[throstle]

So why did WBA Holdings borrow the money from WBAFC?

To allegedly enable Peace to use £3.7m of the club's money to buy the shares rather than £3.7m of his own money.

This is the allegation which Peace denies, but offers no alternative explanation to what he did with the £3.7m.

[tambag]

To allegedly enable Peace to use £3.7m of the club's money to buy the shares rather than £3.7m of his own money.

This is the allegation which Peace denies, but offers no alternative explanation to what he did with the £3.7m.

Exactly. What else is a holdings company want money for, it can only be for shares surely ?

[skyclad99]

Exactly. What else is a holdings company want money for, it can only be for shares surely ?

Absolutely, but Peace denies this. This is what he said to the Times;

 â€œCertain independent shareholders have been grumbling for years since I sold shares in 2016, when they know that they have no basis for complaint,” Peace told the Times. “I want to make it clear that money was not borrowed from the football club to buy shares.
“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.”

Think about it, in the years leading up to the sale Peace has been busy acquiring and manipulating the shares in order to get the majority shareholder position he required. Can you actually see Peace doing something like paying over the top interest on a loan as it had 'commercially attractive terms'?

If the loan was not used to buy shares then it should still be there and can be paid back to the club, with the lovely interest from the commercial arrangement that he so generously put in place. 

[Albionic]

The real missing nugget is "money was not borrowed from the football club to buy shares." so, What was it borrowed for??

[Standaman]

The real missing nugget is "money was not borrowed from the football club to buy shares." so, What was it borrowed for??

Hair transplant and everybody is just too embarrassed to talk about it.

[skyclad99]

Getting back on to the theme of the thread, I do wonder whether this loan was lost in the finer detail of the sale of the club and has come as a bit of a surprise to Mr Lai. Given the financial predicament that he finds himself in I would have thought that Mr Lai would chase Peace himself to recover the loan. What sort of a businessman would agree to take on a loan procured to buy shares for the outgoing owner [allegedly]?

Its almost as though he is buying part of the club twice to me.

[throstle]

I don't think it has ever been suggested it was a surprise to Lai. It was a surprise to everyone else when it was discovered .

[skyclad99]

I don't think it has ever been suggested it was a surprise to Lai. It was a surprise to everyone else when it was discovered .

No I don't think it was either, not something I would have though such a savvy businessman as him would have readily agreed to though, unless he saw so many pound sign coming out of Jeremys mouth he though it would not be a problem.......

[Standaman]

It is really easy to see how Lai took on the loan. In large commercial deals often it is smallish details around the edge that make or break a deal e.g. payment terms currency and on going liabilities.

Taking over the loan would have been easier for the new owners than paying cash and Peace probably used that to close out the last half yard on the deal giving up something elsewhere. It works for both parties it is as good as cash to Peace and it probably is easier for the Chinese authorities to accept or maybe keeps the cash transaction below a certain pricing point. We will never know why but there is nothing particularly odd or shady about it. 

[SmethDan]

Hair transplant and everybody is just too embarrassed to talk about it.

Clearly didn't take root so quite literally nothing to see here.......

[skyclad99]

It is really easy to see how Lai took on the loan. In large commercial deals often it is smallish details around the edge that make or break a deal e.g. payment terms currency and on going liabilities.

Taking over the loan would have been easier for the new owners than paying cash and Peace probably used that to close out the last half yard on the deal giving up something elsewhere. It works for both parties it is as good as cash to Peace and it probably is easier for the Chinese authorities to accept or maybe keeps the cash transaction below a certain pricing point. We will never know why but there is nothing particularly odd or shady about it.

Not so sure about that Stan, borrowing money from your club to [allegedly] buy shares for you so you can sell the club for a massive profit sounds a bit shady to me, and it is interesting that Peace has come out with his 'nothing to see here' statement early doors.

[WorcsWBA]

Not so sure about that Stan, borrowing money from your club to [allegedly] buy shares for you so you can sell the club for a massive profit sounds a bit shady to me, and it is interesting that Peace has come out with his 'nothing to see here' statement early doors.

My memory might be failing me after so long, but didn't Peace use the club's money to take control of it in the first place?

[johnny Cash]

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.

I’m aware of what happened with the 10/1 consolidation. However I wonder if some of those S4A members spoke up then for fans losing out at that point, or were some happy to have a chance to increase there own numbers. It’s not impossible someone with foresight saw money increasing in the game thought they would make money in a sale too.

[throstle]

My memory might be failing me after so long, but didn't Peace use the club's money to take control of it in the first place?

There were claims he might have used club money in 2010.

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/2010/07/29/so-what-is-jeremy-peace-up-to-now/

[Standaman]

Not so sure about that Stan, borrowing money from your club to [allegedly] buy shares for you so you can sell the club for a massive profit sounds a bit shady to me, and it is interesting that Peace has come out with his 'nothing to see here' statement early doors.

As stated before if S4c have a gripe it is with Peace. There is nothing odd about the transaction between Peace and the new owners. If there was an issue it is with the original loan and it's use. Once the loan is in place trading it as part of the transaction to buy the club does not make things better or worse. 

[skyclad99]

I’m aware of what happened with the 10/1 consolidation. However I wonder if some of those S4A members spoke up then for fans losing out at that point, or were some happy to have a chance to increase there own numbers. It’s not impossible someone with foresight saw money increasing in the game thought they would make money in a sale too.

Why don't you ask them Johnny?

http://s4a.org/

I don't think you ever buy a share in a football club to make a profit. I can well imagine that multiple share holders were looking after themselves, but only to protect their money which is understandable. They have been fairly vocal about the aggressive share consolidation scheme, and continue to be the agitated wasp in Mr Peace's car as we speak.

[skyclad99]

There were claims he might have used club money in 2010.

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/2010/07/29/so-what-is-jeremy-peace-up-to-now/

I think it is well know that he didn't put much of his own money in - thanks for the article.

[skyclad99]

As stated before if S4c have a gripe it is with Peace. There is nothing odd about the transaction between Peace and the new owners. If there was an issue it is with the original loan and it's use. Once the loan is in place trading it as part of the transaction to buy the club does not make things better or worse.

I agree that S4A have a gripe with Peace, and I agree that there is nothing odd with the loan transaction. What is a mystery is what it was used for, which Peace is keen to tell all that 'it was not used to buy shares for me'.

S4A have an audience with Ken on the 29th I think. However, I don't imagine that they will get far as Kens boss owns 88% of the club, so it is his bat and his ball.

No doubt they will receive a polite but firm 'Go away'.

[Albionic]

I agree that S4A have a gripe with Peace, and I agree that there is nothing odd with the loan transaction. What is a mystery is what it was used for, which Peace is keen to tell all that 'it was not used to buy shares for me'.

S4A have an audience with Ken on the 29th I think. However, I don't imagine that they will get far as Kens boss owns 88% of the club, so it is his bat and his ball.

No doubt they will receive a polite but firm 'Go away'.

he'll just say "ask baldy, nowt to do with us aer kid !"  pointless asking!

[skyclad99]

he'll just say "ask baldy, nowt to do with us aer kid !"  pointless asking!

Did anybody else say that back to themselves in a chinese accent??

[WorcsWBA]

As the repayment of this loan is always going to be at the behest of the club's owner, it's hard to envisage a scenario where any owner will be willing to pay it back, so how much interest it accrues appears to be moot.

What obligation exists that this loan must ever be repaid and, if there is one, who can enforce it?

[skyclad99]

As the repayment of this loan is always going to be at the behest of the club's owner, it's hard to envisage a scenario where any owner will be willing to pay it back, so how much interest it accrues appears to be moot.

What obligation exists that this loan must ever be repaid and, if there is one, who can enforce it?

Its not going to be repaid Worc is it? And therein lies the problem......

[WorcsWBA]

Its not going to be repaid Worc is it|? And therein lies the problem......

Lai shouldn't have taken the loan on, he should have insisted that Peace pay it back as part of the deal. It's not like Peace wasn't getting a king's ransom after all.

[baggie82]

Peace has offered no explanation let alone a credible explanation for why he borrowed £3.7m from the club.

[throstle]

Lai shouldn't have taken the loan on, he should have insisted that Peace pay it back as part of the deal. It's not like Peace wasn't getting a king's ransom after all.

It's not just Lai who should have insisted on repayment. Likewise the board of Club should have sought the repayment of the loan before the sale of Holdings to Lai. At the time of the sale, Holdings had already defaulted on the first instalment of the repayment of the loan to Club .