Bbc

[bocadillo]

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).

I'd be quite happy for you to include the cost of the stadium in the list of responsibilities taken on by the present shareholders - but it wasn't part of the purchase price of their shares. Anybody who thinks that MM will be handing over £25M just hasn't been bothering to read and comprehend what has been written either in the Mercury or anywhere else.

I entirely agree with the summation in your final paragraph - although clearly the actual figures are still to be seen.

 

[bocadillo]

"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.

Doesn't say much about the Trust's power of persuasion, does it? Or perhaps these were the same knuckle-dragging fans who continue to chant for Matt Fryatt every time Elvis touches the ball - in which case, who cares what they believe?!!?

 

[Jeff]

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.

Who says the club will own the ground in a year?

The speculation so far is that either MM will take over the existing loan, or the loan will be refinanced with another company. In neither of those cases will the club own the ground - and it wouldn't make sense for any new investor looking to get promoted to spend money on the stadium, it would be much more effectively spent strengthening the team.

MM will be taking on the stadium debt - in the same way the existing shareholders did - but he'll also be taking over significant assets. In terms of the value of the club they largely cancel each other out, it's nonsense to include the stadium debt in the value of the takeover.

 

[bocadillo]

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 FT used to claim that they were the fans' voice too - but they quickly realised that when individual fans have so many different opinions, they couldn't speak for them all. The FT speaks for itself - and whoever happens to agree with it.

I don't think that anybody has suggested that the FT is full of people who don't care about City, but I expect that the FT board also have a thought about the future of the FT - the interests of the Club and the interests of the FT may not be met by the same course of action; in this event, I can see that they might fidn themselves in some difficulty.

 

[Lboro fox]

The FT used to claim that they were the fans' voice to - but they quickly realised that when individual fans have so many different opinions, they couldn't speak for them all. The FT speaks for itself - and whoever happens to agree with it.

Good post Boc.

 

[SJN-Fox]

Who says the club will own the ground in a year?

The speculation so far is that either MM will take over the existing loan, or the loan will be refinanced with another company. In neither of those cases will the club own the ground - and it wouldn't make sense for any new investor looking to get promoted to spend money on the stadium, it would be much more effectively spent strengthening the team.

Yes, but if the club owned the stadium, it would have an asset against which it could raise capital to finance new players. At the moment we are paying expensive lease payments with high interest rates. Our credit rating is so poor that even the Provi man won't give us a loan. With some security, we could raise a loan to finance players and still be on a more stable and secure financial footing than if the stadium was still owned by Teachers or some other finance company.

 

[bocadillo]

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

Perhaps people don't agree with the 'Trust concept'. If that is so, why would you want to join it. Would you suggest that meat-eaters should join The Vegetarian Society and change it from within? Should the Jews have joined the National Socialists and worked from within to get rid of Hitler? Should the Archbishop of Canterbury become a Catholic and try to get rid of the Pope?

 

[Jeff]

Yes, but if the club owned the stadium, it would have an asset against which it could raise capital to finance new players. At the moment we are paying expensive lease payments with high interest rates. Our credit rating is so poor that even the Provi man won't give us a loan. With some security, we could raise a loan to finance players and still be on a more stable and secure financial footing than if the stadium was still owned by Teachers or some other finance company.

But it would take £16 million or so to buy the stadium. So you're saying someone should pay £16 million to buy the stadium, so we could use it as security for a loan to buy some players?
What would make sense is if MM (or someone else?) could get the stadium debt refinanced at a lower interest rate, but paying it off just to use it as security to borrow more money makes no sense.

If he's got £16 million to put into the club with the idea of getting promoted, the best thing to do with that money is to use it to strengthen the team. If he's not interested in strengthening the team but is more interested in the long term future of the club without taking any risks it would be sensible to pay off the stadium loan, but from the interviews MM's given his idea is to get promoted.

 

[bocadillo]

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.

With respect, I think you have allowed yourself to become confused. We don't yet know what MM will be paying for anything. What you say would only apply if MM either put his own money into the repurchasing of the stadium or borrowed the money to do so under his personal guarantee - I don't think this will happen.

Can I ask you where you stand on the Elvis v Matt Fryatt debate?

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Why not set up another organisation with a broader base.

What would you describe as a broader base Steven ?

The Trust is open to all City fans & ideally we would like a full mix of views represented on the FT board... there is an election coming up

 

[SJN-Fox]

Can I ask you where you stand on the Elvis v Matt Fryatt debate?

Yes you can:icon_lol:

 

[Foxes_Trust]

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

Not sure, suspect there is still a bit of negotiating required, depends how quickly that takes place.

Aim is certainly to resolve in January it's a case of how early in the month

 

[Foxes_Trust]

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.

"will/might include the cost of buying back the stadium from Teachers"

The initial indictative offer made no mention of doing this & our belief is that this hasn't changed in subsequent versions.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Doesn't say much about the Trust's power of persuasion, does it? Or perhaps these were the same knuckle-dragging fans who continue to chant for Matt Fryatt every time Elvis touches the ball - in which case, who cares what they believe?!!?

It says more about the Mercury who we challenged about the £25m figure & suggested they used their journalistic powers to drill into the figures, but they seem happy to continue as a PR tool for MM.

 

[SJN-Fox]

but from the interviews MM's given his idea is to get promoted.

Maybe that's so, but he's also a businessman who knows the value of the clubs assets (currently zero and falling), if he is looking at taking the club forward, that has to include the purchase of the stadium,(at least in the long term) unless, he's prepared to put money into the club year upon year just to maintain the lease repayments. Premiership money is all well and good but the continued provision of that particular source of finance depends solely on results, as we have found out to our cost already. Until the club is freed of its major debt, we will never be able to make adequate use of premiership money.

You might want to have a look at how much major cash he spent on players when he was at Portsmouth. From what I recall, he was no Abramovich. He didn't splash out on transfers, but did get the players on long contracts with good wages (sounds a little too familiar to me).

 

[Foxes_Trust]

The FT used to claim that they were the fans' voice too - but they quickly realised that when individual fans have so many different opinions, they couldn't speak for them all. The FT speaks for itself - and whoever happens to agree with it.

I don't think that anybody has suggested that the FT is full of people who don't care about City, but I expect that the FT board also have a thought about the future of the FT - the interests of the Club and the interests of the FT may not be met by the same course of action; in this event, I can see that they might fidn themselves in some difficulty.

We know as a Trust board we have to make decisions and in doing so not all Trust members will agree with them, alone the entire fan base. We still however speak for the largest LCFC fans organisation & have no reason to believe that our members are not representative of the entire fan base.

The FT will have a role whatever the new set up of the club (Trust's across the country face varied circumstances from working closely with the club, to having very strained relationships & communicating via the media). The FT will adjust accordingly, however MM's representatives have already promised us a position on the Advisory Board if the takeover goes ahead.

Our sole focus is the long term interests of the club when considering any proposal.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Maybe that's so, but he's also a businessman who knows the value of the clubs assets (currently zero and falling), if he is looking at taking the club forward, that has to include the purchase of the stadium,(at least in the long term) unless, he's prepared to put money into the club year upon year just to maintain the lease repayments. Premiership money is all well and good but the continued provision of that particular source of finance depends solely on results, as we have found out to our cost already. Until the club is freed of its major debt, we will never be able to make adequate use of premiership money.

You might want to have a look at how much major cash he spent on players when he was at Portsmouth. From what I recall, he was no Abramovich. He didn't splash out on transfers, but did get the players on long contracts with good wages (sounds a little too familiar to me).

From the direct conversations we had with MM's representative in the early stages, MM does not follow your thinking & would keep the stadium under a finance deal.

Agree with your observations about track record at Pompey, did many loan deals & seem to utilise cash on wages not fees, however we have seen the results of this previously at our club, as you say is worrying.

 

[drew]

MM got Pompey promoted. What have our board done? What makes them so great and MM the eater of kittens and children?

I couldn't give a monkeys if he did it with loans, at least he did it.

 

[Jeff]

MM got Pompey promoted. What have our board done? What makes them so great and MM the eater of kittens and children?

I couldn't give a monkeys if he did it with loans, at least he did it.

It took him four years to get promoted.

Our current board did it in only a few months :icon_wink

 

[drew]

LCFC had a squad with a lot of premiership experience. MM was never going to do it with the squad he inherited at Pompey.

We are treading water right now. The current board clearly do not want to invest to the level required.