The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

i have a few conspiracey theories.....im well confused .com .......WHO HAS APPEALLED TO THE CONFERENCE????
conspiracey 1.....have the beasents decided to take the board to court so they can get compensation so they can pay back the money they owe and soften the blow
conspiracy 2.......has k cousins taken them to court for basically killing the club and not taking his olive branch of £350 000,,,,,this could work out as a ground share,,,,,bare with me on this,,,,,,,k c will maybe not take compo but ask them to do a deal about a ground share......double bubble and the japs come in that means no money to be payed out by conference ,which im sure they wont mind
conspiracey 3.......k cousins /beasents fell guilty about killing our club,so take the board to court ,nothing to lose,if they win they may pass the winnings over to fund the MIGHTY AFC RUSHDEN AND DIAMONDS

or it's just to stall for more time and increase the lies and confusion making it even more difficult to get on with forming the phoenix club. :? :? :?

Cotty wrote:or it's just to stall for more time and increase the lies and confusion making it even more difficult to get on with forming the phoenix club. :? :? :?

It shouldn't make things difficult as long as we ignore it and focus upon the task at hand.

Discodunk, have you heard of 'limited liability'? I'd have thought that this would be the case for the Beasants so I doubt option 1 has much bearing. I'm fairly certain they will only owe money if it's proven they have acted in an illegal manner and obviously we can't speculate about that on here.

Limited liability only applies if a company trades legally. If it is insolvent, which basically means it can't afford to pay its debts, then the directors are personally responsible. It looks to me like there are certain people who want to avoid having the club wound up by its creditors because perhaps they have something to hide. If it is wound up, the Official Receiver will appoint a representative to crawl through the books with a view to recovering as much cash as possible for the creditors. Ultimately, the responsible directors could be held personally accountable. Who has the most to loose, for example, how much of the debt to the Revenue and Cloverdale was created before the Beasants ever came on the scene?

Yes the directors are personally responsible for the debt, however in the time honoured way of directors getting out of this you will most likely find any money,property etc,etc will be in the wifes name, Oh and someone just got married.

Biggles, you are of course correct but I would make a few more points. First, at least one of the people involved is a director of other companies and would not wish to risk being barred from holding directorships. Second, it appears that it may be the case that one of the suspects has actually been pulling the strings all along and could therefore be liable for the whole debt. And third, one of those at risk is women and therefore does not have a wife!

Hedgehog wrote:Biggles, you are of course correct but I would make a few more points. First, at least one of the people involved is a director of other companies and would not wish to risk being barred from holding directorships. Second, it appears that it may be the case that one of the suspects has actually been pulling the strings all along and could therefore be liable for the whole debt. And third, one of those at risk is women and therefore does not have a wife!

Not sure what you are on about, there are only 2 directors of RDFC and they are Liam and Steve Beasant.

What I'm on about is this: How much of the debt relates to the pre-Beasant period? While KC will protest the club was debt free, this is on a very narrow definition - total assets vs. total liabilities. It is very likely that on a cash-flow basis the club was insolvent when he handed it over, for example did the "assets" include any money that was not due until the following financial year (the club year end is May)? The Directors pre Beasant were Cousins and Thompson so they may held responsible and pursued for at least some of the debt.

I thought Beasant Snr wasn't allowed to be a director because of his financial affairs in the recent past? Hence why he is the CEO.