Moan In

[Dour]

Forgive me if i'm wrong MM bid does not saddle us with £20,000,000 worth of debt instantly.

No-one said anything about instantly. But how much debt did he work into Portsmouth as he was getting out and just before he managed to find an unlikely buyer?

 

[Jeff]

I dont understand how a man who made around 50 million when he sold pompey will suddenyl be buying us for a tenth of that blowing around 15million on buying the ground a few mill on players and suddenyl we will be in 35 million debt.

The money he spend on buying the stadium (if he does it) will be loaned to the club. The money he spends on new players would be loaned to the club. Therefore the club would be in debt to MM, rather than to Teachers.

If you know the person lending you the money isn't going to suddenly demand it back, and isn't going to sell all your assets to get his money back then maybe it's not going to be a problem - but I'd want assurances before selling the club to someone who would be lending us money to grow the club.

If Mandaric had walked out of Portsmouth without having rich new owners he'd have left them in debt. Much of the money the new owners paid Mandaric was for money he'd loaned to the club.

 

[drew]

So we get bought out by the tigers with little or no input into the transfer funds, but its ok as we don't have any debt.

 

[SilverFox]

When I go to see matches at other grounds where they are shared there is little evidence on matchdays that the stadium is shared with another club, why do you think it would be different if we did it?
And even if there was evidence that the ground was shared, why would that stop you supporting your team? It's what happens on the pitch that's important, if you stopped supporting the team because the Tigers played there every couple of weeks maybe you're not a real supporter.

Sharing the ground is financially better than only part owning it, because you halve the costs. This might actually make the club more attractive to future investors, not less attractive.

I don't think it would be different I KNOW it would be. I spoke with tim Davies when this issue first emerged, we sat for two hours and discussed it and he freely admitted to me that there would have to be some rebranding.

And how dare you question my support. It would be equally valid for me to question your support for being so willing to sell half of the ground and further water down any shed of identity we have left. I'd like to know what is so wrong with being ambitious and wanting the club to own its ground.

On your final point it MIGHT make the club more attractive, but equally it might not. I for one would prefer to own the whole damn thing warts and all and not be dictated to by another party that owns half.

 

[Dour]

You obviously should have read what I wrote 21 times then because I don't think I said anywhere support the Mandaric bid or else?!?!?

Hmmm.

If groundshare is contained within one of the offers then it should be flatly refused, to me it is more ridiculous than handing over the club to mandaric for nothing.

I don't care if he is only offering £3.00 and a panini Italia 90 sticker album, it would be better than the so called trust that 'represents' supporters...

IF he does and their best idea was groundshare I can't wait to see them out on their arses!

Well that moan in was crystal to me...

Groundshare is alive and kicking and if the Mandaric takeover breaks down its probably likely to happen.

It will also be the day that the club loses me and my family as supporters. Not to mention a dozen or so of my friends that go with me every week.

I am fuming!

 

[Dour]

So we get bought out by the tigers with little or no input into the transfer funds, but its ok as we don't have any debt.

No-one's saying that. A more pertinent question is whether a large debt to Mandaric be safe for the club?

I'd say not, on the evidence of the accounts at Portsmouth.

 

[SilverFox]

Hmmm.

Nowhere does it say I wholeheartedly support Milan Mandarics bid, it does say I prefer it in PREFERENCE to any groundshare.

I also said this yesterday in the 'mandaric bid not quite accepted/rejected thread if you want to be pedantic

I would also like to clarify my above post and say that it isn't necessarily Mandaric either that ticks those boxes...I am open minded, but really don't rate the current board in terms of running the club.

It would be a terrible shame if the other potential bidder was Tigers related, it would be groundshare by the back door and not only that it would demote LCFC to second class citizenship. We would always be secondary to the Tigers...that must be unacceptable.

Equally I think £20 mil worth of loan would be equally unacceptable.

 

[Lako42]

Hmmm.

he never said in any of those post that he fully supports the manaric bid

 

[Jeff]

I don't think it would be different I KNOW it would be. I spoke with tim Davies when this issue first emerged, we sat for two hours and discussed it and he freely admitted to me that there would have to be some rebranding.

So there might be some Tigers logos around as well as Foxes ones, will that affect what happens on the pitch?

And how dare you question my support.

You're the one who's threatening to stop going to matches.
There are many genuine reasons I can think of for not going to matches, but to do it because an egg chaser might have sat in your seat a week before doesn't seem to be a valid one to me.

I'd like to know what is so wrong with being ambitious and wanting the club to own its ground.

There's only a limited amount of money available, if you spend money on buying the ground the money has to come from somewhere.
Would you rather own the ground than spend money on players?
If you would I'd question your ambition.

 

[SilverFox]

No-one's saying that. A more pertinent question is whether a large debt to Mandaric be safe for the club?

I'd say not, on the evidence of the accounts at Portsmouth.

You do their accounts do you?

 

[Lako42]

Nowhere does it say I wholeheartedly support Milan Mandarics bid, it does say I prefer it in PREFERENCE to any groundshare.

I also said this yesterday in the 'mandaric bid not quite accepted/rejected thread if you want to be pedantic

nice timing

**** i just said i wouldn't come back on here and look whats happened

 

[SilverFox]

So there might be some Tigers logos around as well as Foxes ones, will that affect what happens on the pitch?




You're the one who's threatening to stop going to matches.
There are many genuine reasons I can think of for not going to matches, but to do it because an egg chaser might have sat in your seat a week before doesn't seem to be a valid one to me.




There's only a limited amount of money available, if you spend money on buying the ground the money has to come from somewhere.
Would you rather own the ground than spend money on players?
If you would I'd question your ambition.

Players come and go mate and if it meant having a really torrid time for ten years I would put up with it because I have enough vision to know that the ground would still be here in 150 years.

 

[Brauny Blue]

Lighten up folks................soon be xmas:icon_razz

 

[Dour]

You do their accounts do you?

I read them. You could too. Try Companies House. £1 a pop.

 

[SilverFox]

he never said in any of those post that he fully supports the manaric bid

Perhaps he should have read what I wrote 22 times then!?!?

 

[SilverFox]

I read them. You could too. Try Companies House. £1 a pop.

Believe it or not I know where to acquire accounts for companies, but i am not paying a quid to look at Portsmouth FC's accounts.

I use the companies House website facility on a daily basis in my working life.

Care to share with us your shocking findings?

 

[Dour]

he never said in any of those post that he fully supports the manaric bid

I never said he did. But those look like they may be the two options before us.

 

[NN Fox]

There is a logical reason yes, I am an LCFC fan, if I wanted to have any emotional connection to the Tigers I would go and watch them play in THEIR stadium. I don't, so I don't bother. I am a LCFC fan so I go and watch them in their stadium as it should be. I don't want to rebrand and I want the club to be as attractive as possible to future investment.

Only owning half of your ground isn't very attractive.

Call it personal preference but that is how I and a lot of people feel.

As for my emotional response, if emotion is outlawed at LCFC then perhaps I do support the wrong club.

You do make out a logical case here Silver, though I'm not sure I agree with it, and I agree that there is a difference between co-ownership and sub-letting your ground every other week. I'm also glad that you are emotional about LCFC, I think everybody who contributes to TB is. I just don't get your blind opposition to people playing rugby on the pitch when you are not there and your assertion that you would cut off your nose to spite your face, so to speak, and never go to a game again (would you go to away matches?). The only reason that owning the stadium outright would make LCFC more attractive to a possible invester is surely because they would want to exploit the asset which I presume you would find equally objectionable.

 

[Dour]

Care to share with us your shocking findings?

I don't know if there's any point when you're like this. But essentially he started running his money out of the club, replacing his borrowing with bank finance secured against the holding company.

 

[SilverFox]

You do make out a logical case here Silver, though I'm not sure I agree with it, and I agree that there is a difference between co-ownership and sub-letting your ground every other week. I'm also glad that you are emotional about LCFC, I think everybody who contributes to TB is. I just don't get your blind opposition to people playing rugby on the pitch when you are not there and your assertion that you would cut off your nose to spite your face, so to speak, and never go to a game again (would you go to away matches?). The only reason that owning the stadium outright would make LCFC more attractive to a possible invester is surely because they would want to exploit the asset which I presume you would find equally objectionable.

I don't give a crap if they play on our pitch. They can chase eggs on it all day if they want so long as they don't own one solitary blade of grass!

On the owning the ground 100% issue I can see the angle you are approaching it from, but for me it is more an issue of being able to use the facility as we see fit, and using its capabilities for our own development. For example, all revenue from concerts and other potential events would go to LCFC, not LCFC and the Tigers. We would therefore do better out of that.

Also you are more likely to attract better investment if the potential owner stands to own the whole of the facility, this isn't necessarily because any owner wants to exploit the asset per se, but because it just simply is more attractive to own something in its entirety. It is why the majority of people buy houses instead of flats. You want own it not share with someone else.