Bbc

[Real Sharapova]

I wonder who will report the takeover bid success/failure (delete as needed) news first? RL? The Mockery? Sky Sports?, BBC.co.uk/sport?

Something on a par with the mockery, say The Beano.

 

[stevewalshwasgod]

Viz

 

[Foxes_Trust]

But if it is borrrowed, it is not money he personally is investing in the club. If I offered £0 for the club, but transfered the Teacher's loan to my mortgage with Standard Life I haven't suddenly invested £15 million in the club, I've invested nothing. At the end of the day there is a still a £15 million loan that would have to be secured on the assets of the club.

Precisely, so in theory they should knock £16m off the figure.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

so would you say that the current shareholders bought the club for a combined £21 million pounds?

Hit the nail on the head there, on the basis people think it is correct to include the stadium debt in the MM figures, than that would equally be the case.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I guess the trust couldn't answer my question then.

It isn't about anything to do with the deal I just want to know what is actually happening. Is it even being considered or are the board sitting around scratching themselves?

Anyone?

Our Trust Observer has attended a board meeting this week

 

[bocadillo]

Hit the nail on the head there, on the basis people think it is correct to include the stadium debt in the MM figures, than that would equally be the case.

Why do you talk such utter bollocks? Everybody recognises that there is a difference between the amount that MM will pay shareholders for their shares and the total amount of the deal. Your failure to accept this does neither you nor your organisation any credit.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Why do you talk such utter bollocks? Everybody recognises that there is a difference between the amount that MM will pay shareholders for their shares and the total amount of the deal. Your failure to accept this does neither you nor your organisation any credit.

"Everybody recognises that there is a difference"

If it only it was, at every game since the £25m figure was first published, at least one FT board member has had to explain to fans at the game that we aren't getting £25m cash.

Message board posters get plenty of chance to read otherwise & the vast majority understand, the problem is with the Mercury readers who have no other source of info & are hooked on to MM's rod dangled every day by Mr Anderson.

We find we are constantly have to re-address BA's articles of PR, which can be taken as the FT being anti the bid, which as you picked up earlier today depending on what the final offer is, we probably won't be as our decision will be based on the bid content compared to the alternatives and the level of risks associated with each.

 

[Melton Fox]

we aren't getting £25m cash

We are, you're not.

We = Leicester City Football Club
You = Shareholders

 

[Dour]

We are, you're not.

We = Leicester City Football Club
You = Shareholders

LCFC isn't either, sadly.

 

[The Don]

I am always surprised by he hostility towards the Foxes Trust on this website.
It is as though they are the Tricky Tree Trust.

What is the problem with the FT? I thought they were the fans' voice. Is the FT full of people who don't care about City or is it just that people here are habitually negative?

The Don

 

[The Don]

Why am I only a junior member?

 

[Jeff]

Why am I only a junior member?

Because you've only made two posts.

 

[Melton Fox]

I am always surprised by he hostility towards the Foxes Trust on this website.
It is as though they are the Tricky Tree Trust.

What is the problem with the FT? I thought they were the fans' voice. Is the FT full of people who don't care about City or is it just that people here are habitually negative?

The Don

Welcome FT, oops sorry Don

The FT don't represent the fans of the club, they represent those that pay them to do so, like a solicitor.

We don't always agree with their members. It isn't the FT that get criticised on here, it's their members. After all, they are the voice of their members

 

[The Don]

Why don't you and others join the FT and change it from within?
THE Don

 

[Steven]

Why don't you and others join the FT and change it from within?
THE Don

Why not set up another organisation with a broader base.

 

[SilverFox]

Our Trust Observer has attended a board meeting this week

Are we likely to hear any news in the near future good or bad?

 

[Granite Fox]

Why do you talk such utter bollocks? Everybody recognises that there is a difference between the amount that MM will pay shareholders for their shares and the total amount of the deal. Your failure to accept this does neither you nor your organisation any credit.

I don't agree with this Boc. All the FT was saying is that Feriol was rightly comparing apples with apples (The current Shareholders invested £21m if MM will invest £25M), rather than apples with oranges, which is what the Mockery are doing. If MM taking on the Teachers debt (or refinancing it) can be included in the £25m figure then it should also be included in the shareholders figure (well the £15-16M for the stadium) as the shareholders also took on this debt.

It would suggest that MM is actually increasing the investment in the club by something like £9m (which may be presonal cash reserves or debt secured against the clubs assets), some of which would have to be given to the shareholders in the first instance (but not the full £6.5M).

 

[SilverFox]

If any of the current shareholders or anyone for that matter claiming to have the clubs best interests at heart actually really was passionate about the club they would have bought and paid for the stadium an age ago.

The combined personal wealth of the current shareholders is absolutely huge. They might have better cars, softer beds, bigger houses and perhaps a better meal but at the end of it all there is only so much money that a person can spend. One certain shareholder sold his shares in weetabix for close to £100 million and another is valued at close to £50 million. I have no idea how much Pukka is worth, of for that matter many of the others but I do know that a couple of million each from these people to give the city it's stadium back wouldn't ruin them...in fact it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to their lives...

I'm not slinging mud, just commenting that it is easy to say you have the best interests of the club at heart whilst at the same time watching it limp on and decline for the past few years. If they really wanted success they would have put their hands in their pockets and invested. To me it seems that they felt obliged to rescue it from dropping off the face of the earth but really nothing more...

If this is the case they should sell. If it isn't tell Milan to do one and get your wallets out.

All we really need is the ground back...that would do.

 

[OldGit]

One thing we are all good at is spending other people's money!

 

[SJN-Fox]

If MM taking on the Teachers debt (or refinancing it) can be included in the £25m figure then it should also be included in the shareholders figure

FFS. No it shouldn't. The current investors put up £6m for the club, BUT, neither they, or the club owns the stadium. MM is putting up whatever the figure might be, (lets say, for the sake of arguement £25m perhaps £3m for shareholders, £19m to buy the stadium, and £3m for whatever manager happens to be here to buy a player or 12) and that will/might include the cost of buying back the stadium from Teachers, so that as/if/when he sells the club in the future (assuming that there are no future debts secured on the ground), the cost of the club will include the cost of the stadium. at the moment, the club is worth £6m, this time next year it will be worth (maybe) £20m+ as it will own its own ground.