quote:

Trembling would not comment when asked if his takeover had invalidated the £5m "guarantee" issued by the finance company First London to Blenheim 1862. That document, which guaranteed funds for Qadbak's takeover, had persuaded the Notts County supporters' trust to hand over its shares in the club for £1 in June.

Trembling's takeover has further clouded the situation but when asked if he will attempt to enforce the terms of the £5m guarantee, Trembling also declined to comment.

quote:

Things are unravelling fast. Well we (the Trust members) had the chance to vote them out before the takeover and we didn't, I suspect mainly on the basis of unity and continuity.

quote:

Originally posted by waittwatcher:
BAP
If you reread Simon's post, he is saying that Al-Thani had nothing to do with Qadbak.

Glenn,
I am still waiting for the answer to an earlier post made 6 or so months ago:
"Please clarify that the irrevocable bank guarantee is a Confirmed one to be issued / or has been issued by a first class bank and is not conditional"

The Guardian has since reported:
"Finally, it is unclear what company gave this guarantee. The letter to Blenheim is given by First London Securities plc but that name was changed to First London plc in July 2008. First London plc was in turn taken over by First London Group on 16th May 2009. First London Securities Limited is a 100% owned subsidiary of First London but the letter is signed on behalf of First London Securities plc which appears to no longer exist.

First London's lawyers have said that the guarantee was actually made by a Bahrain-domiciled subsidiary of First London. As at 31 March, the only Bahrain domiciled subsidiary of First London was shown as dormant, though this situation may have changed between 31 March and the date of the guarantee. The letter that Blenheim 1862 received was sent on First London notepaper that showed their St James' Square address in London. First London declined to identify the subsidiary that made the guarantee. A spokesperson for First London said: "The First London subsidiary in question is holding 200% cover for any call on the guarantee and that First London itself has liquid assets far in excess of any putative call."

What legal advice was provided to the Trust and by whom that the bank guarantee was acceptable and would easily be enforceable?

quote:

It would appear that the Trust were very quick off the mark to collect 2009/10 subscriptions from its Membership all beit the Members paying by Standing Orders etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Marshall:

quote:

It would appear that the Trust were very quick off the mark to collect 2009/10 subscriptions from its Membership all beit the Members paying by Standing Orders etc.

A standing order is where you tell your bank to make a payment on a certain date, the Trust do not collect the standing orders. What is scandalous is that SO payers (and life members) have forked out, but have the same rights as those who have not paid.