The Mandaric
Following yesterday's Mercury report, we print the full answers that Foxes Trust chairman Ian Bason gave to telling questions from football writer Andy Mann
Q At this stage in proceedings, what is the Trust's position on a) Mandaric and b) his takeover?
A a) Very approachable face to face, a good reputation talking to fans at Pompey. Obviously has a proven track record in running football clubs (hence he's more desirable than an unknown foreigner with no UK football experience to offer). Track record shows questionable judgement on managers (although we gather he acknowledges previous misjudgements).
b) Not happy with his chosen route of selling his bid to fans via the Mercury rather than focusing more on the shareholders who actually make the final decision, and this will cost him votes (we aren't talking about the Trust's votes) when the final bid is put before them.
The Trust is also disappointed the initial 'indicative' bid lacked sufficient detail, and worry that the final bid document will leave too many questions still unanswered
Q Is the deal dragging on considering he was given 'the green light' at the EGM two months ago? Is this a cause for concern? What are the stages that remain, and how long before they are completed?
A If you look at many other takeover situations the time-scales aren't untypical. We actually think some time was lost prior to the EGM with a failure of both sides to involve the legal experts early enough, which would have highlighted the legal hoops to be negotiated and, therefore, the processes could have been under way earlier.
Time lost being a concern in terms of whether the takeover proceeds or not? No.
Can't be precise on time-scales. We expect the formal document early next week. What happens next depends largely on whether sufficient backing is obtained.
Q Many, if not most, fans want the deal done by the transfer deadline, for obvious reasons. In your opinion, is it a) important to complete by then and b) achievable?
A More important for the ability to complete loan deals for that deadline rather than permanent transfers. MM has utilised loans consistently at Pompey and we think it would be better to loan and assess this season - then go for surgery in the summer, when the deals on offer may be better.
If MM has just taken over and we have more 'Splash the Cash' headlines, that will put the prices up for players to bring in. Does Bill Anderson never think headlines like that could be wasting some of MM's cash with inflated prices from other clubs and greedy agents?
Achievable? Maybe, again depends on the reaction to the final offer.
Q You say in your email to Trust members about not being sure whether the shareholders will go for it. Why do you come to that conclusion, particularly as we understand the board is set to recommend terms to shareholders, and Mandaric is increasingly around the club and training ground?
A We believe the board will recommend it too. However with JJ (director James Johnson) having resigned, the remaining board members personally control only 33 per cent of the shareholding. We are aware of some shareholders who will certainly support it. However, we believe there are several different reasons why some shareholders won't, and know this to be the case from various conversations we have held.
At this point, I would point out that we have stated a neutral position to any shareholders we have talked to, saying we still awaited answers to a number of questions before we could declare our support or otherwise. We would like these points addressed in the final bid document.
We did put the vast majority of questions we had to a representative of MM directly, and had some initial answers. However, the direct dialogue had to cease after the EGM to follow takeover panel rules.
Q You also talk about retaining the Trust's shares. How many do you have and how will this be possible? What will be the benefit of retaining them?
A £151,000 of shares. The Trust movement across the country is loath to let go of shares in their individual clubs once obtained. Ideally, we would like to retain them all, some or even a token single share. As MM speaks of his affinity to fans, we feel he should allow a democratic City fans organisation to retain a shareholding as a symbol of his relationship with the fans.
We view this as an emotional, not financial, issue. The club could be handed over to a non-City fan for the first time. A symbolic retention of a shareholding with the Trust for the long term leaves a thread of City fan ownership, even if it is a minimal percentage.
Q If the Trust are forced to sell their City shares, what will you do with the money? What will become of the Trust in this event? Have you put membership renewals on hold since Mandaric launched his takeover move?
A We will still exist and have a role.
The Trust board will generate a list of alternative uses for the money and put these suggestions to the membership for a democratic vote. We already have many ideas, but will formalise them.
The decision is not a priority presently, particularly as we don't expect any immediate payment to shareholders.
One of the options was to reduce membership fees to encourage more fans to join, so we did put memberships on hold for a period.
However, we are currently starting to send them out again now, given the delayed timing of payment we now anticipate.
Q You have regularly stated the £25million figure used by the Mercury's Bill Anderson is misleading. Can you say why you feel this is inaccurate, given Mandaric's people have told Anderson that figure? Can you provide other figures instead?
A We don't think it benefits any party to quantify the bid, particularly as it changes. The risk of inflated transfer fees/wage demands is a real concern
Even now we still have fans coming up to us believing £25million cash will be arriving next month, because they have read this figure so frequently. The main question we feel the Mercury has failed to question MM on is how that is made up. If his people supplied the figure then we feel to continue to use it you should have asked:
a) Does it include anything relating to the stadium
b) If so, are we just talking about retaining the Teachers deal?
If that is the case, when the Consortium took over the club all the Mercury coverage talked of a £5-6m takeover bid and ignored the stadium finance, so it is inconsistent reporting to do so now, as you could then argue the Consortium bid was close to £25m too.
Q You also talk about an advisory board. What will it be, who will it advise and on what, and what will your role be?
A Also answers the 'What will become of the Trust in this event?' question. The existence of the advisory board was mentioned in the initial indicative offer.
We spoke to MM's representative, discussed our present level of involvement, and we were subsequently told we would have a position on the advisory board if the takeover was successful. No more details have been obtained since, so you would need to ask MM how he sees it working.
It will be important for MM to ensure he is aware of likely local reaction to various potential decisions he could make, and we can obviously offer guidance in this area. Whether MM follows our recommendations is another matter. We have already offered to sit down with him after the takeover and go through our views on LCFC's strengths and weaknesses.
http://www.thebluearmy.co.uk/details.asp?key=1D29|0|2185366269754|R|536|5504231312007348175531
The Mercury has one aim, and that is to sell newspapers and advertising. As far as I'm concerned they are as in touch with the fans base as the Royal Family are with dog racing. They also censor opposing points of view, i.e., the deleting of the anti Mercury/Anderson comments to stories on their website.
