Quote: Baron Greenback "cj, what are your thoughts regarding the argument about the rental formula? I don't understand why that is being cited as being the deal-breaker in this whole affair.'"
Dean Hoyle is on record as saying that there is a good argument for returning the rental formula to the original 13/13. He accepts that it was changed to 15/13 (unilaterally by Ken Davy) as a way of advantaging Town when they were struggling financially.
To cut as long story short, Dean Hoyle, I believe, thinks the change in the rental agreement was NOT part of the February 2010 agreement to transfer the shares back to Town. When the disagreement arose, Ken said the rental agreement was not part of the share transfer agreement and Dean said Ken was making it part of the shares deal.
Taking Ken at his word (not part of the shares deal) Dean said, OK let's do the shares deal as agreed in Feb 2010 and go to arbitration over the rental agreement. Ken refused to go to arbitration, refused to agree the deal before the John Harman deadline and everything collapsed.
Dean Hoyle would say, I believe, that the attempt to change the rental agreement was just an attempt to change the terms of the 2010 agreement, and therefore, whatever the monetary value, it was wrong in principle and so he wouldn't agree. No doubt Ken would say different.
Our attitude is we don't know what happened (although to be fair, we do tend to side with Dean) and we don't particularly care. There's not a lot of mileage in taking one side or the other, whatever happened in the past, we want the shares (of both clubs, but particularly Town's) returned to the club(s), and have them put beyond reach and safe.
Dean says it was just one more thing he'd have to pay for and it was a step too far. It doesn't really matter now because as I understand it the Feb 2010 deal has expired now, let's get the shares returned.
