[LiamTheBaggie]

He's done what he said he was going to do in terms of investment and the club still remains under the same model as we did under Jeremy Peace - in that sense there have been no changes.

The difference being is that for a period of time - Peace (often incapable of making the right decision) surrounded himself with people who could make those decisions for him.

Lai has been the total opposite - every big decision this football club has had to make has been the wrong one -

for example (some hindsight is being used):

John Williams, the summer of 2018, sacking Pulis mid-season, appointing Pardew, not sacking Pardew quick enough, appointing Dowling, sacking Moore, appointing Shan, summer of 2020, sacking Bilic, appointing Allardyce

There are probably others I have missed, but those are a lot of fundamental calls to get wrong in nearly 3 years.

[BaggieNick]

He's done what he said he was going to do in terms of investment and the club still remains under the same model as we did under Jeremy Peace - in that sense there have been no changes.

The difference being is that for a period of time - Peace (often incapable of making the right decision) surrounded himself with people who could make those decisions for him.

Lai has been the total opposite - every big decision this football club has had to make has been the wrong one -

for example (some hindsight is being used):

John Williams, the summer of 2018, sacking Pulis mid-season, appointing Pardew, not sacking Pardew quick enough, appointing Dowling, sacking Moore, appointing Shan, summer of 2020, sacking Bilic, appointing Allardyce

There are probably others I have missed, but those are a lot of fundamental calls to get wrong in nearly 3 years.

Yes he is useless in both ownership and recruitment.

But until he sells we're stuck with him.

[Albionic]

He has failed to get a decent stable team around his asset
He has failed to lead in any way
He has failed at communication to his customer base

He has lost the club half it's value
He has failed to create the media interest he allegedly craves

On the plus side

[tex]

With that record he could run a uk national utility

[hardtobeat]

Or track and trace !

[BigFrank20]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/39ef41a0-e987-11eb-baaa-861dba20d87a?shareToken=0709da3b2bd617463b1ebbc80e31506b

West Bromwich Albion’s independent shareholders will next week make formal demands for an independent investigation into a £3.7 million loan made to the former owner Jeremy Peace’s company.
Dozens of shareholders are expected to attend the meeting and present their demands to the chief executive, Xu Ke.
The loan was made by the club to WBA Holdings in September 2014 and was never repaid, nor was any of the agreed interest, which has now reached more than £1 million. Peace sold WBA Holdings to the Chinese businessman Guochuan Lai in 2016 and the liability for the debt passed to him.
Peace sold his 88 per cent stake in Albion for £175 million. He strongly denies the loan was to increase his shareholding and insists that he did not participate in the decision to make it.
He said in a statement: “Certain independent shareholders have been grumbling for years since I sold shares in 2016, when they know that they have no basis for complaint. I want to make it clear that money was not borrowed from the football club to buy shares.
“There was nothing untoward or improper in respect of any of my dealings with West Bromwich Albion. I welcome an investigation to put an end, once and for all, to the baseless comments of a small group of shareholders.
“The loan made to West Bromwich Albion Holdings by the football club was on arm’s length and commercially attractive terms at a time when cash deposits elsewhere were (and still are) earning a much lower rate of interest.”
There are about 400 independent shareholders and they will meet with the chief executive on July 29.
The shareholders will vote on two resolutions put forward by the group Shareholders 4 Albion (S4A). The first is that the club commissions an independent investigation into all circumstances surrounding the loan “with a view to establishing whether or not each director complied fully with their respective fiduciary obligations”. The second resolution is that the club takes “all lawful and expedient steps to obtain repayment in full with interest” of the loan.
Although a large turnout of the shareholders is expected, that Chinese owners control 88 per cent of the shares means that they will be able to block the resolutions being passed.
A WBA spokesman said: “The meeting is to discuss and vote on two resolutions put forward by S4A regarding the loan. The chief executive, Xu Ke, will attend the meeting at The Hawthorns.”
The loan was signed off in 2014 by the chief executive of the club at the time, Mark Jenkins, and Richard Garlick, then the director of football administration. Jenkins was unavailable to comment and Garlick declined to respond.
Last month The Times reported that a senior executive at West Brom had attempted to negotiate a £25 million transfer that would have broken Fifa regulations and avoided tax in China and possibly the UK. Luke Dowling, who left the club last month, has categorically denied any wrongdoing. Lai denies any involvement.

[Albionic]

someone at the Times smells a big pile of excrement and is going to keep poking around IMO.

Good on the S4A group if there are dodgy dealings in the past, I have no problem with them being exposed, as long as it is those who did the dealings and not the club that get hurt.

[skyclad99]

someone at the Times smells a big pile of excrement and is going to keep poking around IMO.

Good on the S4A group if there are dodgy dealings in the past, I have no problem with them being exposed, as long as it is those who did the dealings and not the club that get hurt.

It just stinks doesn't it......

[baggiejohn]

someone at the Times smells a big pile of excrement and is going to keep poking around IMO.

Good on the S4A group if there are dodgy dealings in the past, I have no problem with them being exposed, as long as it is those who did the dealings and not the club that get hurt.

For me S4A can do what they want, so long as they pay the costs involved.

It's going to be a very costly exercise if all that's revealed is a few T's weren't crossed.

There might be a moral issue here, but Peace was pretty street wise when it came to litigation, so I doubt if there's any legal issues.

[skyclad99]

For me S4A can do what they want, so long as they pay the costs involved.

It's going to be a very costly exercise if all that's revealed is a few T's weren't crossed.

There might be a moral issue here, but Peace was pretty street wise when it came to litigation, so I doubt if there's any legal issues.

Its quite simple to me, someone borrowed the money [for whatever reason], and someone needs to pay it back with interest.

I hope S4A get a result and rattle a few cages, for me they should be supported. There have been plenty of posts on here moaning about the unpaid loan, S4A are doing something about it hopefully.

[baggiejohn]

Its quite simple to me, someone borrowed the money [for whatever reason], and someone needs to pay it back with interest.

I hope S4A get a result and rattle a few cages, for me they should be supported. There have been plenty of posts on here moaning about the unpaid loan, S4A are doing something about it hopefully.

As far as I know, there is no intention for it not to be paid back.

There's a statement on the accounts saying it can be called in by the club at any time
It's earning interest at 5% above BoE base rate at the moment. (It's difficult to get 1% on safe investments at present).
Over 6 years, it's increased in value by 25%: personally, I'd leave it where its is.

[skyclad99]

As far as I know, there is no intention for it not to be paid back.

There's a statement on the accounts saying it can be called in by the club at any time
It's earning interest at 5% above BoE base rate at the moment. (It's difficult to get 1% on safe investments at present).
Over 6 years, it's increased in value by 25%: personally, I'd leave it where its is.

I understand that, but given our current financial predicament I would have thought that £3.7m + interest would come in quite useful in the players market.

[Standaman]

I honestly don't know what S4A hope to achieve here.

The club has about £20m to £30m in owners debt on the books that is not bearing interest. The club is owed £5m which is accruing interest. So the club owes the ownership somewhere between £15m and £25m net and the balance does not attract interest. I have never seen anybody "Dunning" themselves it is first but of course the club isn't it is a minority of shareholders.

So the repayment of the loan is not beneficial to the club not when the balance of debt is heavily weighted in favour of the club.

If S4A have a complaint it is with Peace and whether or not he acted properly in respect of the loan and whether it was used to purchase shares and in doing so did Peace abuse his position as majority shareholder and Company Director? The outcome makes no material difference to the club.

[skyclad99]

I honestly don't know what S4A hope to achieve here.

The club has about £20m to £30m in owners debt on the books that is not bearing interest. The club is owed £5m which is accruing interest. So the club owes the ownership somewhere between £15m and £25m net and the balance does not attract interest. I have never seen anybody "Dunning" themselves it is first but of course the club isn't it is a minority of shareholders.

So the repayment of the loan is not beneficial to the club not when the balance of debt is heavily weighted in favour of the club.

If S4A have a complaint it is with Peace and whether or not he acted properly in respect of the loan and whether it was used to purchase shares and in doing so did Peace abuse his position as majority shareholder and Company Director? The outcome makes no material difference to the club.

S4A have a serious issue with Peace for obvious reasons. I think that they are trying to examine the provenance and legality of his dealings on the whole, and whilst I understand what you are saying it would be nice to have the loan paid back and put to bed.

[Albionic]

I honestly don't know what S4A hope to achieve here.

The club has about £20m to £30m in owners debt on the books that is not bearing interest. The club is owed £5m which is accruing interest. So the club owes the ownership somewhere between £15m and £25m net and the balance does not attract interest. I have never seen anybody "Dunning" themselves it is first but of course the club isn't it is a minority of shareholders.

So the repayment of the loan is not beneficial to the club not when the balance of debt is heavily weighted in favour of the club.

If S4A have a complaint it is with Peace and whether or not he acted properly in respect of the loan and whether it was used to purchase shares and in doing so did Peace abuse his position as majority shareholder and Company Director? The outcome makes no material difference to the club.

So, S4A are going after Peace for using WBAFC as a vehicle for "dodgy" dealing, and the club might get some collateral image damage at worst?  Correct?

[NJS]

I don't see what they can achieve here except to annoy the Chinese who didn't set up the deal in the first place.  As said above we have loaned money at a very favourable rate and received an interest free loan.  This investigation would demand consultant-heavy money.  Who forks out for that?
From past history, I should imagine that Peace is watertight. It's a matter of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[skyclad99]

Can someone help me out here in case I have got this wrong.

Peace borrowed circa £3.5m from the club [at favourable terms], and it is strongly suspected that he used the money to buy up the shares to achieve his majority shareholder position

Peace then sold the club to Mr Lai

Is there an assumption here that Peace passed the debt on to Mr Lai?

What am I missing here?

[johnny Cash]

I don’t know what they want to achieve either. I’ve looked in to the numbers of S4A before. Don’t quote me but  I think there is something like 417 members, most of whom have a single share. About 90% of the Shares in the group are held by less than 20 of the members.

So as far as I’m concerned it’s driven by a very small minority who were sat on paper millions when peace solid his shares but are angry they were never weighed in.  However there’s no need for anyone to ever make them liquid, nobody needs their 12% from them. 

Id be pretty inebriated and bitter too. Some members are are sat on millions but also sat on sweet fa. Even a single share would be nice retirement pot if anyone found a buyer for it.

It’s like they hope to annoy Lai in to buying the remainder but I can’t see it happening.. I’ve not seen S4A  try to involved in general issues  for the ‘good of the club’, if they did maybe I’d have more sympathy for them. As it happens it seems it’s just about an investment for them so I don’t.

[skyclad99]

I don’t know what they want to achieve either. I’ve looked in to the numbers of S4A before. Don’t quote me but  I think there is something like 417 members, most of whom have a single share. About 90% of the Shares in the group are held by less than 20 of the members.

So as far as I’m concerned it’s driven by a very small minority who were sat on paper millions when peace solid his shares but are angry they were never weighed in.  However there’s no need for anyone to ever make them liquid, nobody needs their 12% from them. 

Id be pretty inebriated and bitter too. Some members are are sat on millions but also sat on sweet fa. Even a single share would be nice retirement pot if anyone found a buyer for it.

It’s like they hope to annoy Lai in to buying the remainder but I can’t see it happening.. I’ve not seen S4A  try to involved in general issues  for the ‘good of the club’, if they did maybe I’d have more sympathy for them. As it happens it seems it’s just about an investment for them so I don’t.

The details on the 'share issue' are under the Peace thread from memory. Long story short, he launched a consolidation scheme where you had to have 10 shares for one new share. So if you had one share, you had to find 9 others that were for sale [ if you could afford them], so most were literally forced to sell to Peace with very little profit involved.
S4A have a vested interest in the club; I don't believe for one second that anyone would buy a share in a football club and expect a profit. Whilst some choose to discount their measly 12% holding, I for one am happy that they are 'asking the question'.

It was said earlier in the thread that the interest generated from the loan is far better than anything on offer today, so it is good business. This can only be true if the loan and interest is eventually paid back. However, if there is intention that the loan is not going to be paid back then all the interest counts for absolutely nothing.

[TheJacko2000]

When the football club owes the holding company £23 million I'd not be making much (any) noise about this.

[baggiejohn]

Can someone help me out here in case I have got this wrong.

Peace borrowed circa £3.5m from the club [at favourable terms], and it is strongly suspected that he used the money to buy up the shares to achieve his majority shareholder position

Peace then sold the club to Mr Lai

Is there an assumption here that Peace passed the debt on to Mr Lai?

What am I missing here?

Peace owned 100% of WBA Holdings.

WBA Holdings owns 88% of WBAFC.
 

WBA Holdings loaned around £3.5 million from WBAFC. The terms of the loan favour WBAFC, in that the interest charged to WBA Holdings is 5% above B of E base rate. The value of the debt is now around £4.5 million.

The terms of the loan means that it can be recalled at any time by WBAFC.

When Lai bought WBA Holdings, the debt to WBAFC was part of the package.

[skyclad99]

Peace owned 100% of WBA Holdings.

WBA Holdings owns 88% of WBAFC.
 

WBA Holdings loaned around £3.5 million from WBAFC. The terms of the loan favour WBAFC, in that the interest charged to WBA Holdings is 5% above B of E base rate. The value of the debt is now around £4.5 million.

The terms of the loan means that it can be recalled at any time by WBAFC.

When Lai bought WBA Holdings, the debt to WBAFC was part of the package.

Thank you John, I knew you would clarify this for me.

So why did WBA Holdings borrow the money from WBAFC?

[baggiejohn]

Thank you John, I knew you would clarify this for me.

So why did WBA Holdings borrow the money from WBAFC?

Mechanisms I can do, reasons & emotions are above my pay grade 

[paulosull]

This has got nothing to do with Lai so if Ebenezer did buy up shares to take over all control of club is it illegal?

[skyclad99]

Mechanisms I can do, reasons & emotions are above my pay grade 

'The money was just resting in my account'

Father Ted aficionados' will know that one 

It still does not add up to me.