Anyone a lawyer?

Of the 2 lists, assurances are not legally binding in the contract of sale, so "will commit funds on a consistent and systematic basis to future transfer and/or loan activity" has no legal meaning.

The second list is contractually binding, so the previous owners could take legal action if the commitments were broken.

Basically Venkys can do what they want with the finances of your club as long as they:

- Stay as a footie club
- Don't sack the board until Jun-2011
- Keep & maintain the statue
- Get permission to change the name of the Jack Walker Stand.

Well, we're already about 5 down...

Could be Fraud, check out the Fraud Act 2006 I think?

Reebok, these were 'asurances' and not part of the conditions of sale as such. More interested in how the 'purchase' of the debt looks. If the debt was transferred into Venkys name, what was the collateral?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a18
Saves all the typing!

Pie, the existing debts would have been secured on club assets (players, stadium etc).

The takeover would have meant no change to the terms & conditions of these loans.

Pie - my understanding is that the loan would be between the club and the bank. Venkys acquired the club and therefore the debt financing which would remain with the club.

Essentially they paid £23m to walkers Trust to acquire a business with a liability of £20m - ergo the £43m price.

The bank would obviously like this money back in due course - but has to acquire it back through normal means (loan recovery). As pointed out above, they don't want to start procedures to acquire the assets that are secured to the loan as it reduces the money making potential of the club and will likely expect to receive the majority of their debt repayment through the PL funding that is coming in near future.

It is very rare for purchase prices/loans etc to be detailed in the sales agreement as these normally are worked out alongside the actual agreements and final statements of account would be prepared to accompany the sales documents.

Assurances:
a.) Done, Consistent at least
b.) Supported Management for three games and the coach for 40 odd
c.) gave shirt sponsorship to Prince's trust
d.) done, worldwide known now and hauled our relegation fighting players to several thousand miles to play Pune FC (still gave chance for a clean sheet somewhere eh!)
e.) see c.)
f.) loads more room now, plenty of empty seats for comfort
g.) Lots more gets said about Rovers now, thats for sure

In regards to the 2006 Fraud Act the crown would need to prove Venkys gained some advantage.

The wording is a lot better than the old offence and covers a much wider area of deception law.

I know it's been used in some unusual cases, but I doubt you'd get CPS to run with it and first you'd have to work out legally would the "Victim" is!!

Some further info on our debts for anyone interested

11th December
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/12/11/blackburn-funding-crisis-what-next-for-rovers-111201/

2nd January. After accounts published
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/01/02/blackburn%e2%80%99s-owners-revamp-survival-plans-in-wake-of-old-trafford-win-020101/