Town back in court tomorrow

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: Lee Power Lee Power

THE two parties claiming ownership of Swindon Town Football Club return to court tomorrow in a bid to settle the matter.

Swinton Reds 20 Ltd and Seebeck 87 Ltd, the holding companies of current chairman Lee Power and former chairman Jed McCrory respectively, will be represented at the Rolls Building in London with both claiming to own the club.

Seebeck claim they are still the rightful owners of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, despite the publicising of a takeover by Power’s Swinton Reds 20 in December. In April they attempted to place three directors on the board.

At an original hearing in mid-April the three proposed board members were given permission to be “observer” directors, according to the club, but had no power to pass any resolutions until the issue has been decided by a High Court judge.

Since then, the case has been heard again at the Rolls Building but was adjourned by Justice Warren on April 29 before a date was agreed for an expeditious trial at a later hearing.

A statement issued by the football club originally stated the case was due to be heard on June 26, but it has in fact now been moved forward by a day to begin at 10.30am tomorrow and heard by Mr N Strauss QC.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:00pm Tue 24 Jun 14

JohnNeal4me says...

Even if all the arguments are presented tomorrow the judge will probably reserve judgement so it could still be some time before we know the outcome. In the meantime little is happening for us in the transfer market other than losing players(over and above the 10 released and loanees unlikely to return) such as Storey. Once the legal costs have been paid there may not be any money left for any others.
Even if all the arguments are presented tomorrow the judge will probably reserve judgement so it could still be some time before we know the outcome. In the meantime little is happening for us in the transfer market other than losing players(over and above the 10 released and loanees unlikely to return) such as Storey. Once the legal costs have been paid there may not be any money left for any others. JohnNeal4me
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Tue 24 Jun 14

dazzastfc says...

Jed or Power...
Jed or Power... dazzastfc
  • Score: -6

9:03pm Tue 24 Jun 14

dazzastfc says...

JohnNeal4me wrote:
Even if all the arguments are presented tomorrow the judge will probably reserve judgement so it could still be some time before we know the outcome. In the meantime little is happening for us in the transfer market other than losing players(over and above the 10 released and loanees unlikely to return) such as Storey. Once the legal costs have been paid there may not be any money left for any others.
But we are a work in progress team
[quote][p][bold]JohnNeal4me[/bold] wrote: Even if all the arguments are presented tomorrow the judge will probably reserve judgement so it could still be some time before we know the outcome. In the meantime little is happening for us in the transfer market other than losing players(over and above the 10 released and loanees unlikely to return) such as Storey. Once the legal costs have been paid there may not be any money left for any others.[/p][/quote]But we are a work in progress team dazzastfc
  • Score: -10

9:04pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Di kanny oh says...

In one corner we have Lee Power and in the other we have the circus of big burger loving Jed and his cronies I shall wait with interest for the verdict and fully ready to cancel my season ticket DD should this go the wrong way. I shall have nothing to do with Jed's circus running our club after the shocking way they sought the big pay off from Lee the last time around and they have obviously come back for more, bunch of crooks.
In one corner we have Lee Power and in the other we have the circus of big burger loving Jed and his cronies I shall wait with interest for the verdict and fully ready to cancel my season ticket DD should this go the wrong way. I shall have nothing to do with Jed's circus running our club after the shocking way they sought the big pay off from Lee the last time around and they have obviously come back for more, bunch of crooks. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 17

9:11pm Tue 24 Jun 14

grove red says...

Hope power wins this and the club can move forward. He seems to be the football man with the contacts but still think we need more investment. God help us if the snake wins.
Hope power wins this and the club can move forward. He seems to be the football man with the contacts but still think we need more investment. God help us if the snake wins. grove red
  • Score: 18

9:20pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Di kanny oh says...

grove red wrote:
Hope power wins this and the club can move forward. He seems to be the football man with the contacts but still think we need more investment. God help us if the snake wins.
Lee stated a while back there are investors waiting in the wings so just need to get over this last hurdle. Didn't one of Jeds lot try and take over at Hereford recently and look where they have ended up.
[quote][p][bold]grove red[/bold] wrote: Hope power wins this and the club can move forward. He seems to be the football man with the contacts but still think we need more investment. God help us if the snake wins.[/p][/quote]Lee stated a while back there are investors waiting in the wings so just need to get over this last hurdle. Didn't one of Jeds lot try and take over at Hereford recently and look where they have ended up. Di kanny oh
  • Score: 11

10:44pm Tue 24 Jun 14

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

Di Kanny you believe anything anyone says? Let's hope it gets settled and then we can all make our judgements. At the moment it's pure guesswork,,,,
Di Kanny you believe anything anyone says? Let's hope it gets settled and then we can all make our judgements. At the moment it's pure guesswork,,,, dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: -3

11:12pm Tue 24 Jun 14

Di kanny oh says...

dreamofacleansheet2 wrote:
Di Kanny you believe anything anyone says? Let's hope it gets settled and then we can all make our judgements. At the moment it's pure guesswork,,,,
So what Lee Power tells lies then?? of course I don't believe what anyone says what a statement to make pathetic. I am just quoting comments he made I am sure that is allowed??
[quote][p][bold]dreamofacleansheet2[/bold] wrote: Di Kanny you believe anything anyone says? Let's hope it gets settled and then we can all make our judgements. At the moment it's pure guesswork,,,,[/p][/quote]So what Lee Power tells lies then?? of course I don't believe what anyone says what a statement to make pathetic. I am just quoting comments he made I am sure that is allowed?? Di kanny oh
  • Score: 3

5:57am Wed 25 Jun 14

port de soller says...

Do hope all goes ok,as let´s say jed wins it will for sure be the end for STFc as no investors will touch us with a barge pole if Jed and his cronies get total contol or even part.If that was the case lee Power would walk and let´s be honest it appears he has tried to do a job.
So don´t hold your breath,the Town have sailed close to the wind for years yet this time I just don´t lnow is a post said total guess work on our part as we don´t have any real truth to what has happened within our club.
Looks as if there may or could be a lot of the true hard core supporters will say enough is enough
Do hope all goes ok,as let´s say jed wins it will for sure be the end for STFc as no investors will touch us with a barge pole if Jed and his cronies get total contol or even part.If that was the case lee Power would walk and let´s be honest it appears he has tried to do a job. So don´t hold your breath,the Town have sailed close to the wind for years yet this time I just don´t lnow is a post said total guess work on our part as we don´t have any real truth to what has happened within our club. Looks as if there may or could be a lot of the true hard core supporters will say enough is enough port de soller
  • Score: 0

6:13am Wed 25 Jun 14

Rednwhitewalrus699 says...

just get it sorted!
just get it sorted! Rednwhitewalrus699
  • Score: 1

6:32am Wed 25 Jun 14

the wizard says...

Quote,
to begin at 10.30am tomorrow and heard by Mr N Strauss QC.

Well let us just hope that he "conducts" the case well, lol, and in Powers favour.
Quote, to begin at 10.30am tomorrow and heard by Mr N Strauss QC. Well let us just hope that he "conducts" the case well, lol, and in Powers favour. the wizard
  • Score: 8

6:41am Wed 25 Jun 14

umpcah says...

Fingers crossed !
Fingers crossed ! umpcah
  • Score: 3

8:32am Wed 25 Jun 14

plred87 says...

The main quote to take from this article surrounds "a date was agreed for an expeditious trial at a later hearing".
This would lead me to think the courts want to pass judgment through quicker than that of a normal case. I maintain hope that as soon as this sorry situation is resolved the club will purchase/loan/sign a couple of new players to strengthen. If we sign the likes of Kasim on a free as last year we are onto a winner
The main quote to take from this article surrounds "a date was agreed for an expeditious trial at a later hearing". This would lead me to think the courts want to pass judgment through quicker than that of a normal case. I maintain hope that as soon as this sorry situation is resolved the club will purchase/loan/sign a couple of new players to strengthen. If we sign the likes of Kasim on a free as last year we are onto a winner plred87
  • Score: 1

8:40am Wed 25 Jun 14

LeGod says...

Lets all pray Power wins the day as i fear the worst if Jed and his bunch come back in.
As for Hereford he supposedly headed a consortium and is a good friend of Jed yet didnt pay up the creditors so they have been demoted another division and i hope if Jed loses our case i will bet any money he rears his ugy head at Hereford. Jed is getting a reputation now amonsgst clubs and strange how Barnsley,Kidderminst
er and Hereford didnt want him and also his approach to Cheltenham was knocked back as their chairman didnt like his proposals for the club.
Good luck Lee Power for today. Clubs start training soon and have all been signing players Jed has screwed this club over not only when he was here but is doing everything now to destroy us the guy is poison lets hope the judge sees him in the same light.
Lets all pray Power wins the day as i fear the worst if Jed and his bunch come back in. As for Hereford he supposedly headed a consortium and is a good friend of Jed yet didnt pay up the creditors so they have been demoted another division and i hope if Jed loses our case i will bet any money he rears his ugy head at Hereford. Jed is getting a reputation now amonsgst clubs and strange how Barnsley,Kidderminst er and Hereford didnt want him and also his approach to Cheltenham was knocked back as their chairman didnt like his proposals for the club. Good luck Lee Power for today. Clubs start training soon and have all been signing players Jed has screwed this club over not only when he was here but is doing everything now to destroy us the guy is poison lets hope the judge sees him in the same light. LeGod
  • Score: 3

8:52am Wed 25 Jun 14

Dynamic Des says...

the wizard wrote:
Quote,
to begin at 10.30am tomorrow and heard by Mr N Strauss QC.

Well let us just hope that he "conducts" the case well, lol, and in Powers favour.
As long as he leaves the fiddler out we should be ok!
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Quote, to begin at 10.30am tomorrow and heard by Mr N Strauss QC. Well let us just hope that he "conducts" the case well, lol, and in Powers favour.[/p][/quote]As long as he leaves the fiddler out we should be ok! Dynamic Des
  • Score: 0

9:23am Wed 25 Jun 14

mancrobin says...

the wizard wrote:
Quote,
to begin at 10.30am tomorrow and heard by Mr N Strauss QC.

Well let us just hope that he "conducts" the case well, lol, and in Powers favour.
Yes, and as we know from this turgid episode, the last waltz will last for ever!
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Quote, to begin at 10.30am tomorrow and heard by Mr N Strauss QC. Well let us just hope that he "conducts" the case well, lol, and in Powers favour.[/p][/quote]Yes, and as we know from this turgid episode, the last waltz will last for ever! mancrobin
  • Score: 0

9:42am Wed 25 Jun 14

Robinonfire says...

Cowboy V Cowboy.
Cowboy V Cowboy. Robinonfire
  • Score: 1

10:30am Wed 25 Jun 14

Fernham Red says...

First kand most important kick-off of the new season has just taken place
First kand most important kick-off of the new season has just taken place Fernham Red
  • Score: 0

11:04am Wed 25 Jun 14

Fernham Red says...

I get the impression that this court case will all be about accounting principles......yawn
........

In short, if the calculation used is traditional I.e. A share of the nett current worth of the business a going concern the Jed company would be entitled to x% of what the business is now worth (Nett Present Value) according to the x% of total shares he agree contractually to transfer to the Power company. Easy, simples. Where this is a negative number, Jed company would effectively have to pay the corresponding x% to buy himself out of those shares. That's not as stupid as is sounds if a businesses is losing money over time. In some cases people sell them for free (as in Black getting out this time last year) to stop further losses.

Easy part over.

Clearly the above is what Power company would argue. BUT there is a reason for having a court case......I suspect Jed is arguing for more money on a financial principle.

Imagine STFC business last year was valued a minus value of 2 million (I.e. Expenditure in the year is 2 million more than income) and is now valued at zero (season tickets plus income is equal to outgoings on wages etc...) following all the cut backs in staffing, player contracts etc....

Jed company could argue that they have helped create 2million pounds per year. Now if Jed company owned say 70% of those shares they could argue that they are due 1.4million for their part in 'turning around the books' if they transferred all of their shares to Power company.

BUT ....it gets worse.........Jed company could claim that they are partially (70%) responsible for similar savings for various years into the future too........e.g 80% this year, 60% next year, 40% year after etc.......
I get the impression that this court case will all be about accounting principles......yawn ........ In short, if the calculation used is traditional I.e. A share of the nett current worth of the business a going concern the Jed company would be entitled to x% of what the business is now worth (Nett Present Value) according to the x% of total shares he agree contractually to transfer to the Power company. Easy, simples. Where this is a negative number, Jed company would effectively have to pay the corresponding x% to buy himself out of those shares. That's not as stupid as is sounds if a businesses is losing money over time. In some cases people sell them for free (as in Black getting out this time last year) to stop further losses. Easy part over. Clearly the above is what Power company would argue. BUT there is a reason for having a court case......I suspect Jed is arguing for more money on a financial principle. Imagine STFC business last year was valued a minus value of 2 million (I.e. Expenditure in the year is 2 million more than income) and is now valued at zero (season tickets plus income is equal to outgoings on wages etc...) following all the cut backs in staffing, player contracts etc.... Jed company could argue that they have helped create 2million pounds per year. Now if Jed company owned say 70% of those shares they could argue that they are due 1.4million for their part in 'turning around the books' if they transferred all of their shares to Power company. BUT ....it gets worse.........Jed company could claim that they are partially (70%) responsible for similar savings for various years into the future too........e.g 80% this year, 60% next year, 40% year after etc....... Fernham Red
  • Score: 2

11:13am Wed 25 Jun 14

Fernham Red says...

In short, it all depends what was agreed in the legal documents (articles of incorporation) hastily out together between Power and Jed companies around a year ago.........and if it has gone to court.........you would strongly suspect that it is not "cut & dried" either way.

Sorry for the nerd factor on here today but felt it might be worth speculating about what is going on within those 4 walls right now!

Btw the figures and percentages are all make believe and are to demonstrate the point only. I've no idea what the real financial position and ownership %ages really are.

Still, I'm impressed with the Saints and the Addicks in pre-season and hope we can turn our minds towards something we genuinely care about sooner rather than later.
In short, it all depends what was agreed in the legal documents (articles of incorporation) hastily out together between Power and Jed companies around a year ago.........and if it has gone to court.........you would strongly suspect that it is not "cut & dried" either way. Sorry for the nerd factor on here today but felt it might be worth speculating about what is going on within those 4 walls right now! Btw the figures and percentages are all make believe and are to demonstrate the point only. I've no idea what the real financial position and ownership %ages really are. Still, I'm impressed with the Saints and the Addicks in pre-season and hope we can turn our minds towards something we genuinely care about sooner rather than later. Fernham Red
  • Score: 2

12:04pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Swindon1984 says...

Good comments Fernham, still struggling though as in my blinkered mind it must be a case of someone owns the club or they don't, and I would've thought that would be a simple thing to prove one way or the other. Then again I'm not a businessman, the whole thing's way over my head.
Good comments Fernham, still struggling though as in my blinkered mind it must be a case of someone owns the club or they don't, and I would've thought that would be a simple thing to prove one way or the other. Then again I'm not a businessman, the whole thing's way over my head. Swindon1984
  • Score: 1

1:17pm Wed 25 Jun 14

RamsburyRed says...

Fernham Red wrote:
In short, it all depends what was agreed in the legal documents (articles of incorporation) hastily out together between Power and Jed companies around a year ago.........and if it has gone to court.........you would strongly suspect that it is not "cut & dried" either way.

Sorry for the nerd factor on here today but felt it might be worth speculating about what is going on within those 4 walls right now!

Btw the figures and percentages are all make believe and are to demonstrate the point only. I've no idea what the real financial position and ownership %ages really are.

Still, I'm impressed with the Saints and the Addicks in pre-season and hope we can turn our minds towards something we genuinely care about sooner rather than later.
I'm afraid this is all nonsense. There is no 'official' way to put a value on an unlisted or private company. There are many, many different ways of reaching a value and when a sale or purchase is made of shares in an unlisted company, the price is simply whatever is agreed between the parties.
*
There are many possible areas for dispute between the parties here; it all depends on what was agreed when the 'takeover' happened; they may be disputing what was actually taken over; the price; what has been paid; whether any deductions have been made from the payments; whether any more is due, etc etc. Unless you get these takeover or share transfer agreements absolutely nailed down, there is no end of possibilities to debate.
[quote][p][bold]Fernham Red[/bold] wrote: In short, it all depends what was agreed in the legal documents (articles of incorporation) hastily out together between Power and Jed companies around a year ago.........and if it has gone to court.........you would strongly suspect that it is not "cut & dried" either way. Sorry for the nerd factor on here today but felt it might be worth speculating about what is going on within those 4 walls right now! Btw the figures and percentages are all make believe and are to demonstrate the point only. I've no idea what the real financial position and ownership %ages really are. Still, I'm impressed with the Saints and the Addicks in pre-season and hope we can turn our minds towards something we genuinely care about sooner rather than later.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid this is all nonsense. There is no 'official' way to put a value on an unlisted or private company. There are many, many different ways of reaching a value and when a sale or purchase is made of shares in an unlisted company, the price is simply whatever is agreed between the parties. * There are many possible areas for dispute between the parties here; it all depends on what was agreed when the 'takeover' happened; they may be disputing what was actually taken over; the price; what has been paid; whether any deductions have been made from the payments; whether any more is due, etc etc. Unless you get these takeover or share transfer agreements absolutely nailed down, there is no end of possibilities to debate. RamsburyRed
  • Score: -1

1:28pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts.

The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us?
Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts. The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us? Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

1:40pm Wed 25 Jun 14

RamsburyRed says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts.

The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us?
The fact is, Den, nobody knows.
*
We can surmise that the argument is about exactly what was bought/sold, and exactly how much has been paid.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts. The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us?[/p][/quote]The fact is, Den, nobody knows. * We can surmise that the argument is about exactly what was bought/sold, and exactly how much has been paid. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Fernham Red says...

Ramsbury,
Oddly enough, in what you have said we are broadly in agreement - this is precisely about what exactly has been brought, at what point and at what valuation - all of which we quite rightly know nothing about. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it or speculate as to causes and motives, otherwise why are we logged in to this forum.
Please do not cite other posters opinions as nonsense - it really isn't conducive to healthy debate - I was merely presenting a simplistic view of how two different parties can be poles apart on how to come up with a valuation of a company.
Ramsbury, Oddly enough, in what you have said we are broadly in agreement - this is precisely about what exactly has been brought, at what point and at what valuation - all of which we quite rightly know nothing about. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it or speculate as to causes and motives, otherwise why are we logged in to this forum. Please do not cite other posters opinions as nonsense - it really isn't conducive to healthy debate - I was merely presenting a simplistic view of how two different parties can be poles apart on how to come up with a valuation of a company. Fernham Red
  • Score: 1

2:22pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

RamsburyRed wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts.

The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us?
The fact is, Den, nobody knows.
*
We can surmise that the argument is about exactly what was bought/sold, and exactly how much has been paid.
RR, I think LR said he had spoken to people who were in court for the first hearing, so he was told exactly what the argument is.
[quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts. The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us?[/p][/quote]The fact is, Den, nobody knows. * We can surmise that the argument is about exactly what was bought/sold, and exactly how much has been paid.[/p][/quote]RR, I think LR said he had spoken to people who were in court for the first hearing, so he was told exactly what the argument is. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

8:53pm Wed 25 Jun 14

RamsburyRed says...

Oi Den! wrote:
RamsburyRed wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts.

The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us?
The fact is, Den, nobody knows.
*
We can surmise that the argument is about exactly what was bought/sold, and exactly how much has been paid.
RR, I think LR said he had spoken to people who were in court for the first hearing, so he was told exactly what the argument is.
The arguments in full did not come out at that hearing.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Given McCrory has put nothing into the club, isn't this likely to be all about the nature of Power's investment, i.e. whether he has shares in the company or has made loans to it? McCrory has a knack of disregarding the spirit of agreements and finding loopholes he can exploit for his own benefit. Here's hoping the court decides that the clear intention of the parties should override the dotting of Is and crossing of Ts. The above is all speculation on my part. I think LR had some good info on what the case is all about. LR, can you remind us?[/p][/quote]The fact is, Den, nobody knows. * We can surmise that the argument is about exactly what was bought/sold, and exactly how much has been paid.[/p][/quote]RR, I think LR said he had spoken to people who were in court for the first hearing, so he was told exactly what the argument is.[/p][/quote]The arguments in full did not come out at that hearing. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree