Chris Webb wrote: Notes from Supporters meeting with Administrator.
CW raised the issue of duel ownership and KH. PR replied stating that KH would be the landlord but would have no impact on the Football Club going forward for the following reasons
1. All monies from Kevin Heaney / the preferred bidder would be handed to the Club on day 1 of the sale thus in PRs view ending their involvement.
2. Despite being the prospective landlord of Argyle the terms of the lease would be agreed up front and not up for any future influence from KH. PR is looking for a minimum lease period of 25 years. The rent would only change based on what league we are in. I.e. set rates for League 2, League 1 and the Championship. It was also confirmed that the rental rates agreed for League 1 and 2 were lower than the previous mortgage payments to Lombard and even the previous rental payments to the City Council when the Ground was owned by them
Sorry to labour this point but the football league rules say an "interest" in another club its not about dual ownership. You can have an interest as defined by the rules below without being the owner of that club.
These are the relevant sections from the football league rules on Associations and Dual Interest.
86 Interests in More Than One Football Club
86.1 Except with the prior written consent of the Board a person, or any associate of that person, who is interested in a Club cannot at the same time be interested in any other football club.
86.2 A person shall be deemed to be interested in a football club if he, whether directly or indirectly:
86.2.1 holds or deals in (or has made any application to hold or deal in or underwrite any issue of) the securities or shares of that football club: or
86.2.2 is a member of that football club; or
86.2.3 is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of that football club; or
86.2.4 has any power whatsoever to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of that football club; or In my opinion this rule has been broken already as the non payment of the outstanding 700k so far had has a profound direct influence on the financial, commercial and business affairs of the club.
86.2.5 has lent or gifted money to or guaranteed the debts or obligations of that football club, otherwise than in the ordinary course of banking.
They have obviously got round this one somehow but it seems to me that the PBs are guaranteeing our debts and obligations by handing over the money on Day 1.
This is not about dual ownership it's about 'interest' in another club and I can't see how this can possibly get past the above rules.