Cats, pigeons and Teacher's....

[Real Sharapova]

Health Warning: What follows is totally unsubstantiated rumour, but I thought I'd pass it on as we all like a gossip on a Thursday morning. A friend of mine in the wild and wacky world of accountancy has told me what might be behind Milan Mandaric's claim of finding " legal and financial problems " as a result of due diligence, and it's nothing to do with a massive black hole in LCFC's accounts or Tim Davies robbing the tea machine. Apparently it may relate to the biggest player in the takeover that is very rarely mentioned - the Teacher's Pension Fund of New York. It appears that Mandaric may be trying to take over most or all of the mortgage - as with any lender Teacher's want reassurance that the payments will still be made both in the short and long term and that the business plan Mandaric is proposing is robust. Rumour has it that the information provided by Mandaric to Teacher's may not have totally satisfied them and they will block any transfer of the mortgage from LCFC to Mandaric's LCFC Mark II, thus scuppering any bid. Note for libel lawyers - the above is rumour and in no way should be taken as derogatory in any sense towards the financial standing towards Milan Mandaric who is well known as a successful and honest businessman.

 

[herr_satz]

Though rumour that is the most realistic explanation yet. Haven't heard it mentioned, but makes a huge amount of sense. Far more than some of the other things that I've read and heard anyway.

 

[Boy Genius]

I thought the talk was that he was going to buy the ground, so why should they moan?

Unless he is still going to keep payments going and not buy the ground outright, they would want some sort of assurance of course

 

[Real Sharapova]

I thought the talk was that he was going to buy the ground, so why should they moan?

Unless he is still going to keep payments going and not buy the ground outright, they would want some sort of assurance of course

If he were to buy the ground that would take £16 million out of his kitty to strengthen the squad, therefore I believe buying the stadium is not on the agenda at all.

 

[drew]

I'm sure MM has a better ability to pay the mortgage than the current motley crew.

 

[Durham Fox]

If he were to buy the ground that would take £16 million out of his kitty to strengthen the squad, therefore I believe buying the stadium is not on the agenda at all.

Might have to change his plans now. Although I would think Teachers would be more inclined to deal with MM than the current bunch of amateurs who seem to be steadily sinking the ship.

 

[Boy Genius]

If he were to buy the ground that would take £16 million out of his kitty to strengthen the squad, therefore I believe buying the stadium is not on the agenda at all.

feck me thats what I have been saying all along, but most seem to think buying the stadium was the be all and end all of everything. I could not see a good business reason why he needed to buy the ground anyway

 

[OldGit]

It makes a lot of sense - I did wonder when there was all the rumour about shareholder opposition if it might be them. I refrained from speculating then, but this does figure. After all, in the great scheme of things protecting the retirement savings of their constituents ranks somewhat higher than the ambitions of a football club.

It may not actually his ability to pay per se (or more accurately the ability of the company he would own) which is the problem - maybe he wants, say, more flexibility in the repayment schedule, or they are wary that it would carry more debt on its balance sheet than the present arrangement allows.

 

[Durham Fox]

It makes a lot of sense - I did wonder when there was all the rumour about shareholder opposition if it might be them. I refrained from speculating then, but this does figure. After all, in the great scheme of things protecting the retirement savings of their constituents ranks somewhat higher than the ambitions of a football club.

It may not actually his ability to pay per se (or more accurately the ability of the company he would own) which is the problem - maybe he wants, say, more flexibility in the repayment schedule, or they are wary that it would carry more debt on its balance sheet than the present arrangement allows.

If true, the deal would be scuppered by a sharholder with one share. You couldnt write it....

 

[Real Sharapova]

If true, the deal would be scuppered by a sharholder with one share. You couldnt write it....

To be fair Duzza, whether they own a share or not doesn't matter - it's the fact they are our largest creditor and have a say as to whether their debt is transferred to someone else.

 

[newtonfox]

To be fair Duzza, whether they own a share or not doesn't matter - it's the fact they are our largest creditor and have a say as to whether their debt is transferred to someone else.

i mite be wrong here RS but if MM took over the payments or / paid out right ,once all the paper work is done it would be his problem and not theres so i carnt see why they would put a spanner in the works ,like i said i mite be wrong

 

[Durham Fox]

To be fair Duzza, whether they own a share or not doesn't matter - it's the fact they are our largest creditor and have a say as to whether their debt is transferred to someone else.

I agree 100% just ironic thats all.

 

[Real Sharapova]

i mite be wrong here RS but if MM took over the payments or / paid out right ,once all the paper work is done it would be his problem and not theres so i carnt see why they would put a spanner in the works ,like i said i mite be wrong

It's like you transferring your mortgage to Bernie - your mortgage company would have to agree it, and would probably say no.

 

[Durham Fox]

It's like you transferring your mortgage to Bernie - your mortgage company would have to agree it, and would probably say no.

I wouldnt expect any bank to have any say in who I transferred my mortgage to.

 

[Real Sharapova]

I wouldnt expect any bank to have any say in who I transferred my mortgage to.

At the end of the day the mortgage is in your name, and they have given you the morgage because you are creditworthy. Your morgage company has a contract with you - it's up to them so say if you could transfer that debt to somebody else, and they would want to ensure that person was creditworthy.

 

[Dour]

It makes a lot of sense - I did wonder when there was all the rumour about shareholder opposition if it might be them. I refrained from speculating then, but this does figure. After all, in the great scheme of things protecting the retirement savings of their constituents ranks somewhat higher than the ambitions of a football club.

It may not actually his ability to pay per se (or more accurately the ability of the company he would own) which is the problem - maybe he wants, say, more flexibility in the repayment schedule, or they are wary that it would carry more debt on its balance sheet than the present arrangement allows.

Probably the last. If, as history suggests, his plan is to lend the club any additional money, then you could see the Teachers being very cautious over an additional few million of debt.

 

[Durham Fox]

At the end of the day the mortgage is in your name, and they have given you the morgage because you are creditworthy. Your morgage company has a contract with you - it's up to them so say if you could transfer that debt to somebody else, and they would want to ensure that person was creditworthy.

I see your point now thought you were saying my bank had a say in me transfering the debt to another bank

 

[gloucesterfox]

There was talk at one time that there was a clause in our agreement with the teachers that if we were taken over the new company would have to pay off the loan as part of the deal. Does anyone know if this was true? Even if it was there I suppose you could go and say to them and say that the current setup is not viable so you either renegotiate or the only buyer showing interest will walk away and the company may go bust and you are left with a stadium and only a rugby team who may have any interest in buy it.

It was widely stated that the teachers have one share, can there be special conditions on that one share like some governments have on their "golden shares" i.e. could they veto any takeover? I don't know business law well enough to know if that is legal.

Only questions and speculation but if I were looking after a pension fund I and dealing with a major debtor like we were (are) I'd want some strong rights when renegotiating any deal.

 

[Real Sharapova]

It was widely stated that the teachers have one share, can there be special conditions on that one share like some governments have on their "golden shares" i.e. could they veto any takeover? I don't know business law well enough to know if that is legal.

I thought of that, but if it were the case I would have thought it would be mentioned in the annual accounts and it isn't. I think the share is just to ensure they have all information availlable to other shareholders as well as to cement the place on the board they hold.

 

[Graz]

There was talk at one time that there was a clause in our agreement with the teachers that if we were taken over the new company would have to pay off the loan as part of the deal. Does anyone know if this was true? Even if it was there I suppose you could go and say to them and say that the current setup is not viable so you either renegotiate or the only buyer showing interest will walk away and the company may go bust and you are left with a stadium and only a rugby team who may have any interest in buy it.

It was widely stated that the teachers have one share, can there be special conditions on that one share like some governments have on their "golden shares" i.e. could they veto any takeover? I don't know business law well enough to know if that is legal.

Only questions and speculation but if I were looking after a pension fund I and dealing with a major debtor like we were (are) I'd want some strong rights when renegotiating any deal.

I think it's not that they could stop the takeover, as such, with their 1 share. In terms of their vote as shareholders, they are pretty irrelevant.

But, they can refuse to transfer the stadium debt that the current business owes them over to Mandaric, which would scupper any deal, as I think in that situation Mandaric could still take over the club, but the current shareholders/board would still be having to pay off the stadium debt?


If Teachers being worried about getting their money back for the stadium and wanting assurances over the payments then I don't think that's going to be too much of a problem. We'd have more money under MM than we currently do, and as a good businessman I'm sure he'll be able to convince Teachers eventually that they will get their money.