and act appropriately.

Fiduciary duty
Each director must act in accordance with what he or she believes to be the best interests of the company. Directors must not place themselves in a position in which there is a conflict between their duties to the company and their personal interests. For example, in a take-over bid, the fact that the directors as individuals might hold between them a majority of the voting shares does not mean they can follow their own individual wishes.

Accounts and dealing
Directors' duties in respect of accounts are stringent and comprehensive. Directors are responsible for preparing a profit and loss account and a balance sheet, ensuring that proper accounting records are kept, and taking all possible steps to ensure that the accounts show a true and fair view. This is now reflected in the 'Statement of Directors' Responsibilities', which has to be attached to the statutory financial statements.
Directors are also under a statutory duty to supply auditors with necessary information and explanations. This is the reason for requesting 'letters of representation'. Criminal liability can follow if directors 'knowingly or recklessly' make a 'misleading, false or deceptive statement' to the auditors.

Directors Duties to whom?
The duties of directors under the general law are owed to the company and not to its shareholders, so it is the company, or its liquidator, that can sue. Creditors can, in the case of a company in liquidation, apply to the court for an order compelling the directors to repay such sum as the court considers just in respect of the directors' 'misfeasance or breach of trust.'

A director who is knowingly a party to fraudulent trading may also be personally liable to creditors.

However, although directors have a statutory duty to have regard to the interests of employees, it is doubtful whether employees could sue the directors personally, because the director's duty is to the company.

Wrongful trading
Wrongful trading may be broadly defined as a failure by a director or shadow director of a company to take every step that he or she should have taken to minimise loss to creditors once he or she knew or ought to have known that the company was unlikely to avoid insolvent liquidation. The possible penalties for wrongful trading are:
• Liability to make a contribution to the assets of the company in a sum to be decided by the court
• Disqualification from being concerned in the management of a company
When a company goes into insolvent liquidation, it is necessary to make a judgement:
• Whether the directors took such steps to monitor their company's affairs as would be taken by a reasonably prudent businessperson
• If they failed to do so, whether they would have realised the company's insolvency earlier if they had taken such steps

It is therefore essential that the board of directors ensure that appropriate steps are taken to monitor the company's financial position on a regular basis.

Tests of insolvency
There are a number of ways to test for insolvency. You should consider the following:
• Is the company paying its liabilities as they fall due or shortly thereafter, and will it continue to do so in the foreseeable future?
• Do the aggregate liabilities, including contingent or prospective liabilities, exceed the total value of the company's assets?
• If the company were put into liquidation now, would the realisations from the disposal of the assets be sufficient to pay all liabilities and the costs of the liquidation in full?

Fraudulent trading
Honest directors should not find themselves guilty of fraudulent trading. Nevertheless, if a company has already incurred liabilities that it failed to pay when they fell due or shortly thereafter, the board should consider the position carefully and place on record the factors that led them to conclude that any further liabilities incurred would be paid at the proper time before allowing the company to obtain any additional credit.
 
JEFF said:
According to the shareholders list the Directors don't have much shareholding investment to lose except Peter Marsden

Peter Marsden has 631 x £1 shares + 549 x £10 shares
Geoff Heap has 50 x £1 shares
John Demaine has 10 x £10 shares
Mark Turner has 1 x £10 share
J. Kenyon has no shares
W. Holden has no shares
Click to expand...

How up to date or complete is this list? According to MEN story copied below, Ilyas Khan is a 17 per cent shareholder.

From the Manchester Evening News:

Accrington Stanley face vital 24 hours

October 05, 2009
CHIEF executive Rob Heys has said it is a vital 24 hours for Accrington Stanley in their battle for survival.

The Reds need to raise £308,000 to pay off an outstanding tax bill or face being wound up by the end of this month.

£90,000 has so far been raised through the "Save Our Stanley" campaign with time running out.

Over the weekend, vice president Peter Marsden has stood down as a director after the Stanley board held a meeting after the game at Chesterfield on Saturday.

And multi millioniare Ilyas Khan, a 17 per cent shareholder in the club, has withdrawn his financial offer of help.
 
Devonstanley - Ilyas is a share-holder and not a Director, whereas those listed in a previous post are Directors of Accrington Stanley and also have shares.
 
JEFF said:
According to the shareholders list the Directors don't have much shareholding investment to lose except Peter Marsden

Peter Marsden has 631 x £1 shares + 549 x £10 shares
Geoff Heap has 50 x £1 shares
John Demaine has 10 x £10 shares
Mark Turner has 1 x £10 share
J. Kenyon has no shares
W. Holden has no shares
Click to expand...

So, if Peter Marsden has 10%, that must mean the rest of that list has less than 1% between them; and Ilyas Khan has 17%, David O'Neil has 51%... that makes 78.something%.

Who has the remaining 21.something%? Are there any others with a decent amount of shares between them or are they all small fry like most on the list?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top