Maybe he left Hull in the first place because they didn't like his membership scheme and he joined us because we were the only club who would let him do it



For the record i think Elston does a good job and from what i have heard is one of the good guys.

WHY are we having to pay rent on something we have yet to receive the full agreed selling price for ? Had we received the full price we would not be where we are surely

As far as I know he is going nowhere and I for one hope he stays with us he is as asset to the club

Really? In what ways?

Maybe Ted with his Wakey Trin hat on will try to see if Tillion Partnerships (Ted) has any assets and sue for them. You really could not make this up. Watch out it will be a storyline on Corrie soon, but with a lesbian love interest

As an aside, i'd tickle the fancies of all three female websters

I think I'm keeping up with all this......but one question

has Ted actually benefitted from this deal?
I am no fan but I can't decide whether he is a fraud or just stupid.

That's the £2,800,000 Question!

Is it implausible he took the loan out to see Trin through a period which may otherwise have left us unable to meet our outgoings to such an extent that we would of been screwed anyway? But if so why didn't we receive all the money? so many questions so few answers

Depends what way this works, if it is directly from the reciever you may be better off than if the debt was passed to the state agency known as NAMA(National assets management agency) If this happens you could be up poop creek as they are well known over here in Ireland for their ruthless way of trying to claw back every penny to a broken state and an economy ruined by over-lending and shady deals. I cant remember if the BOI has had its debts transferred to NAMA.

Either way i hope it does not end in tragedy for the WT supporters and you successfully manage to stay alive.

I dont know but from what has been reported....
He took a £2million loan out.

He initially took out £725k that was paid to wakey to repay himself and another director back on director loans.

The other money £1.25 million from the loan we don't know how much wakey got from this. So potentially he had this too?

Then the other 800k that we were supposed to be paid he may have used this also.

Dependant on wakefield recieved, ateotd we havent recieved all £2.8mill so he's benefited somewhat.

Presumably, as we are not legally the owner (land Registry) we have little choice, it is up to us to make sure we recover all monies owed buy the purchaser (not gonna happen), however we have entered into a lease agreement so must pay the agreed lease (not gonna happen after we go into admin).
Baring in mind if we go into admin we will not be paying our dues, it is a bit rich that we cry when our dues are not paid to us.
Common denominator? Ted Richardson!!!!

Not laying blame nor excusing events, but we believe that the LE report may have some details wrong.

Our understanding is that £1.7m was paid the club, and that rather than any personal account being settled, by the money coming into the club it allowed personal guarantees to be relinquished.

There is no record on the account (to our knowledge) of anyone having loaned £700k to the club - but there was a massive overdraft to be covered and without the income individual guarantees would be at risk.

And again in English please?

We believe

I'm saying that we don't believe that any of that money was paid directly to any individual - but by paying off the bank the bank would release the personal guarantees which would put that person at risk!

There's nothing wrong with the English!

So what you are saying is that no money went straight to individuals (Ted) but money did go to banks to pay off the debts of individuals so the club hasn't seen any money?

Sorry - I should have said plain English.

Who is 'we' by the way and how are you arriving at these beliefs?

No!

Anyone can borrow money - a club / a business / an individual - which can be guaranteed by another club / business / individual. I could go and borrow £100k - and I could get you to guarantee it, i.e. if I don't pay it back you will. That puts you at risk - without having paid out a penny.

It is common business practice for businesses to raise funds this way - hence the large defecits at some other clubs - but it can only function whilst the the third party can afford to take the risk. As our third party is in an IVA, he cannot offer the risk as there are no assets to support it.

HTH

We is the Trust.

We ask a lot of questions!

He's saying that, despite the LE report, there's no record that they are aware of which indicates directors' loans of £700k being made. Or paid back.

However, WTRLFC did have a bank overdraft of around that, which was personally guaranteed, by Ted Richardson and the other director (ie, they'd be liable to pay it if the club defaulted). The money from Belle Vue's sale (to whoever) meant that guarantee was no longer needed.

(Presumably the overdraft was paid off. However - if, for example, those giving the personal guarantees had had to put their hands in their pocket to actually pay off the overdraft, then they could have received their money back via the payment for BV without it necessarily being a directors' loan to the club. I'm not saying that did happen - I've no evidence it did. But equally, I can't see that it would be that bad a thing if it did happen, tbh)

True, except that this went on 3 years ago, and he wasn't in an IVA then.

It was no secret at the time that he wanted out of the club. Removing his obligation to the club in this way would have been one step towards that. If Thornes Park had been given the go-ahead, the club would have had a new ground (and, you'd have to assume, more revenue streams, far greater income, etc.), Ted could have developed BV and paid off the loan against the ground to the BoI (plus a few "extras" for the club, and no doubt himself too), the club could have had a new owner, and Cap'n Richardson could have raised the anchor and set sail.

That also seems a plausible version of events to me. It's not transparent, it's somewhat underhand, but it's a little less sinister than some of the other theories doing the rounds. It could, of course, be wrong.

All quite possible. But none of it has worked out that way.

Nice bit of research and that lot over in Ireland may do a good job. However this is a UK matter and they have no authority whatsoever over here. So Ted can stick two fingers up at them and tell them to eff off if he wants they can't do anything at all. Infact this whole affair has nothing whatsoever to do with them.