The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Lest we forget, the arguments here are precisely the ones seen for much of the past 3yrs.

No, not everybody wants to wear black & white scarves, throw pigs or protest in anyway. That is entirely their prerogative. I respect their view. The challenge I have is the idea the club is financially sound - it is not.

Its survival at present is dependent on the "whim" of The Investor. The manner in which the investment is structured is entirely to the benefit of the Corporate Investor and the beneficial owner.

You can argue it is the way of "football" and too often with one crucial difference, it is. Many accountants & investment bankers will testify to the normality of such arrangements. However from a Corporate Banking perspective where the focus is entirely on the trading health of the corporate trading entities which represent the club the debt and the financial management to date render it as unsustainable.

Without "an investor" it is the perfect paradox. Where does the club find the £55mn needed to continue to trade without realising the assets (The Valley & Sparrows Lane) it needs to trade? What even is the real value of such assets?

People can hypothesize to their hearts content but as with the previous regime this investor can and no doubt will pull the funding at some point. It is entirely the prerogative of the Corporate Investor. What is not is the profligate manner in which his executive has wreked havoc on the financial trading health of the club.

The argument "Well it's his money" is simply not true unless & until he agrees to write off the debt or commit the money to the club via equity investment. The argument well he will get his money back when he sells does not work either. For every £ a new investor has to spend on acquiring the club it is £ less they can spend on developing and sustaining the club.

The bigger the debt grows the less sustainable the future of the club becomes.

Whatever the merit of the initial master plan the execution of the related polices have fallen very short of delivering to any meaningful target. I know it is boring but the numbers do not lie.

On such a basis when his "cease investment trigger point" will be, whether the debt is £50mn, £70mn or £100mn, nobody bar the investor can know.

I am pleased as anyone at seeing the makings of a viable League 1 football squad this season, however no business gets a clean bill of health on the back of 6months stable trading unless & until there is clear evidence of a fundamental change in the ethos of the business, coupled with a clear plan to address the financial and operational consequences of its past failures.

Club debt has increased by circa £32-34mn over and above the receipt of circa £20-£23mn in ( accrued & accruing) transfer fees while the clubs reduced status has lost circa £4mn per annum media revenue. 2 seasons in League 1 will have accounted for the upfront Lookman fee. It is money wasted.

Quite what financial disciplines are in place for an executive to manage to get through £52-57mn since Jan 2014 even before funding this years trading requirement while reducing playing status, match attendances, gate receipts, and ancillary revenue is a challenge no one should ignore. Please tell me where you see the ability for this management to trade its way out of such circumstances.

Even the expenditure on the training ground and/or "new" academy at this point can only be seen as a noteworthy "sound bite". It can only become of additional fiscal value as and when it is completed and is delivering to the business. Up and until this point it is a drain on management and financial resources.

Plans for less grandiose, but viably and externally funded training ground and academy improvements were in place under the previous administration.

The argument there may be worse owners out there has some validity but such an approach resembles someone settling for a life partner just because they are there. It is hardly the most compelling argument to continue.

Key to the debate today, the one crucial difference noted above, and indeed the key going forward is the value set of any investor and their executive in managing the club. Is their primary value set about supporting the clubs first team in its pursuit of sporting excellence and achievement?

Is their decision making process going to be one where every action and financial decision is geared toward supporting that ambition?

That does not preclude the departure of "star" players which is part & parcel of the industry today but the utilisation of such funds in the fullest support possible for the advancement of the club as a professional football club. Such an approach still offers no guarantees but is the starting point for the professionalism and competence needed for the club to flourish and grow.

Anecdotal evidence to this point indicates such is not the value set of the current investor and his executive. Head coaches & Managers have been left "short changed" over 7 transfer windows.

What precisely is today's primary value set is anyone's guess. This administration after nearly 4yrs has still not been able to enunciate it with any clarity by either word or deed. We have faced nothing but endless muddle, speculation, discord and division with consequent reduction of support for the club.

Whatever your personal judgements if others do not believe they share a clubs value set they will walk away. What will once have been a passion is reduced to no more than a passing interest.

Good riddance is not the answer. Future generations of supporters will have already been lost. What club can survive and progress on such a basis? It is the road to oblivion. A club is built around inclusion by trying to meet the broadest spectrum of value sets possible.

I have no personal animosity for the individuals involved. They simply have never shown an understanding of the market in which they chose to invest. They are not the first nor will be the last to make the same mistake. However to try to impose a "super plan" and a very specific value set which was never fit for purpose in the manner they have betrays the arrogance of the ignorance involved.

Point me in the direction of any other executive who has had to;
- recruit expensive marketing personnel to talk to its own supporters.
- impose expensive often draconian security to protect itself from protests
- beg, steal & borrow the actions of the splendid community work established long before their arrival as being their work.

Such actions speak to the very definition of confused self interest and self promotion.

The confusion extends to the development of the academy. If it is meant to deliver an enhanced revenue stream why are we still so far from seeing its completion? If it was the keystone strategy why are we relying on its piecemeal development based on the clubs limited trading receipts for its funding?

If it is a key strategy you strategically fund it and build it - otherwise when will it ever deliver the benefits you seek. No project of such magnitude can deliver on piecemeal funding. Can someone please provide some clarity as to what exactly it is going to deliver over and above what we see today?

The academy/ development function has through the departures of Pope, Gomez, Fox, Cousins, Harriott, Lookman already delivered revenue to tune of circa £15/17mn with Konsa next in line to leave. Just what exactly will the enhanced academy deliver over and above such performance?

What will Category 1 status actually deliver? Can we even afford the increased operational costs? What in reality are the actual numbers going to look like?

Flagship investment or flagship example of the muddled thinking, muddled strategy, muddled policies, muddled implementation and muddled values which has so defined this administration and this investor.

I believe our history deserves better.

RD's triumph was that he saved us from the previous owners. His tragedy was that he failed to save us from himself.