Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[+Northern_jaggie]

So no official ICT interest in the BF now then

[+DoofersDad]

Far from it.  Morrison said that the change of ownership was to protect the Battery Company from potential administration of the Club.  He said that in the event of a successful appeal and subsequent sale to a company to develop and operate the BESS, the club would then invoice the Battery Company for the proceeds (presumably less the sum paid by Morrison, Munro and Cameron to buy the company).  If the appeal is successful, the BESS should still provide a major one off capital boost for the club in due course.  Hopefully lessons will be learnt and whoever is running the club will not spend the money before it is received - or not, as the case may be.

[+snorbens_caleyman]

22 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Far from it.  Morrison said that the change of ownership was to protect the Battery Company from potential administration of the Club.  He said that in the event of a successful appeal and subsequent sale to a company to develop and operate the BESS, the club would then invoice the Battery Company for the proceeds (presumably less the sum paid by Morrison, Munro and Cameron to buy the company).

And the Club has a watertight legally-binding agreement with them which will enforce this? 

Not getting at you personally, of course.   It's just that right now sceptism is the only response that I can muster to anything that the club does or says.

[wilsywilsy]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

Far from it.  Morrison said that the change of ownership was to protect the Battery Company from potential administration of the Club. 

That strikes me as a pretty foolish thing to say. It effectively concedes that the board were trying to stitch up creditors, or favour certain creditors, should the very real threat of administration materialise. Fairly sure insolvency law and administrators would take a dim view of that.
 

Then again, the club leaders have a history of shafting creditors and being foolish.

[+Fraz]

8 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

And the Club has a watertight legally-binding agreement with them which will enforce this? 

Not getting at you personally, of course.   It's just that right now sceptism is the only response that I can muster to anything that the club does or says.

The only watertight contracts that the club seem to be capable of making are those that tie incompetent failures to us for years no matter how pathetic their performance is. 

Edited August 10 by Fraz