Bbc

[DesertFox]

I read it the same way as OG, to be honest Melton.

That sentence doesn't claim anything other than the fact that some shareholders pay for boxes and - as I read it - it's a form of putting money into the club, like buying a season ticket or a novelty air freshener from the shop.

And that doesn't make me a shareholder if I buy a Filbert the Fox mug, obviously...

 

[Melton Fox]

I've already been told by tweo people I read it wrong, so I aoplogise to the Foxes Trust. I have re read it a few times and it still comes across the same to me, but I can understand how I can be wrong.

Maybe, just maybe the FT have mis represented themselves on more than one occasion due to the way different people interpret their posts?

Maybe those that are anti FT, may not be so if they read their posts differently, just a thought.

Sorry FT

 

[Macky]

The context that it was put across in was that they are continuing to put money into the club.

I'm sure most people will read that the same as I do. It's a stand alone sentance that bares no reference to freebies, only expenditure and giving money to the club

to be fair I didn't read it like that either Melton.
I saw it as a response to Chrysalis' apparent hatred & suspiscion for everyone not associated with Milan Manderic.

 

[Steven]

I've already been told by tweo people I read it wrong, so I aoplogise to the Foxes Trust. I have re read it a few times and it still comes across the same to me, but I can understand how I can be wrong.

Maybe, just maybe the FT have mis represented themselves on more than one occasion due to the way different people interpret their posts?

Maybe those that are anti FT, may not be so if they read their posts differently, just a thought.

Sorry FT

I think your apology might be premature.

The original post was

Originally Posted by Chrysalis View Post
doesnt answer the question.

tim davies paid
chairman paid

these 2 at head of negotiations do you think there is an element of personal interest in them?

the rest of the shareholders how many of them get business and income as a result of been shareholders at the club? we dont know.

to which the reply was

Foxes_Trust
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis View Post
doesnt answer the question.

tim davies paid
chairman paid

these 2 at head of negotiations do you think there is an element of personal interest in them?

the rest of the shareholders how many of them get business and income as a result of been shareholders at the club? we dont know.
Chairman is doing the negotiations, TD supplies the numbers. Chairman told us when he took on the role his aim was to find new investors & if he succeeded and as a result he then had to stand down as chair, he would regard that as a success.

A number of shareholders have hospitality boxes which they pay the going rate for each season, so they continue to put money into the club in that way.

Well if I read these statements in the context in which they are written it would seem to me that the FT are suggesting that the ordinary transactions of shareholders w.r.t. to the Club, should be seen as part of an on going process of putting money into the Club which began when they became shareholders,

I am sure that the FT do not mean this but it is ambiguous at best. Moreover it highlights the dangers of posts which are not clearly thought out and then submitted in an atmosphere of rumour and intrigue.

 

[bocadillo]

I don't think Melton's apology is at all necessary. Paying for a hospitality box at the going rate should not be regarded as putting money into the club; it is simply a payment for services rendered and goods received. If you buy petrol from a supermarket, you don't say that you are putting money into Tesco, Sainsburys or whatever. There is a danger that in suggesting that paying for a box puts money into the club, the FT could be accused of speaking up for their 'mates'.

 

[Feriol]

I agree the FT comment there was very odd.

i imagine they were trying to show that the shareholders aren't getting freebies (taking money out of the club) but it was wrong to suggest that paying for box equates to putting money in

 

[Isopen]

Have you seen this today

Mail on Sunday: Joe Bernstein on the transfer window, mainly about Pompey however says

".....but it is thought that Mandaric has not received his £47 million, which has led to a delay to the former Pompey owner's proposed takeover at Leicester City"

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Just to clarify yesterdays post.

The implication from the original post by Chrysalis was that shareholders put their money in & now all they do is take out.

As a response we gave the example of a number of shareholders who continue to have corporate boxes & in doing so put money in the club, just like individual fans do buying match tickets or merchandise.

On the other hand, there are a few shareholders who never attend games, so get no benefit from their investment in terms of match tickets (each shareholder is allowed 2/game)

We didn't mean their shareholding is increased as a result. From a shareholding viewpoint, it has been dis-appointing than other than ourselves, that few other shareholders have sought to increase their investment since the initial investment

 

[Durham Fox]

Just to clarify yesterdays post.

The implication from the original post by Chrysalis was that shareholders put their money in & now all they do is take out.

As a response we gave the example of a number of shareholders who continue to have corporate boxes & in doing so put money in the club, just like individual fans do buying match tickets or merchandise.

On the other hand, there are a few shareholders who never attend games, so get no benefit from their investment in terms of match tickets (each shareholder is allowed 2/game)

We didn't mean their shareholding is increased as a result. From a shareholding viewpoint, it has been dis-appointing than other than ourselves, that few other shareholders have sought to increase their investment since the initial investment

but hardly suprising

 

[Steven]

Just to clarify yesterdays post.

The implication from the original post by Chrysalis was that shareholders put their money in & now all they do is take out.

As a response we gave the example of a number of shareholders who continue to have corporate boxes & in doing so put money in the club, just like individual fans do buying match tickets or merchandise.

On the other hand, there are a few shareholders who never attend games, so get no benefit from their investment in terms of match tickets (each shareholder is allowed 2/game)

We didn't mean their shareholding is increased as a result. From a shareholding viewpoint, it has been dis-appointing than other than ourselves, that few other shareholders have sought to increase their investment since the initial investment

For two reasons, the 10% rule and the value it would represent.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

For two reasons, the 10% rule and the value it would represent.

The 10% rule (actually it's something like 9.6%) would not block any shareholder putting some extra in.

£6.379m shares, even the largest shareholders at £500k each could add another £100k, all others far more. We added 51% to our initial investment, one shareholder put in an additional £100k, other than that only the addition of Andrew Taylor's money has been made.

 

[Redditch Fox]

For two reasons, the 10% rule and the value it would represent.

Quite. Everytime I start to feel guilty for my opinion that the FT are daft, they come up with statements that just reinforce my low opinions.

Are they too stupid to realise that the reason that the 'investors' came in was to rescue the club? The only reason why the FT is interested in further investment is the pursuit of a place on the board. Other investors think they have done their bit - and that's that.

All the FT are doing with this sort of comment is drawing attention to the absurdity of the 10% rule...and why it needs, so desparately, someone to come along and take control of the club.

 

[Leigh]

From a very anti-MM poster on another forum:

Getting back to the topic, whispers reach me that the City board have SPLIT over whether to accept Mandy's bid or not.

Sources present at Southampton yesterday have let it be known that the value is way too low and there have been NO guarantees given about the future of the Way or the training ground, or whether funds will be given to strengthen the squad.

If Mandy presents the bid to shareholders directly, the chances are it'll be turned down.

One director has quit already and others look likely to follow.

It looks like the fears that some of us had about Mandy have now been realised.

Not a great end to the year, but that's how it is...

and

Except this source is 100% genuine, and will be revealed to the local media within the next couple of days.

The resignation of a director, who has been a central figure in talks on this deal, is not something that can be kept quiet for very long.

 

[1966]

Well it seems we have reached the end game now.

Their has indeed been a resignation, and a full board member at that.

The final offer will see; MM buy the club for £1/2m, the club remaining as gaurantors of the loan without link to MM (MM will not be liable for a penny of it), no gaurantees that should MM decide to walk away he would not recoup his innitial investment by selling assetts like the training ground, no investment in players from his own pocket (this would be achieved through extra debt), no gaurantees of any further payments to the existing shareholders.

MM's committment will be £1/2m and the words "trust me".

So their we have it for £1/2m MM will own the club lock stock and barrell, with absolutely no come back if it all goes horribly wrong. If it did go horribly wrong of course then we would be a lot lot worse off than now because of the vastly increased debt.

Get ready for the ride of your life.

 

[Dour]

Well it seems we have reached the end game now.

Their has indeed been a resignation, and a full board member at that.

The final offer will see; MM buy the club for £1/2m, the club remaining as gaurantors of the loan without link to MM (MM will not be liable for a penny of it), no gaurantees that should MM decide to walk away he would not recoup his innitial investment by selling assetts like the training ground, no investment in players from his own pocket (this would be achieved through extra debt), no gaurantees of any further payments to the existing shareholders.

MM's committment will be £1/2m and the words "trust me".

So their we have it for £1/2m MM will own the club lock stock and barrell, with absolutely no come back if it all goes horribly wrong. If it did go horribly wrong of course then we would be a lot lot worse off than now because of the vastly increased debt.

Get ready for the ride of your life.

Doesn't look like an attractive offer...

 

[bocadillo]

Well it seems we have reached the end game now.

Their has indeed been a resignation, and a full board member at that.

The final offer will see; MM buy the club for £1/2m, the club remaining as gaurantors of the loan without link to MM (MM will not be liable for a penny of it), no gaurantees that should MM decide to walk away he would not recoup his innitial investment by selling assetts like the training ground, no investment in players from his own pocket (this would be achieved through extra debt), no gaurantees of any further payments to the existing shareholders.

MM's committment will be £1/2m and the words "trust me".

So their we have it for £1/2m MM will own the club lock stock and barrell, with absolutely no come back if it all goes horribly wrong. If it did go horribly wrong of course then we would be a lot lot worse off than now because of the vastly increased debt.

Get ready for the ride of your life.

Can you give us a source for this? I can't see any announcement.

 

[Steven]

Doesn't look like an attractive offer...

Depends what's there to be sold.

 

[Dour]

Depends what's there to be sold.

One way of looking at it is the value to anyone else should be £8.5 million since, as soon as MM buts in a bid, Gaydamak will tell him to sling his hook for the £8 million owed on Portsmouth.

 

[Chrysalis]

I think if MM comes in there will be an increased chance of promotion. But what worries me is what happens if the club gets into loads of debt and doesn't get promoted. I've said all along I'm not against the takeover as long as there are guarantees about the club's future if MM gets us deeper into debt. And he will get us into more debt, I don't think there's any doubt about that (Portsmouth got into loads of debt when he was there), it's a question of whether the money is spent wisely and we get promoted, to pay off the money that's been borrowed.


I think people are being far too pessimistic about what will happen if MM doesn't come in. I think we'll end up selling a couple of players - but that's something the club has had to do for most of its history without dropping out of the top two divisions. Financially we should have no problem surviving at this level, if we get relegated it will be down to bad management rather than lack of money.

Bad management and lack of money come hand in hand tho? you cant attract the best managers if there is no transfer budget and low salary levels.

Also you should know that there is no garuantees in football only a hardened rich leics fan would consider it and even then it would be unlikely.

 

[Chrysalis]

Er, there is evidence for the other side. Portsmouth's accounts.

evidence of what?

he lends money? I have no problem with him lending us money.

what other evidence is there?