Takeover Latest !

[Jeff]

Tell me if i'm wrong but have the current board not ran up huge debts banking on a promotion? Maybe i'm mistaken but the FT did say there was a considerable shortfall this season. Who is going to clear the debts for them?

Looks like we'll have to sell a player or two to make up for the current shortfall. The board should have taken action to reduce the wage bill significantly before they did - but if they'd done that fans would have accused them of having no ambition, so they were in a difficult position, and they got it wrong.


MM's plans looks like we'd end up getting into much more debt unless he achieves success immediately. And if we do end up in a lot more debt we may be in a position where we can't get out of it just by selling players - like the position we were in four years ago.
If MM's prepared to underwrite that debt and write it off if he doesn't achieve success I'd be happy for him to take over, what I don't want him to do is risk the future of the club, we've already been close to going out of business once, I don't want to go through that again. I'm amazed at the number of people who would just hand the club over to him with no guarantees in place.

 

[drew]

The board have no ambition, otherwise they would not have lowered the wage bill and invested in players.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this because there are pros and cons for each but in my opion, which is just my opinion, the board have done a poor job since they took over. Yes they put in the required amount but that doesn't make then unanswerable and infallable.

 

[Jeff]

The board have no ambition, otherwise they would not have lowered the wage bill and invested in players.

It's not about ambition, it's about being realistic with the resources at your disposal.

The board HAD to lower the wage bill, if they hadn't they'd have gone into even more debt. After the debacle under the previous regime the current board would have been foolish to risk the same kind of overspending that went on previously.
Spending money doesn't guarantee success, you can't just go into debt and assume you'll get promoted and earn enough to pay it off. We were fortunate to get out of administration before, we might not be so lucky if it happens again.

 

[drew]

But they haven't been realistic otherwise we would not have gone into debt this season. They've run up debts and all they will do is sell a player and i doubt one will even cover the debt, so we end up with a situation like forest where we get rid of all the good players and we go down.

 

[highland fox]

Regardless of the past something radical needs to happen because we are slowly decaying.

 

[drew]

I certainly don't think there is any future with our band of merry men and clearly neither do they.

 

[SJN-Fox]

Regardless of the past something radical needs to happen because we are slowly decaying.

That's right, and it will soon start to spiral downwards, poor performances on the field and the poor treatment/disillusionment (is there such a word) of the current STH will result in a much lower renewal rate next year. How many have said that given the varous promotiobns etc, that they won't renew. That will result in an even greater level of debt next year and so players will have to go , resulting in poor performance fewer STH and so on.

The time to act is NOW. If the MM deal falls by the wayside, as a lot of people think it will, then I think we have to resign ourselves to the fact that, if not this year, but probably next. This club WILL be relegated.

 

[Jeff]

so we end up with a situation like forest where we get rid of all the good players and we go down.

What happened at forest is a scenario that I think is more likely to happen under MM.

At forest they had a rich chairman who loaned them money which they used to buy players, in an attempt to get promoted.

After several years of failing to get promoted their chairman decided he wanted some of his money back, which they did by selling players - but even then the players they had should have been good enough to keep them up.

The reason we're in our current position is because of bad management on and off the pitch, if that is rectified I don't think we need MM's money to do well - although obviously it would help. With good management we certainly shouldn't be in a position where we get relegated.

 

[drew]

What happened at forest is a scenario that I think is more likely to happen under MM.

At forest they had a rich chairman who loaned them money which they used to buy players, in an attempt to get promoted.

After several years of failing to get promoted their chairman decided he wanted some of his money back, which they did by selling players - but even then the players they had should have been good enough to keep them up.

The reason we're in our current position is because of bad management on and off the pitch, if that is rectified I don't think we need MM's money to do well - although obviously it would help. With good management we certainly shouldn't be in a position where we get relegated.

Are you advocating a manager change? Whilst i agree RK is out of his depth we can neither afford to get rid of him or recruit a new manager. How are we going to entice a manager with zero transfer funds.

 

[Jeff]

Are you advocating a manager change? Whilst i agree RK is out of his depth we can neither afford to get rid of him or recruit a new manager. How are we going to entice a manager with zero transfer funds.

My comment about bad management relates to the last three years, when managers have been, for the most part, unable to get players playing to the best of their abilities.
If RK has rediscovered how to get the players playing for him I'd be happy for him to stick around. Performances have certainly improved in the last few matches, even if results haven't. In fact unlike some people who don't seem too enthusiastic about tomorrow's match, I'm looking forward to it more than I did earlier in the season when we were playing badly. If we can repeat the Fulham performances, or the first half against Colchester, we should be too good for most teams in this division.

But I think off the pitch there should be changes, as the club has obviously not been run as well as it should have been. I don't know the details enough to know what needs to happen though.

 

[Brauny Blue]

. How are we going to entice a manager with zero transfer funds.

Imo there are managers out there that are doing good jobs with little money. Gary Johnson at Bristol City, and how long before someone takes a chance with Paul Ince who seems to have done an excellent job in turning Macclesfields fortunes around.

 

[SJN-Fox]

Imo there are managers out there that are doing good jobs with little money.

Yes, fine, but how many are working miracles with NO money?

 

[newtonfox]

Yes, fine, but how many are working miracles with NO money?

goto your local church and ask them :icon_bigg

 

[Brauny Blue]

Yes, fine, but how many are working miracles with NO money?

I've just told you:icon_roll

 

[SJN-Fox]

No, cos both Bristol and Macclesfield have had money to sign players.

 

[Brauny Blue]

No, cos both Bristol and Macclesfield have had money to sign players.

Are you Bocadillos long lost cousin:icon_roll

 

[DesertFox]

Hang on a minute... we are are by no means the only club with "no money". In fact, that describes the vast majority of clubs. And we get bigger gates than most clubs outside the Prem so, even though we're pretty fecked financially, we're not as fecked as many other clubs.

If we want to spend money on players we will have to do what every other club outside the Prem does - we will have to sell players first. That's how it's always worked elsewhere. That's how it's worked at Leicester in the past. It's not a new copncept....

 

[Jeff]

No, cos both Bristol and Macclesfield have had money to sign players.

Bristol City sold a player for 2 milllion in the summer, that's why they had money to spend.

Most of the teams in our divisiion have spent less than us when you take player sales into account.

 

[Macky]

to quote Alex "we a run ting. FACT"

dem come but dem can't hold us down.

Believe

I also love tits

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

Posted by the FT on Rivals Site :


How many more times do we have to state the Trust is not trying to block the deal.

We have asked some sensible questions, yes.

We have not said, "it's Mandaric he seems a nice bloke with some dosh", no.

But that doesn't mean we would vote against the deal. On the basis it the best way forward for the club and we don't see alternatives that are better currently, then we will back it.

On the same basis, if some existing shareholders wanted to put forward an alternative to MM, we have a list of questions to be answered again particularly focusing on the long term.

In terms of not challenging the present regime over things, we have done that consistently throughout, just not via media channels and message boards. Those questions have been asked face to face, be it in one to one meetings or in the LCFC boardroom via the Observer.

Some ideas we have failed to convince the club at first, eg one year kit deals - although we think a 2 year cycle will return from next season. (We have already raised this topic with MM's rep as well, informing him if you want some quick fan wins, that is one to put in place.)

We also successfully opposed removing the ST's shop discount which was first mooted 3 years ago until this season and that has now been re-instated for this season (albeit with certain conditions). We haven't made a song and dance about protecting this discount previously, just been happy that we persuaded the club to re-think.



Interesting comments, could this mean that there is a possible alternative being discussed