It could be a way of bargaining a price down, but whatever it is we are in trouble. Admin may be our only option when you consider the amounts involved. If it goes to that, I hope the administrators look more favourably on the small businesses put in this situation through no fault of their own rather than those previously involved in running the club into this situation. Sad days.
Anyone know which port the rubber shipment is due to arrive at?
The only thing depressing about this is if it goes on for too long or if this proposed takeover falls over. I made some comments on the Southampton situation to one of their fans along the lines that Aviva (who had the mortgage on their stadium) and the new owners were engaged in brinkmanship and that something would come out of it all - would be interesting to know how much they had to w/off on the main asset...
The point is this looks like a similar but different poker game with the current board (who basically lost the money by employing Dowie Pardew AND sanctioning the millions on signings) hoping to salvage something from a takeover.
What does appear very clear is that the existing board will not put in any much needed cash so we need this resolved quickly else we will start losing what quality we have left just to keep the club going... personally I think a 10 point deduction is buttons given the 20-30M being talked about and this (together with Saints situation) may even lead to a rewrite of the rules!
And yes this does strike me as brinkmanship but let's hope that the current owners realise that the real business value of the club is the cash flow (negative!) + the assets less non director debts - since to keep the club solvent these will have to be w/off or converted to shares at some point.
Put another way if this new consortium has £20M to splash (?) would you rather this went into the club to stabilise and hopefully build for a promotion or two (!!!) or out to the old owners. Like many I was full of admiration for the Murray/Curbishley/Varny trio - unfourtunately someone has to pick up the tab for what has happened since so lets hope they can cut a deal quickly before this gets messy.
[cite]Posted By: seriously_red[/cite] ... personally I think a 10 point deduction is buttons given the 20-30M being talked about and this (together with Saints situation) may even lead to a rewrite of the rules!.
Agree with this. I'm sure it won't be long before new rules are brought in. If a club goes £100m+ into debt then unless they're one of the top 4 or have a rich owner they'll have no way of getting it back, so what's the easier option, find £100m or take a 10 point hit and start afresh?
Maybe they'll bring in something like £1m debt = 1 point deducted?
Mortimerician wrote: "Sadly I think the one issue is the amount of debt that the current board are prepared to wipe out: far more likely that cash is in the way rather than egos."
Or financially capable of writing off. It may be that it costs some their pensions/houses etc. We just don't know, give them a bit of credit, they are after all fans first.
I'm still bored by it all .... agree the leaking of "information" sounds like brinksmanship ... I just wish both parties would hurry up with their brinking.
there might've been some metaphorical creaming over Mick's article, nevertheless if the eager beavers could stem the flow of vitriole for a little while, we might have some facts and a defining moment very soon .... which is perhaps a better time both for calm reflection and for excitable character-assassinations .
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Or financially capable of writing off. It may be that it costs some their pensions/houses etc. We just don't know, give them a bit of credit, they are after all fans first.
Whether they are "fans first" or not, the major shareholders are entitled to get the best deal they can for themselves - the question is how realistic they are being and none of us really knows the answer to that question or is in a position to second-guess them.
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Or financially capable of writing off. It may be that it costs some their pensions/houses etc. We just don't know, give them a bit of credit, they are after all fans first.
Whether they are "fans first" or not, the major shareholders are entitled to get the best deal they can for themselves - the question is how realistic they are being and none of us really knows the answer to that question or is in a position to second-guess them.
"the best deal for themselves" Let's look at the options.
Walk away losing everything you ever invested ,i'm guessing ,is their preferred choice .
However, walk away,lose everything and still owe a s**t lot more is probably number two on the list.
If the club did go into administration, wouldn't that have all sorts of negative consequences for any of them who also have directorships in other companies?
As I said before the piece in the Vile on Sunday could do more damage then good, it'll make creditors who were probably happy getting their bills paid twitchy and calling in those debt even quicker.
[cite]Posted By: Simon E[/cite]Didn't someone say in an earlier part of this thread that they had a "nailed on fact" that there would be some sort of press conference today?
Have been taking this all in & I'm not sure where I stand or what I really think. Part of me says that this leak is purely a negotiating tactic, whilst part of me says that we're in deep trouble. I certainly do not buy into this hidden debt that has only become known since the due diligence. If this was the case, then you could be looking at a ponzi like Madoff situation, if the board have been robbing Peter to pay Paul. Very worrying times illustrated by certain Murray supporters, being notable by their absence on this thread. Quelle suprise!
[cite]Posted By: seriously_red[/cite]... personally I think a 10 point deduction is buttons given the 20-30M being talked about and this (together with Saints situation) may even lead to a rewrite of the rules!.
Agree with this. I'm sure it won't be long before new rules are brought in. If a club goes £100m+ into debt then unless they're one of the top 4 or have a rich owner they'll have no way of getting it back, so what's the easier option, find £100m or take a 10 point hit and start afresh?
Maybe they'll bring in something like £1m debt = 1 point deducted?
Guys you have to remember that most of that £20M is owed to people who have worked long and hard for the club - not always for market rate - there's now the startings of a clamour for them to just ignore that. Sure, I'd love it if they would: they've got themselves into a mess. But, seriously, who amongst us would - or could - make that kind of sacrifice? Or even one that is much, much less. Say, £1000 out of your own pocket for the good of the club. It's really tough, stay and maybe drive the club further into the mire that you've steered it into (and maybe soaking up more cash on the way) or give up literally millions of pounds. I've just no idea what I'd do.
Airman re the redundancies, im not saying the club was going to make all 24 redundant from the pool, but didnt the club"spin" it that although sorry toloose the ten they were happy that they could hold it at 10? Ifthis was the case and we are in total melt down they would have (had to) make more redundant . I dont see anything has changed ,therefore no black hole debt exists !
Just a bit of total mental maths:
To take control of the club there needs to be a buy out of two of the 3 main shareholders. Lets say ( for arguement) RM and AW ---RM has 2million shares (dont come back and say he has 2,000,100 !!) and AW 1.5 million . There is no way they will get 50p a share but its easy to calculate. RM gets £1 million and Aw £750K. Lets say they also have to buy out some of the bonds. It si my belief that to take over this club (majority shareholding) they would NOT have to put in more than £6 million and that includes paying back DC £500K he has just put in and puting £1 million+ in a working capex fund.
Total buy out of all shareholders (why?) , and ownership of the Valley wouldnt come to £25 million.
Does announcing via a media source that we are facing administration then cause those that CAFC pay money too or owe money to come after us quicker and harder and what good will that do in the long run to our future.
I cant help but feel sometimes we should wait before publishing words like administration
What confuses me about all this is how our debt is now being quoted as £30-40m. At the beginning of the year Murray announced that we only had £20m debt, £14m of which was friendly debt to directors. I'm a shareholder and don't remember there being anything in the last set of end-of-year accounts to suggest that statement was untrue, and I think there would have been uproar on here if there was. So how have we almost doubled our debt in such a short space of time?
Is it...
1. Paper talk and reporters trying to make more of a story 2. The board not telling the whole story about the financial situation of the club 3. A combination of current debt with future liabilities added on top 4. The potential new owners exaggerating the situation to put more pressure on Murray and Co.
I have read every comment on this thread and can only claim to have worked out one thing, We are up Sh*t creek with only half a paddle.
Had the cut off date for season tickets been next monday and with no comment coming out of the club, with reluctance I would not be renewing.
I fear for the club I love and without any sort of reassurance I am getting a very sick feeling in my stomach.
What about the possibility of limping along? Maybe the current owners will say to themselves we will have to realise assets (players and mortgage/sell the Valley), or find more money from their own resources, either way keep on struggling on. The plea for season ticket money may centrally be linked with this approach...carrying on anyhow. We would be left hoping the remaining players can rise to the challenge, crowds hold up, the odd lucrative cup tie, a suprise Hudsonesque sale, a better financial landscape in the future, and maybe fresh interest from others thinking about taking over. This approach would not cost us ten points. Is limping along the option?
If we go into administration, how many points would we be deducted? General consensus is that it's ten points but if it transpires that there has been some concealment in the accounts which Peakie Rocket has thrown into the ring, wouldn't we be liable to a Bournemouth/Rotherham/Luton scale of deduction?
Comments
Bang on I think. a little bit more pressure, a further concession on price, the pressure of time...
Hopefully not long to wait until the listing at the takeover panel
and surely all this is in the clubs interest.
Anyone know which port the rubber shipment is due to arrive at?
If the cheques bounce, then the rubber shipment might bounce too.
Excellent point Rothko - let's hope the bigger ones don't read CL.
The point is this looks like a similar but different poker game with the current board (who basically lost the money by employing Dowie Pardew AND sanctioning the millions on signings) hoping to salvage something from a takeover.
What does appear very clear is that the existing board will not put in any much needed cash so we need this resolved quickly else we will start losing what quality we have left just to keep the club going... personally I think a 10 point deduction is buttons given the 20-30M being talked about and this (together with Saints situation) may even lead to a rewrite of the rules!
And yes this does strike me as brinkmanship but let's hope that the current owners realise that the real business value of the club is the cash flow (negative!) + the assets less non director debts - since to keep the club solvent these will have to be w/off or converted to shares at some point.
Put another way if this new consortium has £20M to splash (?) would you rather this went into the club to stabilise and hopefully build for a promotion or two (!!!) or out to the old owners. Like many I was full of admiration for the Murray/Curbishley/Varny trio - unfourtunately someone has to pick up the tab for what has happened since so lets hope they can cut a deal quickly before this gets messy.
Agree with this. I'm sure it won't be long before new rules are brought in. If a club goes £100m+ into debt then unless they're one of the top 4 or have a rich owner they'll have no way of getting it back, so what's the easier option, find £100m or take a 10 point hit and start afresh?
Maybe they'll bring in something like £1m debt = 1 point deducted?
I agree with this.
I wouldnt be a "fan first" if it meant mine and my family's future was in jeopardy.
there might've been some metaphorical creaming over Mick's article, nevertheless if the eager beavers could stem the flow of vitriole for a little while, we might have some facts and a defining moment very soon .... which is perhaps a better time both for calm reflection and for excitable character-assassinations .
Whether they are "fans first" or not, the major shareholders are entitled to get the best deal they can for themselves - the question is how realistic they are being and none of us really knows the answer to that question or is in a position to second-guess them.
"the best deal for themselves" Let's look at the options.
Walk away losing everything you ever invested ,i'm guessing ,is their preferred choice .
However, walk away,lose everything and still owe a s**t lot more is probably number two on the list.
I know which deal i'd be brokering for.
Unless I'm mistaken HMRC haven't suddenly got interested in unpaid tax?
That comment is in EVERY thread Simon!
Airman re the redundancies, im not saying the club was going to make all 24 redundant from the pool, but didnt the club"spin" it that although sorry toloose the ten they were happy that they could hold it at 10? Ifthis was the case and we are in total melt down they would have (had to) make more redundant . I dont see anything has changed ,therefore no black hole debt exists !
Just a bit of total mental maths:
To take control of the club there needs to be a buy out of two of the 3 main shareholders. Lets say ( for arguement) RM and AW ---RM has 2million shares (dont come back and say he has 2,000,100 !!) and AW 1.5 million . There is no way they will get 50p a share but its easy to calculate. RM gets £1 million and Aw £750K. Lets say they also have to buy out some of the bonds. It si my belief that to take over this club (majority shareholding) they would NOT have to put in more than £6 million and that includes paying back DC £500K he has just put in and puting £1 million+ in a working capex fund.
Total buy out of all shareholders (why?) , and ownership of the Valley wouldnt come to £25 million.
I cant help but feel sometimes we should wait before publishing words like administration
Is it...
1. Paper talk and reporters trying to make more of a story
2. The board not telling the whole story about the financial situation of the club
3. A combination of current debt with future liabilities added on top
4. The potential new owners exaggerating the situation to put more pressure on Murray and Co.
Had the cut off date for season tickets been next monday and with no comment coming out of the club, with reluctance I would not be renewing.
I fear for the club I love and without any sort of reassurance I am getting a very sick feeling in my stomach.
We would be left hoping the remaining players can rise to the challenge, crowds hold up, the odd lucrative cup tie, a suprise Hudsonesque sale, a better financial landscape in the future, and maybe fresh interest from others thinking about taking over.
This approach would not cost us ten points.
Is limping along the option?