Trust & Mercury Fight Continues...

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Feriol

Well-Known Member
The FT 'cynical' view may arise from the fact that whilst the present Board/Company structure is restrictive about change and large investment, changing it to 'One guy owns the whole lot and can just do as he pleases without taking any notice of anyone' is potentially very dangerous if you cannot get written assurances from him about his plans!

If its true, that board have been trying to get a deal that they feel will be accepted first time, and its taken so long, then you might say that the Board have been cynical about his offer too.

add to that a board member quiting over the offer, and it seems to me that the FT may have every reason to be less than enthusiastic about the takeover!

In Fact, the only 'positive' attitude about the takeover is comming from the Mockery
 

Matt_B

Well-Known Member
However, we believe there are several differing reasons why some shareholders won't, and know this to be the case from various conversations we have had.

Could be the trust themselves?
 

Feriol

Well-Known Member
Could be the trust themselves?

i doubt they would be the only ones, i assume that that bloke who resigned will vote against, and i its that bad, others might be equally unimpressed.
 

Matt_B

Well-Known Member
i doubt they would be the only ones, i assume that that bloke who resigned will vote against, and i its that bad, others might be equally unimpressed.

Surely he can't vote against it now he has resigned?!
 

Mike - True Blue Tinter

Well-Known Member
He is now just an ordinary shareholder with a vote the size of his investment.
 

Redditch Fox

Well-Known Member
I don't recall the FT saying they represent all fans, that would be an impossible task, as far as I'm concerned they represent their membership ( including me ) .

The FT always infers that it represents fans' interests. It takes a position that it is important for a body that can reflect fans' views to be around the decision making process.

Unfortunately what happens in these situations is that the 'representing' body develops its own agenda and this is what has happened with the FT.

Now - I am no great admirer of Bill Anderson's style ofreports and I have a strong recollection right back to the Jock Wallace days of Mercury match reports that are so rose tinted as to be in the best or worst traditions of local paper football reporting that seems to be overly concerned about maintaining a cordial relationship with the club.

However, it's worth saying that the Mercury has many thousands of more subscribers than the FT and I think could also claim to be more in touch with the fan base than the FT oligarchy.
 

DesertFox

Well-Known Member
the key issue should be not whether the FT supports the takeover (I already know that it has sought to undermine it) but whether the FT should have a role with LCFC.
KEY issue? For me that's a complete non-issue. It won't make the blindest bit of difference either way IMO. Not worth getting steamed up about, that's for sure.

Don't actually give a flying **** any more about the egos involved here.
Agreed, that's why I don't give a shit about this and can't really take any of it seriosuly. Arguing about rumours and speculation... it's just a bit of posturing from largely unimportant people that, on the whole, don't have much, if anything, to do with the running of the club.

I am an FT member, only joined in this season. Lets be fair to the FT and give them some credit.
The FT have never said they represent all the fans.
The FT have never said they are against the bid.
THE FT have never said they will try and influence other shareholders about the bid - they have just answered questions put to them in the best way they can
BUT THE FT HAVE SAID THEY WANT TO SEE THE FINAL BID BEFORE MAKING THEIR MIND UP. Which sounds fair to me.
All the rest of the "reading between the lines" and media hype is just that.

What do I think about the bid? In principle I think it is a good idea - and our best way to get the club moving. But as with everyone else on here I haven't seen the bid, don't know any details and can only hope it gets sorted one way or the other soon. But lets not start name calling the FT for things thay haven't said and haven't done!
Tend to agree with this view.

How do we know Manderic has done his bidding through the Mercury
Seriously Beighton?!

The back page of the Mercury has read like a war-time propaganda sheet for the past three months. Unbelievable stuff! When this all started, it was funny how the Leicester Mercury, of all people, knew exactly how to get hold of MM and get an interview out of him, even though he was overseas at the time. No, he has obviously been feeding the Mercury news releases and stories from the word go. Nothing too terribly wrong with that IMO, but let's not make out like it hasn't been happening.

Oh, and it's MandAric!!!
 
Last edited:

Real Sharapova

Well-Known Member
However, it's worth saying that the Mercury has many thousands of more subscribers than the FT and I think could also claim to be more in touch with the fan base than the FT oligarchy.

Have to disagree there.;) 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.
 

Feriol

Well-Known Member
The FT always infers that it represents fans' interests. It takes a position that it is important for a body that can reflect fans' views to be around the decision making process.

Unfortunately what happens in these situations is that the 'representing' body develops its own agenda and this is what has happened with the FT.

Now - I am no great admirer of Bill Anderson's style ofreports and I have a strong recollection right back to the Jock Wallace days of Mercury match reports that are so rose tinted as to be in the best or worst traditions of local paper football reporting that seems to be overly concerned about maintaining a cordial relationship with the club.

However, it's worth saying that the Mercury has many thousands of more subscribers than the FT and I think could also claim to be more in touch with the fan base than the FT oligarchy.

it represents the view of a selection of fans in detail,

and i suppose it could be argued in a very broad way, fans in general in that, they shouldn't be concerned with making profits. (although i think that, this is a weak argument)

to date i have never read anything from them that perports to represent my views as a non member though. (some concern for the future though - see my earlier post)

Since the trust only has an observer on the board, it isn't involved in making decisions so its irrelevent really i think. the only decision they have a say in, is regarding their shares in a takeover, they have polled their members on pottential issues (groundshare etc) and have stated an intention to hold a meeting with members after the bid is circulated, time permitting. all they have done otherwise is ask questions and as best they can keep people informed on the situation. i don't see that they have done anything unreasonable.

i do wonder however whether, with the possibility of keeping their shares, whether it will go to a vote of members whether to keep them or not? i think that it should. perhaps the foxes trust could clarify?
 

beaumontfox

New Member
If there is to be a 'fans group' on some sort of Advisory Panel why should it be only be the FT that is considered, why not the Supporters Club?

Yes I know many people find Cliff G to be,most of the time, bumbling his way through things and tending to agree with most things the Club say(pretty much like the FT now imo!) but obviously it wouldn't be just one representative(there are at least six branches I think)But the SC has been in place for far longer than the FT, and probably has similar sort of numbers in regards to membership.


Just a thought like......
 

OldGit

Well-Known Member
If there is to be a 'fans group' on some sort of Advisory Panel why should it be only be the FT that is considered, why not the Supporters Club?

Yes I know many people find Cliff G to be,most of the time, bumbling his way through things and tending to agree with most things the Club say(pretty much like the FT now imo!) but obviously it wouldn't be just one representative(there are at least six branches I think)But the SC has been in place for far longer than the FT, and probably has similar sort of numbers in regards to membership.


Just a thought like......

Maybe they will - the FT said it did not know who else would be on it.
 

NN Fox

Well-Known Member
I'm heading for the nearest brick wall to undertake some serious banging of head. Fed up with all this Takeover/Mandaric/FT/Mercury/Bill Anderson/Backbiting speculation. Can't wait for it all to be over so we can get back to football, not posting any more on this subject until an actual FACT is available. :098:
 

Lako42

Well-Known Member
I'm heading for the nearest brick wall to undertake some serious banging of head. Fed up with all this Takeover/Mandaric/FT/Mercury/Bill Anderson/Backbiting speculation. Can't wait for it all to be over so we can get back to football, not posting any more on this subject until an actual FACT is available. :098:

welcome to my world ;)
 

homer

Well-Known Member
Bollox to them

Both organisations are a complete shower of wankers, in my humble opinion
 

SJN-Fox

Well-Known Member
However, it's worth saying that the Mercury has many thousands of more subscribers than the FT and I think could also claim to be more in touch with the fan base than the FT oligarchy.


Maybe that's so. but the Mercury is in the business of selling newspapers. No more, no less, if the club closed down tomorrow, it would rub its hands in glee because a good story will sell more papers, boost circulation, make more money. THAT'S WHAT THE MERCURY DOES.

The FT (and I'm not a member, nor am i tryng to paint them rosy), is a shareholder in the club and therefore, as with the rest of the club/board is looking to secure the LONG TERM future of the club. (or at least we would hope this is the case). Now all we have seen in the press/rumour mill/respected sources so far is the mythical 25m figure, talk of premiership football, record transfers, new manager and all by the end of next week. no-one seems to be looking at the bigger picture here, and those that are, seem to be being thrown against the wall and accused of being anti MM/against the takeover. At the end of the day none of us (and that includes you Bill Anderson) has all the facts, knows what the long term plans are for the club, so until we do, we should be careful who we castigate and who we side with.

Be careful what you wish for .... you might just end up with it.
 

Melton Fox

Dancing Queen
if the club closed down tomorrow, it would rub its hands in glee because a good story will sell more papers, boost circulation, make more money. THAT'S WHAT THE MERCURY DOES.
Only for one day, the Mercury aren't that short sighted. The future success of our football is also beneficial to their sales. Our club folds, so do their back pages. Silly viewpoint
 

SJN-Fox

Well-Known Member
Only for one day, the Mercury aren't that short sighted. The future success of our football is also beneficial to their sales. Our club folds, so do their back pages. Silly viewpoint

Not really, they'll just find something else to write about, Tigers, the cricket, other local football. It probably wouldn't do the Blue any good, but the Merc would still carry on regardles.
 

Leigh

Well-Known Member
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
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

Championship

P Pld Pts
1Leicester4697
2Ipswich4696
3Leeds Utd4690
4Southampton4687
5West Brom4675
6Norwich City4673
7Hull City4670
8Middlesbro4669
9Coventry City4664
10Preston 4663
11Bristol City4662
12Cardiff City4662
13Millwall4659
14Swansea City4657
15Watford4656
16Sunderland4656
17Stoke City4656
18QPR4656
19Blackburn 4653
20Sheffield W4653
21Plymouth 4651
22Birmingham4650
23Huddersfield4645
24Rotherham Utd4627

Latest posts

Top