Some comments on today's article:
This is again all very unclear but reading between the lines:
- part of the security offered for the loan Terry took from Dunajtschik, along with the interests in his hotel, was the shares in the company that owns the licence. Why he would want that is unclear as it has no real value and there is no guarantee that he could take over the club anyway - the FFA would have to approve all of that, and as he points out there are all sorts of liabilities attached. I suppose he asked for it as another potential stick to beat Terry with, take his best property and his football club and hope he pays you back.
Taking share security is a common type of security - you perfect that security by taking the share transfer forms. You can exercise that right if the loan is not repaid and you enforce security.
That is not the same as offering someone the club. I would be surprised if Terry actually offered him the club, it makes absolutely no sense - I don't think the dompost actually understand the difference (who would have guessed, lacking basic research) which is why Terry probably told them not to write the story.
Worth noting that despite that security Terry failed to repay him.
- I would be surprised if Dunajtschik could still enforce the share transfer as the loan has been repaid (out of the proceeds of sale of the hotel). I would also be surprised if he was able to transfer the right to anyone else. Terry's lawyer should probably ask for that form back...
- I hope that the enormous assertion that the FFA "appeared to open the door for the club to eventually be based in another New Zealand city" is based on more than this quote "We can assure you that the FFA is committed to having a team from New Zealand represented in the Hyundai A-League and Wellington Phoenix will be kicking off their season against Gold Coast United," he said."
This is the second very poor article written on this subject in the last weeks, this reporter really needs to brush up on his details