24 May 2019 15:30:11
So Fakwad gets 4.2 million pound from the club. I know he invested a fair bit of money but nothing like finishing the business you made a mockery of with dignity eh! Wat a first class tw#t, any respect he had left, well just about sums up the mess he left the club in really.
24 May 2019 15:56:25
Just shows how bad a business man he is as he couldn’t even get the right deal for himself when selling our club, think we should pay him it in instalments say £50 a month lol
24 May 2019 15:58:06
If you was owed 4.2 mill would you just say “I don’t want it you keep it†too be fair with how some fans treated him I don’t blame him for taking it,I’m not saying he was the best or was good at what he was doing but the money put in was his and it was owed
24 May 2019 16:09:49
We are well rid of the man.
24 May 2019 16:24:08
There are two ways of looking at it, Fawaz was owed the money and managed to get it.
Fawaz hid how bad the financial affairs were and our present owner only found out once he had signed for the purchase of the club.
Which ever it is Fawaz always said he only wanted what was best for the club yet he is only making matters worse for it.
Im not saying £4.2m is small change for Fawaz but i'm certain he is rich enough to accept he he ran the club badly and take it as a loss.
The club is still feeling the effects of his ownership, why should he not still feel what was a bad deal for everyone.
24 May 2019 17:26:26
Shame on those who drove such a nice bloke out of the club ,those protests were so cruel ,by the way where did the Burke cash go?
CARLO
24 May 2019 18:31:56
Carlo that's a daft comment the burke money got us out of ffp.
Too much nonsense is talked about putting money straight in his pocket.
It shows up on accounts and is fraud,in this case he was owed it and the owners should have paid up instead of dragging the clubs name through the courts.
Obviously Mr Randall isn't the best QC.
24 May 2019 20:13:10
The Greeks solicitors will get a bollocking. From the ruling it looks like the contract favoured Fawaz. Fawaz has obviously cooked the books to make it look like there are less liabilities. Even so Fawaz's solicitors did a better job in putting all the risk on the big man.
I doubt Randall had anything to do with this.
24 May 2019 21:16:49
Redtree you don't get a rollicking in Greece,you just meet misfortune.
So the chairman a QC had nothing to do with it?
So whys he a QC?
Sorry mate I've been to court and the judge only makes a decision on the facts that are presented,no hear say or broken promises or hand shakes,just facts
24 May 2019 22:15:08
I can honestly say I never received a penny of fawazs money! 💰💰💰
24 May 2019 22:33:18
Would 4.5 M buy the Maggies ?
CARLO
24 May 2019 22:34:52
Lol, not even a "fridge" magnet?🤣🤣🤣
24 May 2019 22:37:16
Marlon king ,driving instructor 🤔🤔
24 May 2019 22:52:05
Arran if he's a bad businessman?
Then I'd be happy to be two camels and two pence behind him?🤔
When you buy a football club business as its known goes out the window.
Profit is an alien word
Think about it?
24 May 2019 22:53:52
Randall is a barrister he won’t handle the writing of contracts. M&A solicitors will write and negotiate the contracts for the club. I know abit about law it’s my area of expertise. The mistakes weren’t made in court it’s on the original contract.
25 May 2019 07:03:34
Seems a lot are just making assumptions and to be fair what they are saying is slanderous.your basically calling Fawaz out as a fraudster.good job he doesn’t read these forums or his top solicitors could be on your case.wverything would of been there for the solicitors to do the digging and if they couldn’t find anything then they have failed unless there wasn’t anything to find.
25 May 2019 08:28:48
Why would it have been a" mistake " a contract is a contract and is read and signed then becomes binding by law and it's not my my expertise.
25 May 2019 09:47:58
Sutton, I will make another assumption, any person that is really successful in business have something to hide, be it morally, or financially, maybe both.
25 May 2019 10:12:17
Sutton it’s not slanderous. These were the arguments put forward in court.
79 Of course it’s a mistake that’s why it’s gone to court. The ambiguity in the contract is the central issue. If there was no mistake this wouldn’t be dragged through the courts.
25 May 2019 12:08:53
Doesn't make it a mistake,fawaz had it written in he would be paid and the owners agreed,the reason they didn't pay was they said the club was in worst financial position than they were led to believe,so did not pay fawaz.
No mistake in the contract
25 May 2019 13:08:38
You’re half right. Without getting too technical Fawaz had given assurances that the liabilities were not above 6.6 million. The actual amount is around 10. Usually this would be enough for an action but Fawaz’s lawyers put in another clause which lessens their risk. That’s the mistake big Greek boys solicitors made. Once again if the contract was clear this wouldn’t go to court. Therefore a mistake in the contract.
25 May 2019 22:41:50
Sorry but there no mistake, its a written agreement which both sides signed for.
Its black and white in ink and the judge has precided over it.
It's only a mistake from your point of view, not a mistake in law.
26 May 2019 06:35:03
Fff79 I should of put bad football business man
26 May 2019 09:06:34
79 I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. When did i say it was a mistake in law? You’re just making things up now. I should have gave up when you didn’t understand what a QC is. Agree to disagree.
26 May 2019 10:27:39
The point is redtree there isn't an actual written mistake in the contract,if any mistake has been made it's by those that read it and signed it.
26 May 2019 11:58:32
You don’t know what you’re on about pal.
26 May 2019 13:11:31
When did I say it was a mistake in law? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Until 5 minutes ago you thought Randall was writing and negotiating the share purchase agreement for the Greek. Simply because he has QC next to his name. Best to agree to disagree.
26 May 2019 13:38:08
You said there's a mistake in the contract,I'm saying there is no mistake in the contract,its a dispute between two parties who signed a sale deal and one party then failed to pay what was agreed.
Simple.
Being QC Mr randall would have studied law and would be capable of giving advice,I actually never said he wrote the contract,take another look.
It also depends if he's just a barrister or higher and a barrister is higher than a solicitor,is he not? And a barrister is a legal adviser on law.