NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER

[Made in Wigan]

Don't get me wrong, 4% would be ridiculous, but to measure it against the cost of the purchase price only is wrong. That wouldn't be all that the owners would be spending. There'd be running costs also .......for the "up front" 2 year period (whether it lasts that long or not). The total investment (purchase + ongoing) cost should inform any % offered to the SC ..............so :

£3.5m + £5m = £8.5m ................ £850k is 10%. Seems more reasonable than 4%.

However, the most important part is to make sure we retain what we've got now re the Academy ....... including all the staff, and that means paying them wages that means they don't go and look for jobs elsewhere.

They don’t have to provide money for running costs. They just have to hoodwink the efl that they have the cash. Given they won’t fund the academy and are intent on making sweeping and deep wage cuts, then they won’t be putting in this 5 million. The SC need to retain this money for the battle ahead as they won’t raise it again and using it to prop up these wankers in the short term would be a mistake.

 

[Made in Wigan]

As you have been told you talk bllx

Then let’s bookmark this post because you’ll have no reason to come on hear crying and moaning in the near future when it becomes clear you’ve been duped.

 

[bickymon]

They don’t have to provide money for running costs. They just have to hoodwink the efl that they have the cash. Given they won’t fund the academy and are intent on making sweeping and deep wage cuts, then they won’t be putting in this 5 million. The SC need to retain this money for the battle ahead as they won’t raise it again and using it to prop up these wankers in the short term would be a mistake.

Your language is rather offencive sir

 

[bickymon]

Then let’s bookmark this post because you’ll have no reason to come on hear crying and moaning in the near future when it becomes clear you’ve been duped.

Yes bookmark it sir

 

[moonay]

They don’t have to provide money for running costs. They just have to hoodwink the efl that they have the cash. Given they won’t fund the academy and are intent on making sweeping and deep wage cuts, then they won’t be putting in this 5 million. The SC need to retain this money for the battle ahead as they won’t raise it again and using it to prop up these wankers in the short term would be a mistake.

Hoodwinking is of course is one option. However, the Academy is the only way of them generating any kind of revenue from a club at this level......well, our club, anyway.

With the £5m (or summat similar, whatever value it is), I don't see they have much choice. In the very short term (another season), the club is unlikely to make any money, but there'll still be outgoings, so they have to be covered somehow. Hence the EFL two year proof of funds.

As I said, I don't think the SC should be offering a contribution for any other reason than to get guarantees on the academy. Just think ........ Gelhardt, Weir and Devine would have gone for a couple of million apiece by the end of this season. Joseph the same, maybe more, by end of next season. Following season, Aasgard, maybe McHugh ...... then McGurk ...... it's the only way.

Pay the lads who are managing all of this, building and developing our future what they're worth.

 

[moonay]

Your language is rather offencive sir

Hahahahaha ......... Spilt me bloody brew down me shirt !

Come on Bicky ........ I'm not sure you're the one to be chucking the first stone on this subject.

 

[bickymon]

Hahahahaha ......... Spilt me bloody brew down me shirt !

Come on Bicky ........ I'm not sure you're the one to be chucking the first stone on this subject.

Sir I am a reformed person

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

Get the calculator out and see what 4% of 3 million is, 4 millions is , 5 million is etc etc
The supporters club (and the people who donated) may be thinking with their hearts but they are not going to be taken for a ride.

Once the Stadium is sold that would be an instant paper profit. The book value is far higher than the expected sale price

Come back Pies .... I would love to read your thoughts on all of this.

TBH OLFE, I thought the offer of 4% was derisory but I also thought it was 4% of the football club, not the stadium company. People seem to be forgetting that the club and the stadium company are separate entities.

I may be wrong and the offer was 4% of the holding company, but I doubt it being that.

 

[moonay]

TBH OLFE, I thought the offer of 4% was derisory but I also thought it was 4% of the football club, not the stadium company. People seem to be forgetting that the club and the stadium company are separate entities.

I may be wrong and the offer was 4% of the holding company, but I doubt it being that.

That's a good point TB .................. but given that (according to Krasner's logic), the club is being sold to the Spaniards for £1, that would be a ludicrous offer to make, ......................... so yes, you're probably right !!!

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

That's a good point TB .................. but given that (according to Krasner's logic), the club is being sold to the Spaniards for £1, that would be a ludicrous offer to make, ......................... so yes, you're probably right !!!

The 4% offer is derisory, but if you consider that it will be a one off payment and as others have said the SC have no means at their disposal for ongoing investment it is short of the mark but I can't see it being bettered by much.

What needs to be considered is that although the value of WAFC at present is low, at some stage if we manage a promotion that valuation will rise and so will the SC's investment. I do concede that values go up and down as do normal investment vehicles and hence the disclaimers on all investment products, but it is a gamble. At 4% they would need to sell the club for £21.25 million for the SC to get its money back and that for me is a risk not worth taking.

I personally cannot envisage a time when the club will be worth that amount in the near future and so if they were to ask my advice I would say that unless the new owners come back with a serious offer walk away and invest the money elsewhere.

 

[Made in Wigan]

Hoodwinking is of course is one option. However, the Academy is the only way of them generating any kind of revenue from a club at this level......well, our club, anyway.

With the £5m (or summat similar, whatever value it is), I don't see they have much choice. In the very short term (another season), the club is unlikely to make any money, but there'll still be outgoings, so they have to be covered somehow. Hence the EFL two year proof of funds.

As I said, I don't think the SC should be offering a contribution for any other reason than to get guarantees on the academy. Just think ........ Gelhardt, Weir and Devine would have gone for a couple of million apiece by the end of this season. Joseph the same, maybe more, by end of next season. Following season, Aasgard, maybe McHugh ...... then McGurk ...... it's the only way.

Pay the lads who are managing all of this, building and developing our future what they're worth.

Guarantees mean very little unless legally enforceable. It’s effectively blackmail, they are telling the SC unless you give us this cash we won’t fund the academy and downgrade it at best. Why should the SC use supporters cash that was raised as a fighting fund to save the club to allow them to effectively make money? It’s despicable.

SC are in a difficult predicament because they (rightly) will see our academy as our future and want to preserve it - but it isn’t their responsibility to do so. I agree it’s the only way for these wankers (sorry Bicky) to make money outside of selling the ground, so it maybe a bluff. However do you want these type of people who would do that to run our club?

I do agree those building and managing our future should be paid what they’re worth - but the Spanish clearly don’t. So they’ll rightly be off, which in turns affects the viability of our academy. Our club won’t in any case see the financial fruits of this labour so that fuckwit Stanley may as well finish the job and flog what’s left to next to nothing like he has with most of the others. The SC need to stand firm and not give away a penny unless it’s legally binding they receive a % of any sale and are involved in all academy sale negotiations with a veto on them.

 

[Coddenchips]

You seem very well informed on conversations between the spaniards and the supporters club.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

Guarantees mean very little unless legally enforceable. It’s effectively blackmail, they are telling the SC unless you give us this cash we won’t fund the academy and downgrade it at best. Why should the SC use supporters cash that was raised as a fighting fund to save the club to allow them to effectively make money? It’s despicable.

SC are in a difficult predicament because they (rightly) will see our academy as our future and want to preserve it - but it isn’t their responsibility to do so. I agree it’s the only way for these wankers (sorry Bicky) to make money outside of selling the ground, so it maybe a bluff. However do you want these type of people who would do that to run our club?

I do agree those building and managing our future should be paid what they’re worth - but the Spanish clearly don’t. So they’ll rightly be off, which in turns affects the viability of our academy. Our club won’t in any case see the financial fruits of this labour so that fuckwit Stanley may as well finish the job and flog what’s left to next to nothing like he has with most of the others. The SC need to stand firm and not give away a penny unless it’s legally binding they receive a % of any sale and are involved in all academy sale negotiations with a veto on them.

I'm sorry MiW but your whole post is based on a false rumour once again.

There is no evidence that Moreno has asked for the SC fund to be used. In fact it appears that a member of the SC committee has refuted that rumour.

 

[exiled tic]

Guarantees mean very little unless legally enforceable. It’s effectively blackmail, they are telling the SC unless you give us this cash we won’t fund the academy and downgrade it at best. Why should the SC use supporters cash that was raised as a fighting fund to save the club to allow them to effectively make money? It’s despicable.

SC are in a difficult predicament because they (rightly) will see our academy as our future and want to preserve it - but it isn’t their responsibility to do so. I agree it’s the only way for these wankers (sorry Bicky) to make money outside of selling the ground, so it maybe a bluff. However do you want these type of people who would do that to run our club?

I do agree those building and managing our future should be paid what they’re worth - but the Spanish clearly don’t. So they’ll rightly be off, which in turns affects the viability of our academy. Our club won’t in any case see the financial fruits of this labour so that fuckwit Stanley may as well finish the job and flog what’s left to next to nothing like he has with most of the others. The SC need to stand firm and not give away a penny unless it’s legally binding they receive a % of any sale and are involved in all academy sale negotiations with a veto on them.

The first paragraph of this post shows it up for what it is,Rumours,and false ones at that and supposition based on concious bias!Absolute poppycock

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

I keep hearing bad stuff about the Spanish bid - it might all be true, it all might be false, it is most likely a mixture of true and false - but the fact no one who's got a level of inside knowledge seems to be positive despite the bid being in process for months and close to completion makes me fear much of the negative stuff is based in something true. Nandy herself said they have an unsustainable model - she's got nothing to gain by lying.

I had a bad feeling about IEC but talked myself out of it trying to be positive. I have the same bad feeling this time and can't dismiss it again. Hope I'm wrong, i fear they'll transfer the debt and all spending onto the club like Choi did and if they dont feel like they are getting anywhere fast enough dump us in a position without a good squad and training ground to sell to balance the books and harder to find a buyer. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

I wish the EFL would give fans a golden share to reject or approve takeovers so new owners would have to be fully transparent with the supporters and in situations like this we wouldn't be dealing in rumours, guessing if these guys are right or not and powerless either way. Football clubs are not like a normal private business and it's about time the EFL started to bring about some reforms that actually help the fans. I'm glad the fit and proper test is being taken more seriously this time but there is nothing to stop any owner transfering debts onto the club after they have it, asset stripping or any other damaging behaviour. You can have all the money in the bank, a great business plan and be clean as a whistle and fly through the fit and proper test and then once you're in at any point change plans and ruin a club without doing anything illegal. It's not right fans of all clubs are powerless to protect their club if their owners go rogue.

 

[moonay]

I'm sorry MiW but your whole post is based on a false rumour once again.

There is no evidence that Moreno has asked for the SC fund to be used. In fact it appears that a member of the SC committee has refuted that rumour.

TB, I know you read the club accounts in reasonable detail ................... does it mention the relative costs (and EFL support) for running the academy?

We all know that the stated intent from the Spanish bid it to focus on the academy going forward ......... but there's also a fair degree of scepticism around this (even though no sources are being quoted), leading to a worry that it may be de- prioritised.

I was wondering if some kind of "sponsorship/partnership" deal with the SC might work, where the SC return would be a (small) % of future academy graduate sales. Of course, it all depends on how much the academy costs to run annually, and where those costs lie - facilities, coaching staff, players, match costs, etc.

For the sake of (say) £ 250k pa (plus EFL input etc), it may well be a workable option ............. if indeed the rumours eventually turn out to be true.

Edit - if it's £1m pa, then maybe this doesn't quite work as well, but it's worth exploring.

 

[Hampton]

Nandy herself said they have an unsustainable model

And who told Nandy that ? Not sure she would understand what a sustainable model is in sport if it hit her between the eyes ?
Probably Pollard or as an outside bet Royle.

If it's being compared to the worriers (who don't have a sustainable model) despite peppercorn rents, a "for free" training and hospitality venue and other leg ups from the council then I would be surprised if any club outside of the prem big boys would land in the sustainable model bucket !

 

[bickymon]

And who told Nandy that ? Not sure she would understand what a sustainable model is in sport if it hit her between the eyes ?
Probably Pollard or as an outside bet Royle.

If it's being compared to the worriers (who don't have a sustainable model) despite peppercorn rents, a "for free" training and hospitality venue and other leg ups from the council then I would be surprised if any club outside of the prem big boys would land in the sustainable model bucket !

If nandy told me today was tuesday i would have to ask someone else just to make sure

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

TB, I know you read the club accounts in reasonable detail ................... does it mention the relative costs (and EFL support) for running the academy?

We all know that the stated intent from the Spanish bid it to focus on the academy going forward ......... but there's also a fair degree of scepticism around this (even though no sources are being quoted), leading to a worry that it may be de- prioritised.

I was wondering if some kind of "sponsorship/partnership" deal with the SC might work, where the SC return would be a (small) % of future academy graduate sales. Of course, it all depends on how much the academy costs to run annually, and where those costs lie - facilities, coaching staff, players, match costs, etc.

For the sake of (say) £ 250k pa (plus EFL input etc), it may well be a workable option ............. if indeed the rumours eventually turn out to be true.

Edit - if it's £1m pa, then maybe this doesn't quite work as well, but it's worth exploring.

Unfortunately the accounts I am able to access are the ones published on the Gov.Uk website and are abridged editions of those presented to shareholders of which I am not one.

The accounts I can access don't go into detail about the breakdown of costs for the Academy and as it is part of the overall football club business it is hard to isolate what is being apportioned to it in the form of running costs.

Perhaps someone with access to the full accounts could answer your question. I know that some on here are shareholders and attend the AGM and might have access to that information.

 

[Made in Wigan]

I'm sorry MiW but your whole post is based on a false rumour once again.

There is no evidence that Moreno has asked for the SC fund to be used. In fact it appears that a member of the SC committee has refuted that rumour.

The segway to the sale of the ground is my hypothesis. It’s on the basis it’ll be the only saleable asset we have left so not a stretch to see the end game here with something that isn’t profitable with owners who are only interested in money.

The bit around the academy is not my hypothesis. Cough up as we won’t fund it in a nutshell. Whether it’s a bluff remains to be seen, however I don’t think I’m breaking any confidence in sharing it and I trust that the source knows it to be accurate. I don’t think you would either. It’s supports previous information on this. I haven’t seen any SC response response refuting it. However refuting something and it actually being not true are two different concepts.