NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER | Page 332 | Vital Football

NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER

Status
Not open for further replies.
king_dezeeuw06 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Back to my original point Nandy has no formal accountancy training and therefore is having to rely on others to give her any knowledge.

As far as a refusal to accept the possibility that it is true I see a refusal to accept the premise that the deal has moved on and the SC and Nandy will not have been able to see that offer as they have no interests in it.

Neither Nandy or the SC have actually stated that they are against the deal, just that at the time of their last statements they were unable to support it in its current form.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
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.
Click to expand...

Krasner said himself he's no moralist in regards to the Spanish bid, hardly a ringing endorsement. Admin didn't accept the bid because it's good for the club, they accept it because it will get them paid. If there was a vastly superior bid worth less money they wouldn't accept it - they said as much themselves. It's not about the bidder suitability it's about the bid on the table.

Whoever put down the deposit down and met their the asking price would've had the bid accepted - it doesn't matter to admin what the bidders intentions are after that.

Jackson was advising the Supporters Club they had one of the SC and Jackson on Jay Whittle's podcast talking about working together a while ago. I can't imagine the SC told Jackson they don't want his advice anymore or Jackson walked away - as he is most likely going to end up being the SC rep on the board if it happens.

If the counter to Nandy saying it's a bad deal is admin say it's a good deal then i'm going to trust Nandy over them.
 
Personally I am sick of hearing the name Nandy who appeared again after months of silence.
Does she even know what colour we play in or what our former ground was called. As she ever seen us play?
At the moment though, as she got a pair of boots?
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Krasner said himself he's no moralist in regards to the Spanish bid, hardly a ringing endorsement. Admin didn't accept the bid because it's good for the club, they accept it because it will get them paid. If there was a vastly superior bid worth less money they wouldn't accept it - they said as much themselves. It's not about the bidder suitability it's about the bid on the table.

Whoever put down the deposit down and met their the asking price would've had the bid accepted - it doesn't matter to admin what the bidders intentions are after that.

Jackson was advising the Supporters Club they had one of the SC and Jackson on Jay Whittle's podcast talking about working together a while ago. I can't imagine the SC told Jackson they don't want his advice anymore or Jackson walked away - as he is most likely going to end up being the SC rep on the board if it happens.

If the counter to Nandy saying it's a bad deal is admin say it's a good deal then i'm going to trust Nandy over them.
Click to expand...

You really do like to move away from the point.

Is Nandy an accountant.? No.

Has she any experience in business ? No

Was her degree at University Politics? Yes.

Those were the points you disagreed with in my original post and yet you are now going on about the SC and JJ. I have not said that they don't know more than we do, although I suspect they know nothing about what the bidders have now submitted and are therefore as much in the dark as any of us.

My point all along is simply that Ms Nandy is not qualified to give comment on the financial aspects of the bid given that she has no formal qualifications or experience.

Argue all you want about whether the admins are trustworthy but they are all experienced qualified accountants and in my opinion are better judges of financial viability than a local MP whose allegiance with other parties could be clouding her decisions.
 
moonay said:
I don't get what you're saying here. My suggestion wasn't to use the money for a 10% stake, ..........that was just showing what might be an appropriate % rather than 4%.
Click to expand...

Whatever the % the SC get for their "investment", once that is spent and more "investment" is required from all shareholders to keep the club afloat, then who exactly to the SC tap for cash?

The SC cant expect to have a stake in the club if they are not in a position to meet any future liabilities, just as any other prospective purchaser.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
You really do like to move away from the point.

Is Nandy an accountant.? No.

Has she any experience in business ? No

Was her degree at University Politics? Yes.

Those were the points you disagreed with in my original post and yet you are now going on about the SC and JJ. I have not said that they don't know more than we do, although I suspect they know nothing about what the bidders have now submitted and are therefore as much in the dark as any of us.

My point all along is simply that Ms Nandy is not qualified to give comment on the financial aspects of the bid given that she has no formal qualifications or experience.

Argue all you want about whether the admins are trustworthy but they are all experienced qualified accountants and in my opinion are better judges of financial viability than a local MP whose allegiance with other parties could be clouding her decisions.
Click to expand...



but you feel qualified to post your nonsense, how do you justify that
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, everyone else is at it, including HM Treasury!
 
King if you really dont trust the spanish and you think its a bad move
Instead of moaning about it why dont you walk away watch another club
We the real true latics fans are happy that moreno has come in to save us
They have come in put money where their mouths are unlike the others if it goes tits up so be it
But i will give moreno the respect he deserves for sticking with the takeover and not walking away
And i hope he makes a success of it ,nandy council lenegan have all been talking trying whats best for the wurriors not the latics now im doing what you and other moaners do surmise
End of the day the club and new owners need backing not slagging off
One thing the club does not need is moaners and people who are so called fans like you walk away you wont be missed
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
You really do like to move away from the point.

Is Nandy an accountant.? No.

Has she any experience in business ? No

Was her degree at University Politics? Yes.

Those were the points you disagreed with in my original post and yet you are now going on about the SC and JJ. I have not said that they don't know more than we do, although I suspect they know nothing about what the bidders have now submitted and are therefore as much in the dark as any of us.

My point all along is simply that Ms Nandy is not qualified to give comment on the financial aspects of the bid given that she has no formal qualifications or experience.

Argue all you want about whether the admins are trustworthy but they are all experienced qualified accountants and in my opinion are better judges of financial viability than a local MP whose allegiance with other parties could be clouding her decisions.
Click to expand...

So if someone hasn't got a degree in accounting or worked in a business they have zero ability to judge a proposal?
I suspect most folks on here haven't got those set of skill but virtually everyone agreed the terms offered by the Spanish to the SC were not a good deal. You don't always need expertise to see if something is good or bad if it's obvious.

I suspect the strategy for running the club in terms of investment, approach to the academy, approach to recruitment etc will have remained the same as there will have been no reason to change that even if they changed the ownership around. If the Spanish had stopped engaging with anyone wouldn't they want to take a new improved plan to them and get public backing if they had one?

The SC, Nandy and Jackson are interlinked under the circumstances and we know they are talking - Jackson is uniquely placed to judge how our club runs, how L1 works and how realistic or sustainable any plan would fit. I think it's a far far bigger stretch to believe his expertise has not been consulted than it is to think the SC and Nandy ditched him after he's previously been involved and are too stupid they mistake a good deal for a bad one.

We know how admin works it's about money not morality as Krasner admitted - admin agreeing to sell the club is an indication that the owner is good. If Smurthwaite made the offer the Spanish did and had proof of funds he would've been accepted.

You seem willing to believe she must be wrong but unwilling to believe there is a chance she could be right.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
So if someone hasn't got a degree in accounting or worked in a business they have zero ability to judge a proposal?
I suspect most folks on here haven't got those set of skill but virtually everyone agreed the terms offered by the Spanish to the SC were not a good deal. You don't always need expertise to see if something is good or bad if it's obvious.

I suspect the strategy for running the club in terms of investment, approach to the academy, approach to recruitment etc will have remained the same as there will have been no reason to change that even if they changed the ownership around. If the Spanish had stopped engaging with anyone wouldn't they want to take a new improved plan to them and get public backing if they had one?

The SC, Nandy and Jackson are interlinked under the circumstances and we know they are talking - Jackson is uniquely placed to judge how our club runs, how L1 works and how realistic or sustainable any plan would fit. I think it's a far far bigger stretch to believe his expertise has not been consulted than it is to think the SC and Nandy ditched him after he's previously been involved and are too stupid they mistake a good deal for a bad one.

We know how admin works it's about money not morality as Krasner admitted - admin agreeing to sell the club is an indication that the owner is good. If Smurthwaite made the offer the Spanish did and had proof of funds he would've been accepted.

You seem willing to believe she must be wrong but unwilling to believe there is a chance she could be right.
Click to expand...
If your not happy walk away or give moreno a chance
 
bickymon said:
King if you really dont trust the spanish and you think its a bad move
Instead of moaning about it why dont you walk away watch another club
We the real true latics fans are happy that moreno has come in to save us
They have come in put money where their mouths are unlike the others if it goes tits up so be it
But i will give moreno the respect he deserves for sticking with the takeover and not walking away
And i hope he makes a success of it ,nandy council lenegan have all been talking trying whats best for the wurriors not the latics now im doing what you and other moaners do surmise
End of the day the club and new owners need backing not slagging off
One thing the club does not need is moaners and people who are so called fans like you walk away you wont be missed
Click to expand...

Bit of a silly post when you've already stated you walk away from the Latics if Leneghan gets the ground.
 
pie eater said:
Whatever the % the SC get for their "investment", once that is spent and more "investment" is required from all shareholders to keep the club afloat, then who exactly to the SC tap for cash?

The SC cant expect to have a stake in the club if they are not in a position to meet any future liabilities, just as any other prospective purchaser.
Click to expand...

But as I say, I wasn't suggesting we take a % of the club. I simply said that it wasn't worth giving up all that money for a 4% stake.
 
I have been on Springfield park with 1000 die hard fans who always backed the club
I would rather see now 1000 fans that get behind the new owners and give them a chance than moaners like you king
 
pie eater said:
And how many times has JJ overseen a profit since he became Chief Exec at WAFC?
Click to expand...

Who's to say that overseeing an annual profit was one of JJ's performance targets? That said, the club was run very well ....... the Admins said that on entering the club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.