• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Breaking News Stewarts Law LLP/PG Site v SUFC - 26 June 2024 - DISMISSED WITH COSTS

Good luck PG Skips getting “costs”.

Soo the big question- who has paid up (obviously not Ray face)

It’ll be the consortium and I suspect they agreed a payment plan rather than paid up entirely.

Embargo yes (hopefully), bond threat no until COSU officially own SUFC…. which might also happen today if we’re lucky (no inside info on that)…
Absolutely no chance of it being today.
 
Maybe we might still have to pay the bond but might be cut to £250,000 which was the same as Wrexham’s back all them years ago?

If the ownership officially passes to COSU then no bond would be applicable under their statement.

If Martin is owner in name there is no way the NL will reduce that sum for the bond, as it's his liabilities that have put us into the predicament we are in and COSU could still walk away, more unlikely now thank gawd! That would leave us with an unviable future. Hence the need for the bond in their eyes.
 
So the Bond was the leagues way of stopping us signing players , when they realised that the WUP may be dismissed ....as they are really not convinced about our sustainability and signing / buying players just involves potential for more footballing parties to be exposed to our vulnerability , it being their job to protect the other clubs and registered players in the league set up to the best of their abilities.
If we were to sign players before the Bond was paid / no longer required , it could mean that these players would be out of contract , not paid wages etc etc and the selling club not paid , should the cosu deal fall through or we dont start the season .
 
So the Bond was the leagues way of stopping us signing players , when they realised that the WUP may be dismissed ....as they are really not convinced about our sustainability and signing / buying players just involves potential for more footballing parties to be exposed to our vulnerability , it being their job to protect the other clubs and registered players in the league set up to the best of their abilities.
If we were to sign players before the Bond was paid / no longer required , it could mean that these players would be out of contract , not paid wages etc etc and the selling club not paid , should the cosu deal fall through or we dont start the season .
1719396295435.jpeg
 
SOUTHEND United's winding up petition has been dismissed at the High Court this morning.

A settlement with PG Site Services was reached just minutes before the hearing got underway this morning.
READ MORE: Follow all the latest from the High Court hearing
Shrimpers chairman Ron Martin was in attendance but the hearing lasted less than a minute.
Blues also reached a settlement with Stewarts Law yesterday.
 
Back
Top