stewarty 1,909 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Strange that, my information has done and does coincide with that of Canadianbacon, neither Murray nor any of his companies, subsidiaries included have defaulted on any covenants. So you believe someone from the world web web above a set of audited accounts? Jog on... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,408 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Strange that, my information has done and does coincide with that of Canadianbacon, neither Murray nor any of his companies, subsidiaries included have defaulted on any covenants. If you want to discuss canadianbacon's comment and my reply then do it on the RM thread. If you wish to point out what part of my previous post on this thread is incorrect then feel free. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,408 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 BD can you repeat them for us please Here you go. The person/consortium behind the takeover have entered into a confidentiality clause while in talks about buying the club thats why they havent yet came out in public ,only when all is done and dusted they will be allowed to speak on this matter! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 So you believe someone from the world web web above a set of audited accounts? Jog on... You will find the audited accounts make no reference to failure to meet covenants, of course feel free to point out where it does. Jog on indeed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Bluedell, what is your evidence for MIH having defaulted on their loan repayments? It's a very strong statement to make. If MIH had been unable to meet their loan repayments then they were insolvent (definition: unable to pay debts as and when they fall due). Keevins had to make a humiliating apology yesterday for saying something similar. Now I'm not expecting a humiliating apology from you. I just don't believe there is evidence to back up your statement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Apparently it is alleged to be detailed in the last set of their audited, published acccounts, according to a previous post on this thread. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,408 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Apparently it is alleged to be detailed in the last set of their audited, published acccounts, according to a previous post on this thread. That's not what I said. The loan repayments were detailed in the last set of accounts. I'm suggesting that MIH were unable to meet the repayments detailed there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,408 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Bluedell, what is your evidence for MIH having defaulted on their loan repayments? It's a very strong statement to make. If MIH had been unable to meet their loan repayments then they were insolvent (definition: unable to pay debts as and when they fall due). Keevins had to make a humiliating apology yesterday for saying something similar. Now I'm not expecting a humiliating apology from you. I just don't believe there is evidence to back up your statement. I was not detailed enough in my post number 44 (which may have given the wrong impression and for that I apologise ) and clarified my stance in post 58. I should also add that post 58 is my assessment of the situation, and I do not have proof, but once the accounts are issued in the future we shall see whether MIH did in fact make loan repayments of �£405,935,000 in the 12 months to 31 January 2010, or whether I was correct. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 That's not what I said. The loan repayments were detailed in the last set of accounts. I'm suggesting that MIH were unable to meet the repayments detailed there. This is what you said, and very clearly........... Originally Posted by wabashcannonball View Post Do you still maintain that MIH have defaulted. ---------------------- Bluedell said........."MIH have been unable to meet their loan repayments as detailed in the last set of their audited, published acccounts. " 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,408 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 It's perfectly clear to me what I said, and I have clarified it further. However I will have another go. MIH's loan repayments were detailed in the last set of accounts. They were unable to meet the loan repayments detailed as being due in the year to 31 January 2010. You should note that I never used the word "defaulted". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.