Todays Meeting

[drew]

I enjoy these debates FT. I don't want to seem ungrateful for what the current board have done and unfortunately i am not in the position to have all of the details in front of me.

I haven't let myself get caught up in all of the MM spin, however i do think that he would be good for our club.

I am very worried about a groundshare withthe Tigers that is brought about by an investment from Bardon et al.

A groundshare with LCFC owning the whole ground i could just about cope with but not co-ownership, no way.

 

[Macky]

"Deserving" a loss is a harsh way to put it. Willing to accept one for the good of the club? Yes, they should be, as Foxes Fans. It's obvious they can't get us out of the situation we're currently in and therefore potentially stand to lose ALL their money in the long run (if we don't get the investment they're holding out for). Surely taking a reasonable amount now (albeit only half) of what was a "saving" gesture is better than taking none? Especially when it's to someone who can afford to take the club back to the heights it deserves to be in. The club is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and you have to consider that by holding out for their initial stake, they could be shooting themselves (and us, the fans) in the foot in the long term....

There seems to me to be a lot of people who are really over simplifying the situation. Why should the shareholders just roll over at this early stage and accept the first offer put on the table and if they don't they are some how looking out for their own interests & don't really have the best interests of LCFC at heart??
That to me is a pile of bollix. As has already been said, there wouldn't be a club to follow if the current shareholders hadn't invested a few years ago when we almost went to the wall and I doubt that all of the shareholders are as well off as somebody like Lineker to just write the investment. If you had remortgaged your family home to buy shares to save the club would you just go with the first offer that was thrown down?? I know for a fact that I wouldn't & I'm not ashamed to say it.

 

[DesertFox]

Not wanting to start another thread, would anyone riot down the City if the board continue to discredit themselves by not listening to the fans?

Hazzman, we all love you dearly, but sometimes you do talk directly out of your feckin arse, as in this occasion.

 

[Jeff]

One thing that i dont get is that everytime an investor pumps money in they were awarded shares, i think the original amount was something like £5,000,000. Since then another £1,6000,000 has been invested increasing the amount of shares to 6,600,000.I don't understand how you can increase the value of a company by issuing new shares.

What's not to understand?

If you have a company that's worth £5 million, and you add another £1.6 million in cash from new shareholders, the value of that company increases by £1.6 million. The £1.6 million doesn't just disappear, it's invested in the company, making it that much more valuable.


This is one area where MM is doing things to suit him, rather than the club.

If MM lends the club £20 million, and then fails to have any success, and he then sells the club, he'll still be owed the £20 million (plus interest, presumably). So it's a no lose situation for him, unless the club goes completely bust.

If instead he buys the club for £5 million, then immediately issues £20 of new shares, which he buys himself, the club would then be worth £25 million - even if the extra £20 million was just sitting in the club's bank account. But if he does that, the onus on him is to be successful - because if he fails and fritters away the money he's put in he won't get it back.

The second option is obviously better for the club, because it's not saddling the club with any debt, and MM will have to succeed to get his money back - and make a profit. With the first option (which he's rumoured to be doing), the club bears more of the long term risk than MM.

 

[SilverFox]

The agenda is to obtain the best deal for LCFC for it's long term health.

There are too many unanswered questions currently to back any solution, so we await more information.

MM is a very clever user of the media & the tactic he is using for fans to put pressure on the shareholders to sell at a loss, so he walks away with a good financial deal for him.

Surely the more money that is spent on buying shares, the less there will be to spend on investing in new players and purchasing back the stadium.

Are you more concerned with getting your money back or the long term interests of the club? I may be wrong but it looks like you can't decide from your sporradic attempts to clarify the situation.

I put my money in the bucket when we were in serious trouble, should I now ask for it back? The answer is of course no because I never expected to see it again.

I am not being critical I just want you to tell me which way it is. Every shareholder who has been quoted so far (that I have read) have said that they never expected to get their money back when they put it in and that they only want what is best for the club. You seem to be saying anything less than your money back is not acceptable. So which is it? More investment in the squad and stadium (IMO the best interests of the club), or your money back.

I am sure it isn't as simple as that but I think we deserve to know where you stand.

 

[harry]

I think it's time for the board to canvas all shareholders (FT to hold a members meeting) to see just how many are prepared to give up their shares if as Gary said in his article 'The deal is right for the club' This of course would be subject to the rest of MM's proposal being acceptable and what guarantees he gives for the long term future of the club. As an FT member I would willingly give up the cash I put in to buy the shares.

As for the major shareholders who exactly amongst them could not afford to lose the money they put in. It's pocket change to most of them.
Granted they came forward when others did not. But a lot of others lost considerable amounts when we went bust and not many of the current shareholders were amongst them.
As for local businesses helping out then, ask yourself were was Bradgate when we needed them. That's one reason why I will never accept them coming in now.

 

[norman leet]

Surely the more money that is spent on buying shares, the less there will be to spend on investing in new players and purchasing back the stadium.

Are you more concerned with getting your money back or the long term interests of the club? I may be wrong but it looks like you can't decide from your sporradic attempts to clarify the situation.

I put my money in the bucket when we were in serious trouble, should I now ask for it back? The answer is of course no because I never expected to see it again.

I am not being critical I just want you to tell me which way it is. Every shareholder who has been quoted so far (that I have read) have said that they never expected to get their money back when they put it in and that they only want what is best for the club. You seem to be saying anything less than your money back is not acceptable. So which is it? More investment in the squad and stadium (IMO the best interests of the club), or your money back.

I am sure it isn't as simple as that but I think we deserve to know where you stand.

Maybe the likes of Heskey (50K), Martin George (modest 50k) and a hand full of others may have treated it as a gift, but I thnink its a romantic notion to think that buisiness 'invest' upto £500,000 as a guesture of good will to their local football team.

I'm sure most 'bread and butter' supporters in the same finacial position think they would donate these sort of amounts and as a persentage of our 'wealth' we most probably do.

Taylor will be trying very hard to get the bulk of his 250k back, may write off some as the club have been good to him, as is the case with Tim Davis, well paid but for how long? His misses will ave plans for that 100k (understandably)

 

[Hazzman]

Hazzman, we all love you dearly, but sometimes you do talk directly out of your feckin arse, as in this occasion.

I have noted and shall not mention again.

 

[norman leet]

I think it's time for the board to canvas all shareholders (FT to hold a members meeting) to see just how many are prepared to give up their shares if as Gary said in his article 'The deal is right for the club' This of course would be subject to the rest of MM's proposal being acceptable and what guarantees he gives for the long term future of the club. As an FT member I would willingly give up the cash I put in to buy the shares.

As for the major shareholders who exactly amongst them could not afford to lose the money they put in. It's pocket change to most of them.
Granted they came forward when others did not. But a lot of others lost considerable amounts when we went bust and not many of the current shareholders were amongst them.
As for local businesses helping out then, ask yourself were was Bradgate when we needed them. That's one reason why I will never accept them coming in now.

St Gary is willing to 'sell' some of his shares, by Bradgate if you mean Bardon/ Bradstone as is the case with the Murphys, Merrimans, Wilsons etc during the silly times (30-40k pr week players) they made it clear that whilst they have got fellas out in all wether working their nuts off for a average+ wage they will not donate money to a sport that in alot of cases very average players were earning stupid money

 

[Real Sharapova]

He wants to be in LCFC around 6 weeks before the opening of the transfer window, thats why he is in a rush

THen why were his initial plans not to make a bid until the New Year?

 

[drew]

What's not to understand?

If you have a company that's worth £5 million, and you add another £1.6 million in cash from new shareholders, the value of that company increases by £1.6 million. The £1.6 million doesn't just disappear, it's invested in the company, making it that much more valuable.

Only if it's to purchase assets, it's unlikely its sat in the bank. How do we know it wasn't spent on contracts or termination of them.

 

[Real Sharapova]

"Deserving" a loss is a harsh way to put it. Willing to accept one for the good of the club? Yes, they should be, as Foxes Fans. It's obvious they can't get us out of the situation we're currently in and therefore potentially stand to lose ALL their money in the long run (if we don't get the investment they're holding out for). Surely taking a reasonable amount now (albeit only half) of what was a "saving" gesture is better than taking none? Especially when it's to someone who can afford to take the club back to the heights it deserves to be in. The club is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and you have to consider that by holding out for their initial stake, they could be shooting themselves (and us, the fans) in the foot in the long term....

The less the shareholders take, the greater Mandy's eventual profit. Why should they help line the pockets of an already very rich man?

 

[Jeff]

Only if it's to purchase assets, it's unlikely its sat in the bank. How do we know it wasn't spent on contracts or termination of them.

But it still increases the value of the club. If you put £1.6 million into a company you obviously increase the value - unless you let Peter Taylor spend it.

 

[Real Sharapova]

But it still increases the value of the club. If you put £1.6 million into a company you obviously increase the value - unless you let Peter Taylor spend it.

:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

 

[drew]

But it still increases the value of the club. If you put £1.6 million into a company you obviously increase the value - unless you let Peter Taylor spend it.

Unless its spent, exactly.

 

[norman leet]

I keep getting this horrible realisation every now and then that we are whoreing ourselfs to every Tom, Dick and Manderic for 25ish Mill to buy are beloved club, lock, stock and barrel

This is the very amount that BUFFOON Taylor was allowed to blow on crap, ruined us (get an extended contract) and cost the club 959k to get rid of

As mentioned in a previous post, the bit that matters to us the transfere fund is likley to be the same as Akinbadbuys fee

Only going on Palaces message board keeps me sane (ish) they hate him a case of deja vu. page after page after page of Taylors out

 

[Melton Fox]

The less the shareholders take, the greater Mandy's eventual profit. Why should they help line the pockets of an already very rich man?

Also the less the shareholders take, the greater the remainder, the greater the investment into the club

 

[Jeff]

Unless its spent, exactly.

But if you spend the money you then have an additional asset that contributes to the value of the company.

 

[The Voice From Above]

6 mill is exceptionally cheap for this football club. Thats why hes trying to buy us and not anyone else. Its also why we have 4 + parties intrested instead of non.

So there is no truth in the story he was offered Wolves for free?

 

[Babylon]

So there is no truth in the story he was offered Wolves for free?

It's free to anyone who wants to invest money in players... NOT loan money as Mandaric wants to do.