NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER

[king_dezeeuw06]

Unfortunately Ms Nandy has no business expertise at all, her degree is in Politics not Economics or Business Studies. I would suggest that any comment from her as to the viability of any business plans from the bidders needs to be treated with a degree of scepticism. She also has no family links to business or experience herself as straight out of university she went into a political environment and has never worked in a commercial management position.

You are assuming the deal is good and she is misunderstanding it and coming to the wrong conclusion. Could we not as easily assume she is judging it correctly because it's not good for us?

She has said they are all working closely together probably, I suspect the council, SC, Nandy are all briefing each other, had Jackson look over it and probably lawyers. I don't think for a split second Nandy has read all of the documents and formed an opinion in isolation, I strongly suspect it is a shared view she is expressing.

Nandy and the SC have seen the documents, talked to the Spanish directly and heard their plans while we haven't. I think if one person has seen something and the other hasn't who is most likely to give an accurate judgement? That's certainly not to say we should automatically assume Nandy is 100% right but it sounds a lot more risky to assume she and everyone else in the know are all wrong when we have not seen what they have.

They have knowledge we are literally guessing. They might be wrong and those guessing it is all good will be vindicated but I fear they are more likely right. If it was only Nandy but SC were waving the flag for the Spanish then I'd be happier to dismiss her concerns but it seems like we are about to be taken out of admin and no one in the know is very enthusiastic about our saviours - that feels really off putting to me.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

You are assuming the deal is good and she is misunderstanding it and coming to the wrong conclusion. Could we not as easily assume she is judging it correctly because it's not good for us?

She has said they are all working closely together probably, I suspect the council, SC, Nandy are all briefing each other, had Jackson look over it and probably lawyers. I don't think for a split second Nandy has read all of the documents and formed an opinion in isolation, I strongly suspect it is a shared view she is expressing.

Nandy and the SC have seen the documents, talked to the Spanish directly and heard their plans while we haven't. I think if one person has seen something and the other hasn't who is most likely to give an accurate judgement? That's certainly not to say we should automatically assume Nandy is 100% right but it sounds a lot more risky to assume she and everyone else in the know are all wrong when we have not seen what they have.

They have knowledge we are literally guessing. They might be wrong and those guessing it is all good will be vindicated but I fear they are more likely right. If it was only Nandy but SC were waving the flag for the Spanish then I'd be happier to dismiss her concerns but it seems like we are about to be taken out of admin and no one in the know is very enthusiastic about our saviours - that feels really off putting to me.

Nothing in my post is an assumption KDZ, Ms Nandy has as I say no experience in business or finance. She is a university educated politician with no experience of running or acquiring a business and as such I doubt has the ability to read or interpret a balance sheet or judge the finer points of a corporate business plan.

To accept her version over that of experienced accountants seems a touch naive to me.

Edit:

You also mention the SC but to my knowledge they are not qualified accountants either although they may have had an accountant look over the deal from the point of view of their own investment plan. The other thing to take into account is that the plans have changed since their involvement, Cristo has gone and an updated version of their business plan has been submitted, all of which means that whatever they thought originally is now out of date and because they are not involved they will not have any access to the documents.

 

[Hampton]

There used to be a shop in Chorley called "Poppycock".

Was it a florist that did "risque" arrangements ?

 

[Hampton]

Experience of applying for grants (on behalf of local cricket club) from local councils and other funds providers tells me that unless they show evidence of their contribution, then they ain't getting anything for free.

Then on behalf of the local cricket club you should ask Pollard how he manages to do it on a regular basis.
Wigan Council, RRL, Government (warriors more likely to get a grant from the EFL than latics) - more grants for free than you can wiggle a silver tash at.

 

[moonay]

Then on behalf of the local cricket club you should ask Pollard how he manages to do it on a regular basis.
Wigan Council, RRL, Government (warriors more likely to get a grant from the EFL than latics) - more grants for free than you can wiggle a silver tash at.

It's on a plate............................. poppycock!

 

[Hampton]

Lisa Nandy has been involved and will know a lot more than any of us on here. I'm more inclined to believe she has a good reason to say such things than she's too stupid to see how good the Spanish are or be so easily manipulated by other parties.

If so and as a representative all the people of Wigan (not just "Wigan's chosen few ) she should damm well come out and share the detail of her "concerns" - she could use parliamentary privilege to do this.

 

[Made in Wigan]

TBH MiW if I were buying a football club, or any other business for that matter, I would be putting the minimum amount of investment into it to maintain it. That's how you make a profit. Over investing loses you money.

Making sweeping statements about staff cuts and no funding without any evidence is just sensationalising the situation. The evidence of their intentions is there for all to see in the way they have financed and run Leganes and there is no evidence in anything they have said or done to the contrary.

I understand you have reservations about their ownership but the way you are making allegations based on nothing but rumour and speculation, yet denying the fact that they are experienced owners of another reasonably successful club defies logic.

Football club ownership is unlike other business. Success is more often than not linked to investment. Putting in the minimum possible to cover running costs will not lead to success, nor profit.

The towns MP has highlighted there will be staff cuts and it’s come from other sources who have more inside knowledge than you or I. To that end it’s sufficient evidence to suggest it’s more than baseless rumour.

Running a football club in Spain is different to running one in the UK and that cannot be used to say the outcome will be the same. I suspect once reality dawns you’ll reconsider your views.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

Football club ownership is unlike other business. Success is more often than not linked to investment. Putting in the minimum possible to cover running costs will not lead to success, nor profit.

The towns MP has highlighted there will be staff cuts and it’s come from other sources who have more inside knowledge than you or I. To that end it’s sufficient evidence to suggest it’s more than baseless rumour.

Running a football club in Spain is different to running one in the UK and that cannot be used to say the outcome will be the same. I suspect once reality dawns you’ll reconsider your views.

I suspect it might be you that will be reconsidering.

I believe there will be staff cuts as we are now a league one club and will certainly not require the amount of stewards and matchday staff that we needed in the Championship. We will probably also be forced to cut the amount of ground staff we employ and probably the medical staff will be cut.

All of these cuts are necessary due to the situation we find ourselves in, a club with no income through the gates due to a pandemic. Add to that the fact that we are in a lower division than last season and therefore our income from solidarity payments and TV income is also reduced.

It makes sound business sense to cut the staff but unfortunately Ms Nandy probably doesn't realise that, I suppose her solution would be to borrow our way through it and suffer the consequences later.

 

[Made in Wigan]

I suspect it might be you that will be reconsidering.

I believe there will be staff cuts as we are now a league one club and will certainly not require the amount of stewards and matchday staff that we needed in the Championship. We will probably also be forced to cut the amount of ground staff we employ and probably the medical staff will be cut.

All of these cuts are necessary due to the situation we find ourselves in, a club with no income through the gates due to a pandemic. Add to that the fact that we are in a lower division than last season and therefore our income from solidarity payments and TV income is also reduced.

It makes sound business sense to cut the staff but unfortunately Ms Nandy probably doesn't realise that, I suppose her solution would be to borrow our way through it and suffer the consequences later.

You know my political preferences so you’ll know I have no bias or allegiance toward Nandy. However even I find the criticism of her a little harsh and unwarranted. Staff cuts are a cover to persuade those people to quit and run the club on a shoestring. They shouldn’t even be announcing this before taking over, it will demoralise staff. It gives a good insight as to how they intend to ‘run’ the club with the academy plan being a prime example. Next season we’ll even have less money if we likely end up in league 2. Gates will be even further reduced and we’ll spiral. It’s not a recipe for success. Sadly I expect they will get the club, and it certainly won’t be a cause for celebration.

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

Lisa Nandy has been involved and will know a lot more than any of us on here. I'm more inclined to believe she has a good reason to say such things than she's too stupid to see how good the Spanish are or be so easily manipulated by other parties.

She's not been involved with the Spanish group at all. Her comments seem to be based on a few employees contacting her to say they've been told that they'll have to take a pay cut & some staff will leave as a result
My point still stands therefore that she cannot possibly know whether the current preferred bidder's plans are unsustainable

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

Running a football club in Spain is different to running one in the UK and that cannot be used to say the outcome will be the same. I suspect once reality dawns you’ll reconsider your views.

In what way/s is running a football club in Spain different to running a football club in England?
You are right in saying that their success at Leganes cannot be used to say the outcome will be the same. Nothing is guaranteed

 

[Mighty Bongsmon]

I suspect it might be you that will be reconsidering.

I believe there will be staff cuts as we are now a league one club and will certainly not require the amount of stewards and matchday staff that we needed in the Championship. We will probably also be forced to cut the amount of ground staff we employ and probably the medical staff will be cut.

All of these cuts are necessary due to the situation we find ourselves in, a club with no income through the gates due to a pandemic. Add to that the fact that we are in a lower division than last season and therefore our income from solidarity payments and TV income is also reduced.

It makes sound business sense to cut the staff but unfortunately Ms Nandy probably doesn't realise that, I suppose her solution would be to borrow our way through it and suffer the consequences later.

Its baffled me ever since she said it how she thinks a football club with barely any income & in a lower division can continue to function with the same number of staff on the same amount of wages & not get further in to financial trouble

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Nothing in my post is an assumption KDZ, Ms Nandy has as I say no experience in business or finance. She is a university educated politician with no experience of running or acquiring a business and as such I doubt has the ability to read or interpret a balance sheet or judge the finer points of a corporate business plan.

To accept her version over that of experienced accountants seems a touch naive to me.

Edit:

You also mention the SC but to my knowledge they are not qualified accountants either although they may have had an accountant look over the deal from the point of view of their own investment plan. The other thing to take into account is that the plans have changed since their involvement, Cristo has gone and an updated version of their business plan has been submitted, all of which means that whatever they thought originally is now out of date and because they are not involved they will not have any access to the documents.

Which experienced accountant is saying the Spanish deal is good?

Aren't the SC working with Jonathan Jackson - so do you think it's more likely Jackson said was a good deal they ignore him and still wouldn't back it or he said it's not and that is why they wont back it and want a different bidder?

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

If so and as a representative all the people of Wigan (not just "Wigan's chosen few ) she should damm well come out and share the detail of her "concerns" - she could use parliamentary privilege to do this.

I agree she should say more, same for SC.

 

[jeffs right]

Then on behalf of the local cricket club you should ask Pollard how he manages to do it on a regular basis.
Wigan Council, RRL, Government (warriors more likely to get a grant from the EFL than latics) - more grants for free than you can wiggle a silver tash at.

Perhaps Moreno doesn't want to be a soft option anymore and he can see this. The stadium company and Wigan Athletic may not be in Moreno's plans to keep subsisiding another organisation.
Maybe the MP, Council and Pollard know this and it may mean their little favourites will have to tighten their belts and stop living beyond their means and compete on an even plane with their Super League rivals.

 

[Coddenchips]

Which experienced accountant is saying the Spanish deal is good?

Aren't the SC working with Jonathan Jackson - so do you think it's more likely Jackson said was a good deal they ignore him and still wouldn't back it or he said it's not and that is why they wont back it and want a different bidder?

The SC have only made 2 statements about the Spanish bid. The written one where they said they couldn't agree terms but were continuing negotiations. The 2nd was the vice chairman live on radio saying they were behind the Spaniards.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

She's not been involved with the Spanish group at all. Her comments seem to be based on a few employees contacting her to say they've been told that they'll have to take a pay cut & some staff will leave as a result
My point still stands therefore that she cannot possibly know whether the current preferred bidder's plans are unsustainable

Considering she spoke directly to other bidders i think there's more than a good chance she has spoken to them considering she was initially for the take over and switched to being against it - something changed her mind. If she's not spoken to them directly (which i doubt) i imagine her opinion will be based on what she has learned from the Supporters Club. I imagine if she is saying the plans are unsustainable she's not just randomly guessing.

I am not a Labour voter, i'm not sticking up for Nandy out of any loyalty - but we're coming up with theories the reason Nandy is saying what she is because she is gullible and believing false reasons, that she is not clever enough to understand, etc but there seems to be a refusal to accept the possibility that the reason she is saying these things is because it's true.

We know the SC has been working with Jonathan Jackson and Nandy, i don't believe if Jackson said it's a good sustainable deal and they wouldn't follow that advice and say the opposite.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

The SC have only made 2 statements about the Spanish bid. The written one where they said they couldn't agree terms but were continuing negotiations. The 2nd was the vice chairman live on radio saying they were behind the Spaniards.

There was 2 official statements and the radio interview, i always thought it was odd what was said in the interview was never said in a formal statement.

But the most recent communication was the statement they put out around the same time as Nandy saying the same thing - they wanted to move onto the next bidders, despite the fact admin said the Spanish could still do the deal. The last we heard from the SC and Nandy they both wanted to look at other options despite the Spanish deal not being dead.

If they thought the Spanish were great and they wanted the deal why wasn't their statement saying they backed the Spanish and were hopeful a deal could be done? If you liked the Spanish bid surely you would back them publicly and encourage them to get it over the line rather than be so quick to start the process with someone else?

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

Which experienced accountant is saying the Spanish deal is good?

Aren't the SC working with Jonathan Jackson - so do you think it's more likely Jackson said was a good deal they ignore him and still wouldn't back it or he said it's not and that is why they wont back it and want a different bidder?

No one is saying it is a good deal. The admins are all experienced accountants and have put forward the deal.

You are once again avoiding my point by moving the argument away from the point being made.

My point was that I had not made any assumption in my post. Nandy has no experience of business and is not in a position to give financial judgement.

Whether anyone else is giving the SC financial advice I couldn't say, but when someone makes a statement that our local MP knows better in financial matters than three highly paid accountants then that is just rubbish.

As far as both you and I know jj has neither advised them for or against the deal but we do know that the admins have accepted it, checked the figures and deemed it worthy of accepting. Whether you like, agree with or disagree with the admins they are qualified accountants and Nandy is not.

 

[Coddenchips]

I would imagine they were keeping their options open. Whether it's the Spaniards, Walter Mitty or the invisible men they will want to deal with them and keep them onside.