1.“Mo Chaudry does not have one single shareholding in Waterworld”
Response: So what? Waterworld is a “family” owned business of which Mo is a Director and Chairman.
2.“Mo Chaudry does own M.I.C Properties Limited whose business is in the Company Description – Development and selling of real estate”
Response: So what? M.I.C Properties Ltd is also a Mo Chaudry “family” owned business.
It is an Investment Company and invests primarily in commercial property and receives rent from commercial tenants. It has been established for 22 years and has never carried out any land development! It is a successful, profitable business and has a net balance sheet of circa £17m despite the depressed market conditions, (£22m at the peak of the market). Of course from a commercial perspective it is nonsense to suggest PVFC has any redevelopment potential and why would I do that specifically to upset thousands of fans in my backyard. What is so special about Vale Park as a piece of land? It beggars belief! I am only interested in making PVFC successful and bring back the glory years for us ALL.
3.“The club is presently in negotiation with other potential investors”
Response: So be it. Of course, any other bid should be put to the shareholders before the EGM and be subject to the same level of public scrutiny as the Mo Chaudry bid since November 2010.
4.”The club is Solvent”
Response: The interim Board when appointed will find out when they have access to the Books. We hope the club is solvent for all our sakes but we are concerned when(according to the 2010 audited accounts) cash/working capital:
June 08 £1.1m,
June 2010 £385k(including £130k loan from Harlequin properties) April 2011 £13k(Mr Bratt confirmed in the Sentinel)
5. “Waterworld UK Holdings Accounts 2009 uplifted the value of the property owned by them from £110,000 to £5 million on the sole Directors valuation. How can Mo Chaudry criticise PVFC who have had a valuation of £5.1 million from a professional valuer?”
Response: When the WW business was purchased in 1999, 12 acres of land came with the package and only a notional value of £110k was allocated at the time. 10 acres of which has been surplus to the requirements of The WW business. It is one of the premier locations in North Staffs, is ideal for a mixed use development. A substantial offer was refused in 2007, WW’s long term plans are to expand it as a leisure resort and therefore the Company decided to retain it for its own plans for the future. Upon the advice and recommendation of the accountants a revised and realistic market value (30% less than the 2007 offer) was placed by the Directors in 2008. There was no need to appoint an independent Valuer as neither WW UK Holdings nor the trading WW 2000 Ltd have any debt. It was purely a tidying up exercise. The net balance sheet increased to £15.5m as a result. Festival Park land values are considerably higher than Burslem and there is also NO surplus land at Vale Park. Mo Chaudry is on record as stating that if he wanted to develop on any land it would be on the surplus land at Festival Park. Mo Chaudry is grateful to the PVFC Directors for highlighting the irrefutable facts that he is not a property developer nor has he mortgaged off the “family silver”. The 2 companies highlighted are Family owned businesses, are private ltd companies, profitable, cash generative, long standing and combined net worth of these 2 businesses is £32.5m. It is a shame all the FACTs could not have been outlined to the shareholders.
6.Focal radio
Response: Waterworld Uk Holdings purchased Focal Radio from The Administrators as a result of a personal appeal from the late Sam Plank. Mo Chaudry shared his ethos and wanted to back him as he felt he could help the cause. With much regret, Mo decided to close the business after 3 months following his unexpected arrest (for which he was subsequently never charged). The public sector sponsorship that Mo had lined up evaporated overnight and given that he was trying to help the community, he felt let down. It was never a money making venture. Mo gave Sam several weeks to find another investor/funder. All but 2 staff were employed. The main creditor was WW Uk Holdings, other creditors amounted to less than £5k. How can this be compared to PVFC and in any event how is it relevant to the bid?
SUMMARY
It is a sad state of affairs that the PVFC Board appear fuelled by a personal vendetta towards Mo Chaudry such that their objectivity is arguably compromised. If one were to dig a little deeper into the background of each of the directors then no doubt fault or failing of some sort can be found but is that really the way in which to conduct the business of the takeover bid for PVFC? Mo has been forced to conduct his bid in the public domain having engaged with shareholders and fans at length addressing all issues and concerns arising. The board have refused at all times to sensibly and meaningfully engage with Mo Chaudry and his advisers, preferring silence in response for most of the campaign and of late criticism and complaint looking for problems and fault rather than solution. The campaign to smear Mo’s character and reputation, as evidenced most recently by this leaflet, is reprehensible and disappointing as it shows scant regard for the merits of the bid, the wishes of the fans and shareholders who collectively now seek change. A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY BUT FOR WHOM the board mischievously ask? Response: PVFC, the shareholders, then fans and the community. Let the shareholders decide 1st June 2011.
