G STAR RAM Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 34 minutes ago, Raich Van Carter said: What did the article say? A winding up petition has been filed against Duet Group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: A winding up petition has been filed against Duet Group No...the winding up petition was against Duet Asset Management Limited, one of the investment vehicles within the Duet Group. I checked the financial regulators website and that entity was listed as having had its uk permissions removed on 20th January. This is nothing that unusual. Basically each pot of investment money is incorporated as a separate legal entity. Which could be "close-ended" in that it's set up for a single investment purpose and a closed group of investors. Once the investment has fulfilled its purpose and the original investors have had their proceeds there is no need for the company so you wind it up. Henry Gabay looks as though hes at the sharp and highly speculative end of investment. His various vehicles do all sorts such as commodity futures (betting on the price of eg oil in 6 months). Looks as though here that he may have pushed some boundaries with interpretation of tax rules. But if his investment vehicle has paid out the investors all that can happen is a forced wind up which has no effect on the rest of Duet Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: A winding up petition has been filed against Duet Group No one (outside of those directly involved) knows how the investment was to be structured - there were suggestions that Gabay was the frontman for a consortium rather than he or his company being the main investor, in which case the issues Duet Group are having may have no impact on any investment plans - or maybe Gabay has stepped aside because of the issues but the investment will go ahead with someone else fronting it. I suspect (though I may be completely wrong) that by linking the Duet problems directly to the investment, the DET has overstepped the mark and they've been told to pull the article before it has to get legal..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Van der MoodHoover said: No...the winding up petition was against Duet Asset Management Limited, one of the investment vehicles within the Duet Group. I checked the financial regulators website and that entity was listed as having had its uk permissions removed on 20th January. This is nothing that unusual. Basically each pot of investment money is incorporated as a separate legal entity. Which could be "close-ended" in that it's set up for a single investment purpose and a closed group of investors. Once the investment has fulfilled its purpose and the original investors have had their proceeds there is no need for the company so you wind it up. Henry Gabay looks as though hes at the sharp and highly speculative end of investment. His various vehicles do all sorts such as commodity futures (betting on the price of eg oil in 6 months). Looks as though here that he may have pushed some boundaries with interpretation of tax rules. But if his investment vehicle has paid out the investors all that can happen is a forced wind up which has no effect on the rest of Duet Group. Thanks for clarification. I only looked at the article briefly before it was took down, hence me giving incorrect information! Just goes to show how Chinese whispers can work though! @Raich Van Carter apologies for the incorrect information and @Van der MoodHoover thanks for correcting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 18 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said: No...the winding up petition was against Duet Asset Management Limited, one of the investment vehicles within the Duet Group. I checked the financial regulators website and that entity was listed as having had its uk permissions removed on 20th January. This is nothing that unusual. Basically each pot of investment money is incorporated as a separate legal entity. Which could be "close-ended" in that it's set up for a single investment purpose and a closed group of investors. Once the investment has fulfilled its purpose and the original investors have had their proceeds there is no need for the company so you wind it up. Henry Gabay looks as though hes at the sharp and highly speculative end of investment. His various vehicles do all sorts such as commodity futures (betting on the price of eg oil in 6 months). Looks as though here that he may have pushed some boundaries with interpretation of tax rules. But if his investment vehicle has paid out the investors all that can happen is a forced wind up which has no effect on the rest of Duet Group. Did I not read in the article the petition was filed by HMRC, or was that speculation on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Just now, G STAR RAM said: Did I not read in the article the petition was filed by HMRC, or was that speculation on here? No you're right on that. But no details as to what tax the argument is over. As its against an investment company could be any number of things (but not payroll cos theres no employees). Henry looks a right shark. Surprised by Mel going anywhere near this lot. If anything, I'd say they look more likely to invest in the stadium project, build it up then look to flogging for a profit. But that wouldn't help dcfc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramarena Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said: No you're right on that. But no details as to what tax the argument is over. As its against an investment company could be any number of things (but not payroll cos theres no employees). Henry looks a right shark. Surprised by Mel going anywhere near this lot. If anything, I'd say they look more likely to invest in the stadium project, build it up then look to flogging for a profit. But that wouldn't help dcfc..... I said I’d be very wary when this was first announced. Didn’t seem to be a good fit for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: Not really, why would he pay the wages for a company that he had no investment in? Perhaps it was supposed to be all sorted the day before? Nobody knows, only them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslaar Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 4 hours ago, Boycie said: Kinda makes sense of the non payment of the players wages in jan, he was supposed to cover that I think. I feel sorry for Mel, he’s trying to do the right thing for the club and this season has been nothing but a train wreck from the final whistle at Wembley. The wages had nothing to do with it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Ramslaar said: The wages had nothing to do with it at all. How do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslaar Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 20 minutes ago, Boycie said: How do you know? Because the investment had not happened yet.the only reason you have that opinion is because you have read it in the paper.i dont blame you for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 53 minutes ago, Ramslaar said: Because the investment had not happened yet.the only reason you have that opinion is because you have read it in the paper.i dont blame you for it. I’m basing it on the idea that the deal should of been completed the day before. Its just a hunch, every day we were being told it was virtually done. Maybe the ideas wrong, but Mel paid the wages at the earliest opportunity when the wages hadn’t been paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslaar Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Boycie said: I’m basing it on the idea that the deal should of been completed the day before. Its just a hunch, every day we were being told it was virtually done. Maybe the ideas wrong, but Mel paid the wages at the earliest opportunity when the wages hadn’t been paid. I get your chain of thought i do.even if the deal had gone through the investor would not be paying all the wages as it is not for a majority share from what iv been told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
td_evans Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 18 minutes ago, Ramslaar said: I get your chain of thought i do.even if the deal had gone through the investor would not be paying all the wages as it is not for a majority share from what iv been told. Irrespective of share, assuming there were to be more shares issued then the investment would have meant an injection of capital into the business which would have covered wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 24 minutes ago, Ramslaar said: I get your chain of thought i do.even if the deal had gone through the investor would not be paying all the wages as it is not for a majority share from what iv been told. There’s more to pay than just the players wages, we don’t know the details, nobody does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslaar Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 3 hours ago, td_evans said: Irrespective of share, assuming there were to be more shares issued then the investment would have meant an injection of capital into the business which would have covered wages. Fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramslaar Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 3 hours ago, Boycie said: There’s more to pay than just the players wages, we don’t know the details, nobody does. Agree but as far as i understand there were no other bodys waiting to be paid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Ramslaar said: Agree but as far as i understand there were no other bodys waiting to be paid Correct, so Mel could have been paying the staff, and the new investor paying the players. The staff got paid on time as far as I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard246 Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 I think we need to look elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, Richard246 said: I think we need to look elsewhere. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.