Trust Seeking Answers
- Thread starter Foxes_Trust
- Start date
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase
- Status
Naughty Fox
New Member
IMO if MM has not given an offer to the board that was A. Financially right for the shareholders and B. Gives guarantees for the future welfare of the club the board would not be taking it as far as asking the shareholdrs vote.
The board members cared enough to put their hands in their pockets to save the club from going out of business and I think it is very narrow minded to think that they would throw that all away a few years down the road on a deal with no guarantees for the future. We can not also expect these people to just take a loss either, someone has come in to buy the club, why not let them have their money back. There might be a few with hidden agendas, but I would have thought a majority feel the same way we do.
It is clear that the current set up will take us nowhere, their job is to ensure we are financially stable and not go out of business again and they have done this, now that responsibility is no more plainly obvious than deciding if MM can now take us forward without taking us out of business
The people making the decisions know the facts and at the end of the day we need to trust them.
The board members cared enough to put their hands in their pockets to save the club from going out of business and I think it is very narrow minded to think that they would throw that all away a few years down the road on a deal with no guarantees for the future. We can not also expect these people to just take a loss either, someone has come in to buy the club, why not let them have their money back. There might be a few with hidden agendas, but I would have thought a majority feel the same way we do.
It is clear that the current set up will take us nowhere, their job is to ensure we are financially stable and not go out of business again and they have done this, now that responsibility is no more plainly obvious than deciding if MM can now take us forward without taking us out of business
The people making the decisions know the facts and at the end of the day we need to trust them.
Leigh
Well-Known Member
The problems highlighted in the FT post aren't that surprising to me, I'm not sure it's just an option between that version of the future or MM though. It seems to me that now that MM has expressed interest, it would be impossible for the club to reject him without having some kind of back-up investment planned to placate the fans. This would most likely be a rights issue it would seem, with hopefully enough money generated to stop the need for selling a player and to provide enough money for a couple of transfers in January.
This would be a good short-term option for the current board, if those transfers then make the difference between promotion or not, then the majority of the money from promotion can go back into the club - whereas in the same scenario under MM's ownership, he'd take a larger amount of the money from promotion for himself. However, if the new signings still meant we weren't promoted this season, then it seems unlikely to me that we could go through another big rights issue again, which would leave us in the same position financially next season as we are this season (then it would go more along the lines of the FT post) - but with MM we'd be in a position to be loaned more money in the summer to improve the squad again, and to cover the stadium debt.
This would be a good short-term option for the current board, if those transfers then make the difference between promotion or not, then the majority of the money from promotion can go back into the club - whereas in the same scenario under MM's ownership, he'd take a larger amount of the money from promotion for himself. However, if the new signings still meant we weren't promoted this season, then it seems unlikely to me that we could go through another big rights issue again, which would leave us in the same position financially next season as we are this season (then it would go more along the lines of the FT post) - but with MM we'd be in a position to be loaned more money in the summer to improve the squad again, and to cover the stadium debt.
Last edited:
Cate Fox
Well-Known Member
if that were to be the case I would wonder why they hadnt put the money into the club before now
Because of the rules that stop one person owning more than 10% ?
Melton Fox
Dancing Queen
Is it just a coincidence that they have found a solution to this when they think the club is being taken away from them, or could the MM bid be genuinely connected to them looking into their pockets
Dour
Well-Known Member
Is it just a coincidence that they have found a solution to this when they think the club is being taken away from them, or could the MM bid be genuinely connected to them looking into their pockets
I wouldn't bother looking for a conspiracy there, at the moment. On today's news as reported by Barber, it seems pretty straightforward.
The board and shareholders agreed things couldn't go on as they were.
Ronald was appointed with the main agenda of seeking a way forward.
The only solid bid he was able to bring out was MM (the others possibly interested might have sought groundsharing - and maybe then been scared off by the FT and other polls).
So there's only 2 simple choices left, if you want change: cough up again or sell to MM.
Although an obvious 3rd it would seem would be to go both for the rights issue and offer up more £50,000+ shareholdings.
drew
Active Member
But when there was a new issue surely the maximum share holding went up to 640,000.
But that's not going to help someone if they want to put a couple of million in and they already have 500,000.
Steven
Active Member
What are rights issues?
An offer of additional shares to existing shareholders, in proportion to their holdings, to raise money for the company. In effect you buy the rights to the additional shares, though you don't have to, and in the case that shares are not sold because people will not take up the offer an underwriter will buy the outstanding shares.
Normally the new shares are set at a certain price so you know what you are getting into.
Dour
Well-Known Member
An offer of additional shares to existing shareholders, in proportion to their holdings, to raise money for the company. In effect you buy the rights to the additional shares, though you don't have to, and in the case that shares are not sold because people will not take up the offer an underwriter will buy the outstanding shares.
Normally the new shares are set at a certain price so you know what you are getting into.
Unlikely to be an underwriter involved in any deal on the table here, though.
It'd be interesting to know how much they could raise. If, say, a £3million commitment was on the table with some idea of how to go forward, you'd want to see some serious guarantees before going for the Mandy offer.
Foxes_Trust
Well-Known Member
Not so far, hopefully will have by Saturday.
That's why we would advise fans not to expect much from Saturday's meeting, more information is needed to be documented for the shareholders to be re-assured enought to approve it, with our direct dialogue we are trying to help this process
drew
Active Member
Are you speaking for the other shareholders now then?
Foxes_Trust
Well-Known Member
Our Observer has been at every board meeting relating to this takeover.
We may well have more information than many shareholders, this is often the case, mainly because we ask questions on a regular basis and because we are so discreet we have the trust of the top people at the club
Foxes_Trust
Well-Known Member
Explain your term "genuine investment"
If that means cash, you will sadly be disappointed, led up the garden path by the media
Foxes_Trust
Well-Known Member
It isn't
- Status
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Liverpool | 21 | 50 |
| 2 | Arsenal | 22 | 44 |
| 3 | Nottm F | 22 | 44 |
| 4 | Chelsea | 22 | 40 |
| 5 | Manchester C | 22 | 38 |
| 6 | Newcastle | 22 | 38 |
| 7 | Bournemouth | 22 | 37 |
| 8 | Aston Villa | 22 | 36 |
| 9 | Brighton | 22 | 34 |
| 10 | Fulham | 22 | 33 |
| 11 | Brentford | 22 | 28 |
| 12 | Palace | 22 | 27 |
| 13 | Manchester U | 22 | 26 |
| 14 | West Ham | 22 | 26 |
| 15 | Tottenham | 22 | 24 |
| 16 | Everton | 21 | 20 |
| 17 | Wolves | 22 | 16 |
| 18 | Ipswich | 22 | 16 |
| 19 | Leicester | 22 | 14 |
| 20 | Southampton | 22 | 6 |
