(Politely-worded) email sent.
Mark_Smith wrote: Like so much that is wrong with the world today, this is morally wrong but legally hard to counter.
PandA is a creditor and is owed lots of money. Unfortunately for us they have the club over a barrel, money owed is money owed, and they are in a position to ensure their own fees are paid above any other moral considerations.
The fact that such a large sum has been racked up pursuing subjectively the "wrong" bidder is again morally highly relevant but technically difficult to prove.
Our indignation concerns something we cannot prove - that they backed the wrong horse in Heaney and let it drag on. I am sure they would be able to pull from their hat sufficient evidence to show they were continuing to pursue the best deal for the creditors.
I am only surprised it has taken this long for it to become an issue. We all knew that as the months have gone by the PandA meter has always been ticking. It is also a smart move on their part to wait until the end game before applying the squeeze.
I am not an apologist for PandA, if what is reported is correct then the whole thing stinks.
If they are really clever they will know at which point they need to cut and run, as any final sale and purchase agreement won't be the last they hear of PAFC. Hopefully we are only seeing the opening gambits: they know they are pushing their luck and Brent would be naive in the extreme if he really thought PandA was working on some kind of no-win no-fee arrangement.
In a meeting are they? Remember that the administrator can wind us up today if they think no deal can be struck to pay the creditors... which now includes them.
That would help jam their servers...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests