Discussion in 'Dulwich Hamlet FC' started by darryl, Sep 29, 2017.
If the club were to sign. Who will be signing?
Nick McCormack as the Director? Or the Comity.
Nick, but the club key stakeholders (comm, trust, management) are instructing him.
Strongly worded email sent and message left
Have just shit down the telephone.
I appreciate that the discussion of what can be done is going on in private to prevent the scum-sucking bloodsuckers from reading it, but I'd be really grateful if those involved can let us know what the rest of us can do to help ensure the game tomorrow goes ahead, apart from letting Meadow know what we think of their predatory vileness.
The answer, to make sure it goes ahead, is not a lot, just express your anger via media and social media, and hope the exposure/bad PR makes them not enforce their threat.
can those coordinating events today please publish revised times venues so we are clear
ie "carol service" at Meadow (understand BBC attending ???)
Now filed in my 'Teams I Like' folder:
so from this can we assume that Nick McCormack is now on 'our' side ?
Nick is on our side, and has been since they pulled funding. Just taken him a while to get up to speed. Which many who knew his dealings of the club previously does not come as a surprise..!
Interesting to read in Liam's notes in the magazine that Meadows have invoiced the club £120K for back rent and stadium improvements over the last 3 years. Apparently they had to issue it but it won't be enforced.
I'm guessing they are loading more debt onto the club to make it less appealing to the council or anyone else to buy in and to hopefully recoup their money if someone does.
The question is, what is the other money they have run Dulwich Hamlet Football Club limited into debt over the past 2 years is for?
Also going forward, will they be charging £60K per year for rent of the ground?
The current fee for the stadium use is £500 plus VAT per game. Obviously, we then pay for Groundsman, Utilities, Bar Staff, Security, Stewards, Turnstile operators. That agreement runs until the end of the season.
Sorry I should also have said that their solicitor is seeking proposals for repayment along with guarantees that we can meet all liabilities. So when they said it wouldn't be enforced that's not what they meant.
£60k a year to rent the ground.........................................
now if we had average League attendances
Meadow has deliberately made it difficult.
From the club running the entire facilty - giving us the opportunity to generate income.
Our lease has been downgraded to football pitch and facilty hire? With debt
It appears Crystal Palace had a better agreement than we do and they are Prem!!
Is the utilities divided by all the users of the building equally? Or is based on usage?
On reflection..... they're still cunts.
Latest accounts for the club just filed to Companies House - clear that Meadow has been loading it with debt.
DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)
Can someone do a quick breakdown for us non-accountancy types?
The Club's debts were not cleared per the previous announcements.
They were loaded onto the Club with the sole intention of driving it out of business and to obtain the site with Vacant Possession.
con ferre :
New owners announced - News - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club
[for the avoidance of doubt Hadley were not and never were 'owners']
Champion Hill: A New Approach to Development? | Hadley Property Group Ltd
[likewise, the CoHo Filings show that debt has been accrued in the favour of Hadley/Healey/Meadow]
So it appears to me that the public prognostications of Meadow/Hadley were false.
Can't comment too much further without seeing the Loan Agreements, but in my personal opinion it has the strong whiff of a Sham Arrangement.
I'd need to see a lot of paperwork to be sure, but I've seen similar with many other NL Clubs.
Whether the £658k is a 'Loan at Call' I can't say, i.e. it can be Called In at any time. It isn't Secured against anything and hasn't been Registered at Companies House, so the Creditor would fall in line behind other 'Preferred' Creditors [usually HMRC and the like].
The Creditor is part of the Group, which are Closely-Held Companies.
I don't like it and I don't like it one little bit. Not because of additional pressure on the Club, but because I've a strong suspicion [and a Professional Opinion] that UKPGA 2006 ch35 may come into play.
Sorry, EDC - nothing there other than a quote of what I said.
Only thing I'd add to what I said earlier is that it isn't anything we didn't know before.
And I still think that it's a deliberate manoeuvre.
On the point of the purported debt of £650k, Note 5 to the accounts has it in the favour of 09939526 Healey Development Solutions (Dulwich) Ltd.
Significantly, the Registered Office for 09939526 Healey is 22 Chancery Lane - as is also New Quadrant Trust Corporation Ltd, of interest if this is simply a brass plate address for that particular entity. Given that it is a brass plate address, I'm just wondering who is acting for Healey in this instance of its Registered Office.
Can anyone tell me, please, if any of the following law firms & Accountants which are registered at the same address have acted for Meadow during the saga?
Home | Dixon Wilson
Immigration Solicitors, Employment Solicitors | Magrath
Slater and Gordon Lawyers UK | Solicitors Nationwide
Doubtlessly, all are aware that 09939526 Healey are majority-owned by OC400730 Meadow Residential LLP and the sole Director of 09939526 Healey is Mr Bennison.
I would also note that Bennison is Personally given as being the Controlling Interest in both :
1) 11081737 Dulwich Hamlet Licences Ltd [inc. 24/11/2017]
2) 11091263 Champion Hill Licences Ltd [inc. 01/12/2017]
as opposed to any of the various Meadow companies.
I draw attention to the Controlling Interest, per the PSC Statements
1) Persons with significant control
2) Persons with significant control
and the fact that Mr Bennison owned the precisely one share in existence for each entity, being 100% of the initial Shareholdings in each case.
Both single shares in both entities being unpaid, I will add.
Separate names with a comma.