I have no problem with BTFC fans,as I said I would be up in arms if it was my team on the verge of going out of existence. I also don't know Tommy Donnelly the question I asked was based on the statement that he has been involved from day one, yet for some unknown reason (and this is where the problem lies) he didn't know of this agreement.

With regards to there "being a better way to resolve this dispute" I actually agree with you, but from reading the Pools statement (and here it is)

"HUFC and BTFC have had regular meetings and correspondence since late 2008 to try to resolve the situation but no further payments have been received by HUFC."

It appears as if we have tried negotiations , now I'm not throwing stones, is it possible Pools may have moved anyway towards the BTFC stance( somewhere in between) while BTFC have refused to budge (it may be vice versa) Once more can Neil shred any light on that , has either party rigidly refused to give way in any way shape or form.

BTFC also have a weekly £2000 draw now I will assume that if that's the weekly prize then BTFC must be making some profit on that. So could something not be used from that to make some sort of compromise offer, if one has not already been made. I'm just asking questions here not simply having a go at BTFC, which it appears but I just want some answers for what I consider simple questions of why this mess has happened. Neil appears to be the only one who could give them.

As said somewhere else, I will find it in a minute, the £2,000 draw is a Blackpool draw, BTFC is just an agent for them, I would guess it probably only raises £100's rather than £1,000's for the club, maybe only £10's.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30917

post by stiffupperlip at 6:09

Don't worry Bob, I realise you're not having a go and just want some answers like the rest of us!

With regards to negotiations I can't give any facts on what has happened. As far as I'm aware, neither side has budged on the matter. BTFC have said they won't acknowledge the document as binding and HUFC need to come to us with a new proposal if they want one. HUFC have said it is a contract and binding and so should be honoured. Like I said that's just what I'm aware, but of course the only people who know the full truth on any negotiations are the people who had them. Sorry I can't shed any more light on that one.

With regards to the £2000 prize draw it's actually ran by Blackpool Football club. The money we make from it is 50p of every pound we raise from people entering the draw through us. So we'll make about 40 quid a week.

this ex-chairman.....was he above the then directors in the chain of power at Billy?
its usually the case isn't it?

is this what happens in other businesses when an ex-chairmans fooked summat up and the next one has to pick up the pieces of what he's done???

I'm confused.

We're not going to come out of this smelling of roses, but I still support the team, what happens at boardroom level doesn't affect that for me.

So could you not offer a compromise. Your refusing to accept the original document but are saying HUFC have to come to BTFC with a new proposal. Have I read that correctly. Why not try saying BTFC don't accept the old document, but here's a new one.

Just a thought, and once more throwing things around.

I don't think anyone should expect you to. It's not the fans or the teams fault. Although if anyone can support BTFC in their fight for survival and want to voice their opposition of a grassroots club being put out of existance, the help would be much appreciated.



Well BT are saying that they've tried getting HU to sit down and sort out the differences, but they keep hitting a wall and HU refuse to budge. Of course HU are saying the exact opposite. It's a case of "it's their fault", "no it's their fault." Which we'll probablly never find the truth to be honest as I doubt either side would ever admit they've refused to talk to the other.

what about this ex chaiman Neil?
didn't he have the final say then when he was the chairman?
and are you's in the shit now on account of him?

having read the ststement from pools "an initial payment was made in 2008" now doesnt this blow away the theory that the contract was signed without the agreement of the btfc owner/chairman otherwise they wouldnt have paid anything

The ex chairman was chairman of the football club, not Billingham Town FC Ltd. He was not a director, shareholder or anything like that. Similar to how a football team has a secretary, they look after the football team duties such as paying fines etc, but they are nothing to do with the actual company if you get me?

With regards to have we been left in the shit, I don't want to say anything potentially libelous. But when he left the season before last, we stopped playing players who all left and had quite a large amount of debt, a lot more than the £10,000 HUFC alledge we owe them. Make of that what you will. We had a choice, fold the Ltd company, reform as BTFC 2010 and start with a clean slate. Instead we decided to do things morally right, we cut our cloth, negotiated re-payment terms with our creditors, then struggled on.

There's going to be a meeting at the club this Sunday regarding the whole situation, so hopefully I'll have some fresh info then.

I suppose that would depend on who made the payment. There was a quote somewhere from the ex chairman saying he is out of pocket by his involvement with BTFC, but will not be trying to get his money back, as he realises it would not help the situation.

I suppose the owner/chairman could have disagreed with the signing of it but paid at the time because the cash was available and felt they could honour the contract. Maybe the recession has resulted in them not being able to make the payments and now they are clutching at straws. Legally pools may well be entitled to the money but its ridiculous to pursue it like they are. No one will win.

Not really, the payments could have been made by someone who has access to the bank accounts, cash, cheque book and is a signatory. The payment could have been made without the owners knowledge. Or as stated above may not have been paid through the BTFC Ltd bank account.

so he's to blame then?
If Billy Town say they dont owe the money, does he owe it?!

I don't know mate, I don't know the situation in which it was signed. All I know is it was signed by the ex-chairman, BTFC argue that this document is null and void as he wasn't authorised to sign something such as this, and HUFC are saying it is legally binding and we should pay up. It's now upto the courts to decide who is right.

Now surely if the ex chairman was chairman of the football club at the time, then to me the document is legally binding.

HUFC were in negotiations with BTFC, not Billingham Town FC Ltd, which is the first I've heard of them , and no disrespect meant there. I was unaware that there were technically two companies here. Surely as chairman of BTFC he was employed by Billingham Town FC Ltd. In the same way as Hodcroft is in position as chairman of HUFC but employed by IOR.

Or am I missing something here with regards to how things work when something owns something else.

Now if Hartlepool FC make an agreement with someone in the town to supply, let's say, the catering arrangements for the executive boxes. Ken Hodcroft signs the agreement, now 2 years down the line that company has attempted all avenues to get payment of any outstanding bills. Who do they take to court, HUFC , IOR (or any potential new owners)?

We all know the answer to that they take HUFC.

Reading some of your answers Neil and trying to sit on the fence as much as possible....BUT you (BTFC) appear to be saying you have put yourselves in this mess and are now trying to back track to avoid payment.

That statement may seem harsh and that's not my intention, but I'm finding questions to your answer's and surely if I as a normal layman can see problems from your answers, then a more educated legal brain will definitely rip that argument to pieces.

Once more I'm not after seeing BTFC wound up and believe both sides should sit down and talk, I ,like you, don't have all the facts, you have more,from your side(BTFC) but limited from HUFC side.

If I appear to be slagging off you that's not my intention, and I'm also not slagging off BTFC, I'm raising more questions, which are based on your replies. This is the only forum I've got to do that in at the moment. Those questions are being based on your honesty which I and everyone else on this board appreciates, well I certainly do.

Hmmm I get what you're saying, it's all a bit complicated though really. It's not two seperate companies, The football club is owned/ran by BTFC Ltd. The chairman of the football club does not own or have any say in the running of the Ltd company.

One way to look at it is say you owned a small shop called BTFC Ltd. Your shop employed someone to work there and gave them the title of chairman. A supplier called HUFC then asks the shop worker to sign a document agreeing that the shop is to pay £100 a week in return for a service without asking you. The worker leaves the shop to go work elsewhere. The supplier HUFC come and ask you for payment as per the document signed by the ex-employee. What would you do? Say oh yes ok we'll pay that, that's fine. Or would you say, what the hell is this? Sorry but this worker had no right to sign this document and has no authority in the company other than working here.

And if you do own a shop, Bob, don't worry, Hartlepool arn't really chasing you for money

I have a friend who works in Tesco, I'm going to knock up a document outlining that I will sweep the carpark every week in return for £10,000,000 a year and ask him to sign it. I'll sweep the car park until Tesco fail to pay me my money and then I will go to their MD, show them the document and ask them for my money. When they tell me where to stick it I'll take them to court over it. Who do you think will win???

Of course there's different ways to look at things so I suppose this is just one way of looking at it.

A bit of an extreme example there Neil, but I get the point. We (ie Hartlepool United or IOR) should certainly have made sure anyone signing any agreement was actually authorised or entitled to do so.

Its all about the capacity to sign the contract I suppose. There is obviously a difference between an assistant in Tesco and a chairman/owner or whatever of BT. Im sure it wont be straightforward but I would be surprised if Billingham won the case to be honest (and Im very impartial in this matter). The problem I would think for BT is that the club was very AWARE of the deal with pools or at least should have been fully aware. If they werent then there would appear to be negligence here on the part of the club. The club has a duty to check all employees conduct themselves properly so if someone signed a contract that they had no capacity too then questions will inevitably be asked about how on earth they allowed it or failed to see the problem.

Having said that Pools should never be pursuing this 10k in my opinion. I think its disgraceful and I hope BT cope with whatever outcome.

Just because you haven't any more to add, goodnight by the way and don't let the bed bugs bite, doesn't mean that others don't have something to say.

Groundhog day

You state they not TWO separate companies, so why have two separate "chairmen" so to speak.

I'm sure IOR will have set down a "job description" for Hodcroft, so he can do certain things to ensure HUFC run efficiently, with rules for reporting to IOR within certain times of the year. I would expect Billingham Town FC Holdings to have some sort of job description for the chairman of BTFC. Your chairman of Billingham Town FC Holdings must surely have known some sort of agreement had been entered into with HUFC. Did he not think it appropriate to question the "chairman" of BTFC once that agreement was known, and it was well covered at the time.

Who made the payment to HUFC that was made, you state it could have been a signatory, now surely any business cheque usually requires two signatories, we now have a position where at least two, possibly three, employees of BTFC have overstepped the mark. Two if the chairman is a signatory, three if the chairman's not and it two other people who signed the cheque.

I understand that in the realms of business BTFC and BTFC Holdings are small fry (no disrespect meant again) but from those facts I'm beginning to get the impression of a badly run organisation.

Should Mr Donnelly not have been a signatory for any cheques, ?? would he have not seen statements from BTFC Holdings Bank which showed any payment had been made to HUFC, ?? why did he not question it then (or did he) ??

Now whether I think HUFC should be pursuing the alleged amount the way they are , is irrelevant, but I can see why they are, from your replies. They're a run by businessmen who we all know know little about the actual game of football, and they believe they have a legitimate claim to the amount owned.

Once more I'm not having a go at you or at BTFC, I suppose you could say I'm having a go at BTFC Holdings. Who from your answers and in my opinion appear to have let people who they've employed make mistakes ( yes we all make them) that companies should have policies in place to ensure don't happen.

I have a minimum of 2 , possibly 3 doing just that, so as they say the buck must stop somewhere and in this case it's BTFC Holdings, resulting in what looks more inevitably like ending up in court. I really hope that doesn't happen and that all parties can come to an amicable agreement.

I would hate to see BTFC fold due to this. i would even throw money in a bucket and attend a game (when Pools not playing) to ensure it didn't. I lived in Billingham for a couple of years in the 80's not far from BTFC and made mates who went to their games. So although I stayed loyal to Pools I always looked for Town's results, mind you for some reason I never looked for Synners results.

They don't have two seperate Chairmen, the football club has a chairman. The football club that is registered with the league and the FA are owned by BTFC Ltd.

We don't have job descriptions as we're a small non-league club, BTFC doesn't employ anyone, it has one director and that's it. Chairman of the football club is just a title, anyone can have the title if they wanted it. As stated previously, the owner did not know of the agreement until Hartlepool came asking for money, by which time the ex-chairman was long gone.

With regards to the payment, in the press release by BTFC early this morning, this was paid for by an individual to purchase a grasscutter (which we never received).