Grendel
Well-Known Member
He’s another Haskell - loves the publicity and the “look at me”
Its clarified in the interview. Gilbert aays “people will say you should have nodded earlier and there’s an exclusivity clause” and Dawkins goes “urm yeah I suppose, but anyway I just want a transparent bidding process”
Ta I only listened to the link
There was a bidding process, NEC and Ashley bid, Sisu and Dawkins didn’t. Unless someone can prove otherwise but despite being given the chance to they’re not claiming that. Everyone knew ACL was due for admin for two weeks leading up to Ashley being announced preferred bidder, it wasn’t a secret.
He says several other bidders??
Process is transparent in that it is following standard procedures. I'm surprised he claims to know the details of Ashley's bid as I thought negotiations would be covered by an NDA during the exclusivity period.Its clarified in the interview. Gilbert aays “people will say you should have nodded earlier and there’s an exclusivity clause” and Dawkins goes “urm yeah I suppose, but anyway I just want a transparent bidding process”
The whole idea of the exclusivity period just feels wrong though to me, that’s what I’m saying. Surely there should be some sort of hearing where the highest bidder gets it. That means creditors have more chance of getting more of their money back
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Process is transparent in that it is following standard procedures. I'm surprised he claims to know the details of Ashley's bid as I thought negotiations would be covered by an NDA during the exclusivity period.
Reeves did say he hadn't signed one...Process is transparent in that it is following standard procedures. I'm surprised he claims to know the details of Ashley's bid as I thought negotiations would be covered by an NDA during the exclusivity period.
Getting the creditors the most money may well not be the best option for the business going forward. Sometimes need to avoid asset stripping from potential new owners.The whole idea of the exclusivity period just feels wrong though to me, that’s what I’m saying. Surely there should be some sort of hearing where the highest bidder gets it. That means creditors have more chance of getting more of their money back. Sounds very basic and I have next to no knowledge of the system. Just doesn’t feel right
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reeves isn't negotiating with Ashley is he?Reeves did say he hadn't signed one...
How does he know the regeneration promises Ashley is making?Reeves isn't negotiating with Ashley is he?
He absolutely has...How does he know the regeneration promises Ashley is making?
Again is very naive to think he has no idea about it.
He absolutely has...
The Council as the freeholders were, dealing with the NEC bid, and are dealing with Ashley.
They, as freeholders have to authorise any transfer of the lease from ACL.. .
clearly the council’s fault and no mine
We'll probably only find out if Ashley's bid collapsesI do think Dawkins has genuine interest and backing in my opinion but I don’t think we’ll get chance to find out.
who are his backers exactly?
who are his backers exactly?
who are his backers exactly?
Tom Grennan and the spotty one from The Enemy.who are his backers exactly?
I can't remember but was reeves asked directly when interviewed how many bids were lodged etc?
If there were multiple, how does it work with exclusively? Can somebody offer less but with exclusive payments than somebody offering more but with out them?I don’t think so no.
That’s what we need to know: who put a bid forwards before Ashley got exclusivity.
Didn't he mention they had had up to 10 bids? (or interested parties?)I don’t think so no.
That’s what we need to know: who put a bid forwards before Ashley got exclusivity.
If there were multiple, how does it work with exclusively? Can somebody offer less but with exclusive payments than somebody offering more but with out them?
That would have been a good question.
Didn't he mention they had had up to 10 bids? (or interested parties?)
If there were multiple, how does it work with exclusively? Can somebody offer less but with exclusive payments than somebody offering more but with out them?
That would have been a good question.
Should the "club" (or if it paid, Sisu) be pissed off as at one stage, they were paying sums of money to get games on (and keep ACL going!?).Exclusivity is perfectly rational
It means they cover costs and so mean it’s a serious purchase. In theory they can offer less but again every party would know that
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?