What Would They Be Buying?

[Jeff]

Why on earth would anyone want to invest £5 million into the club and then see the current "LCFC Co-operative" sit down and decide how to spend it?

But the current board wouldn't decide how to spend it. If the new person has a controlling stake they'd decide how to spend it.

 

[OldGit]

I too doubt that the club would double its issued share capital to facilitate a takeover - even if it was possible ( I have no idea what the total authorised share capital is, or whather the current balance sheet looks like).

In reality it is most likely that many shareholders would want to sell and others retain their stake, in which case the extra shares to be issued to achieve control would be relatively few.

 

[Jeff]

In reality it is most likely that many shareholders would want to sell and others retain their stake, in which case the extra shares to be issued to achieve control would be relatively few.

I think you're right.

But the scenario I've been trying to argue for is the one that I think would be best for the club if someone new does come in. It would mean all the new money goes into the club rather than a big chunk of it going to pay existing shareholders.

 

[bocadillo]

I'm sorry. We are arguing round in circles here. What does it take for you to understand that the present board are not going to issue enough new shares for somebody to get a 51% holding.

If you give me a good reason I might understand it.

I note your failure to ask the FT for their reason for saying the same thing.

I just don't think it is a realistic option for them, particularly faced with an intending purchaser with huge financial sway. There options are to hang on or get out.

Others have already said that it would not either be likrly to be acceptable to the intending purchaser.

You're talking about the club's current owners as though it's a single person.

The existing shareholders are already "marginalised". None of them have much influence. If someone owns 5% now and that may in future be only 2.5%, it won't really make much difference, so why would that be a reason for them to refuse to do it?

I don't know what makes you say that when I have always referred to them in the plutal. I am as aware as anybody is of the current set-up of the club.

It might be true that many of the present shareholders are marginalised - but it doesn't seem to have stopped them having their say at the club's employees (as per the recent Scotsman (I think!) interview with a previous manager showed). What the club needs is a strong leader, not the present band of Mr Wishy-Washys.

 

[Durham Fox]

I note your failure to ask the FT for their reason for saying the same thing.

I just don't think it is a realistic option for them, particularly faced with an intending purchaser with huge financial sway. There options are to hang on or get out.

Others have already said that it would not either be likrly to be acceptable to the intending purchaser.





I don't know what makes you say that when I have always referred to them in the plutal. I am as aware as anybody is of the current set-up of the club.

It might be true that many of the present shareholders are marginalised - but it doesn't seem to have stopped them having their say at the club's employees (as per the recent Scotsman (I think!) interview with a previous manager showed). What the club needs is a strong leader, not the present band of Mr Wishy-Washys.

 

[Jeff]

I note your failure to ask the FT for their reason for saying the same thing.

The FT didn't say the same thing. They said "not sure the current shareholders would agree to that", which I took at face value, ie they don't know if they will or not.

What the club needs is a strong leader, not the present band of Mr Wishy-Washys.

Is it not possible for someone owning 51% of the club to be a strong leader then?

 

[Chrysalis]

What Jeff suggests would be a good moral thing for current shareholders to do for the future of the club since the money used to gain control of the club goes to the club instead of the current shareholders and as such a double investment isnt needed to then improve the squad. But like the others are saying I expect our current bunch of shareholders would want a short term gain by selling their shares rather then a long term gain of the shares been worth more following promotion.

 

[bocadillo]

The FT didn't say the same thing. They said "not sure the current shareholders would agree to that", which I took at face value, ie they don't know if they will or not.

That is probably your mistake. I interpreted the FT's words in the way that I am sure they were intended to be interpreted. I am sure that the FT does know what the likely outcome of such a suggestion would be.

Is it not possible for someone owning 51% of the club to be a strong leader then?

I don't think it is likely that somebody with ready cash and a desire to be a strong leader would be happy to have just a 51% stake. I don't think such a stake would be conducive to strong leadership.

 

[Real Sharapova]

What Jeff suggests would be a good moral thing for current shareholders to do for the future of the club since the money used to gain control of the club goes to the club instead of the current shareholders and as such a double investment isnt needed to then improve the squad. But like the others are saying I expect our current bunch of shareholders would want a short term gain by selling their shares rather then a long term gain of the shares been worth more following promotion.

I honestly believe that the majority of the current shareholders put their hands in their pockets not expecting a penny back. Taking that point further, I would therefore believe they would accept a de facto diminuation in the value of their shares by a futher issue of shares to a wealthy benefactor.

 

[Jeff]

That is probably your mistake. I interpreted the FT's words in the way that I am sure they were intended to be interpreted. I am sure that the FT does know what the likely outcome of such a suggestion would be.

Maybe they can clarify that then.

I don't think it is likely that somebody with ready cash and a desire to be a strong leader would be happy to have just a 51% stake. I don't think such a stake would be conducive to strong leadership.

Many clubs have strong leadership with their main shareholder holding a similar amount (Liverpool for example), other clubs have strong leadership without anyone having a majority shareholding.

 

[Melton Fox]

The only way this can work is if the investor buys the whole club, the current bunch of idiots feck off and leave the new guy to take control and line his pockets.

The only way for him to line his pockets is for our club to be successful

I can't imagine a scenario where there is an investor and the current muppets are still on the scene

 

[Durham Fox]

The only way this can work is if the investor buys the whole club, the current bunch of idiots feck off and leave the new guy to take control and line his pockets.

The only way for him to line his pockets is for our club to be successful

I can't imagine a scenario where there is an investor and the current muppets are still on the scene

This is how I see it. The only way I can see it working is if one person is solely responsible! That way its his decision when to pump money in, protecting his investment.

Levein highlighted the current problem with our club beautifully.

 

[Dunc]

The only way this can work is if the investor buys the whole club, the current bunch of idiots feck off and leave the new guy to take control and line his pockets.

The only way for him to line his pockets is for our club to be successful

I can't imagine a scenario where there is an investor and the current muppets are still on the scene

Just incidentally, why are they muppets?! I thought they rescued our club from admin when no one else would cough up cash.

 

[Melton Fox]

Just incidentally, why are they muppets?! I thought they rescued our club from admin when no one else would cough up cash.

They did and for that, all of us will be truly greatful. I for one tip my hat to them for what they did. But any muppet with money can open their wallet and spend it on something they are passionate about.

However, investing that money wisely and making it grow and the business grow with it requires all the attributes that make a great business and business person.

They are now at the stage that their passion for City could be our downfall, they rescued the club and steadied the ship, but they don't appear to have the ability to make it float proud again and sail hard. Now is the time to let go, sit back and walk away a hero.

 

[Dunc]

They did and for that, all of us will be truly greatful. I for one tip my hat to them for what they did. But any muppet with money can open their wallet and spend it on something they are passionate about.

However, investing that money wisely and making it grow and the business grow with it requires all the attributes that make a great business and business person.

They are now at the stage that their passion for City could be our downfall, they rescued the club and steadied the ship, but they don't appear to have the ability to make it float proud again and sail hard. Now is the time to let go, sit back and walk away a hero.

But the only times the fans think the club is being run badly is when the team are doing badly (and note I'm seperating the club from the football side with that sentence). And vice versa no one gives a crap how the club is run when things go well (see the Little, MON, and early part of the PT years). No one stood and said giving Elliott, Lennon, Izzet, Walker etc £20-30k a week was wrong because we were doing well. It was only when it went tits up we all complained.

My understanding is the club is moving towards a more solid financial footing under the current regime and the emphasis on younger, homegrown players is part of the business strategy.

Without a MM character taking over the club, surely that is the only way the club can survive and ultimately give itself a chance of success? Without a rich tycoon coming in, there is no point in changing the current regime from a bunch of people running a steady ship with no money to a bunch of people running a steady ship with no money.

And as it stands there isn't one piece of evidence to suggest a benefactor is going to put his money in.

 

[Real Sharapova]

other clubs have strong leadership without anyone having a majority shareholding.

Arsenal being an example.

 

[Melton Fox]

But the only times the fans think the club is being run badly is when the team are doing badly (and note I'm seperating the club from the football side with that sentence).

My understanding is the club is moving towards a more solid financial footing under the current regime and the emphasis on younger, homegrown players is part of the business strategy.

Without a MM character taking over the club, surely that is the only way the club can survive and ultimately give itself a chance of success? Without a rich tycoon coming in, there is no point in changing the current regime from a bunch of people running a steady ship with no money to a bunch of people running a steady ship with no money.

And as it stands there isn't one piece of evidence to suggest a benefactor is going to put his money in.

I largely agree with that, but if we are playing the way we are and heading towards the 3rd division it will have a serious effect on the business aspect of the club.

The reason I have a greivance with the board is this:

We have 2 ways of making this club proceed in the right direction on the pitch

1) Invest in quality players
2) Use what we have got to the maximum potentiol

We all know that number 2 is the only option. The "business men" running the club have stood up strong and told us they are not putting any more money in, so I am prepared to accept they are probably very good entrepreneurs and can turn the club around without investing any more. Great, this is the best option and I am very excited about this

However, this falls flat on it's face when I see the board are happy to see our players playing well below par with a manager that is seemingly unable to get them playing any different.

So, of the 2 options we have got to move the club forward on the pitch, we are not opting for either.

That is why I think they are muppets

 

[Dunc]

I largely agree with that, but if we are playing the way we are and heading towards the 3rd division it will have a serious effect on the business aspect of the club.

The reason I have a greivance with the board is this:

We have 2 ways of making this club proceed in the right direction on the pitch

1) Invest in quality players
2) Use what we have got to the maximum potentiol

We all know that number 2 is the only option. The "business men" running the club have stood up strong and told us they are not putting any more money in, so I am prepared to accept they are probably very good entrepreneurs and can turn the club around without investing any more. Great, this is the best option and I am very excited about this

However, this falls flat on it's face when I see the board are happy to see our players playing well below par with a manager that is seemingly unable to get them playing any different.

So, of the 2 options we have got to move the club forward on the pitch, we are not opting for either.

That is why I think they are muppets

Last 10 games

Won 4, Drawn 4 Lost 2.

ITs hardly a sackable record, I do agree we aren't playing to their ultimate potential, but the average age is around 22 at the moment and our 2 key players in Hume and Fryatt are going through a very poor patch as most young players do from time to time.

I'm the opposite of people on here in that i'm normally optimistic about things, and I do genuinely believe that the team will improve week by week and game by game and by the end of the season we'll be in a decent position of around 8-10th.

Changing the manager/board/owner/chairman/tea lady/lawn mower/pie supplier won't do anything positive, in most cases it will just cause undue instability yet again when we need a stable environment with everyone inside the club (and i wished outside) behind what the club have quite publicly stated is their policy for the foreseeable future.

If MM or another benefactor comes in then it changes the policy radically and probably for the better.

 

[Chrysalis]

But the only times the fans think the club is being run badly is when the team are doing badly (and note I'm seperating the club from the football side with that sentence). And vice versa no one gives a crap how the club is run when things go well (see the Little, MON, and early part of the PT years). No one stood and said giving Elliott, Lennon, Izzet, Walker etc £20-30k a week was wrong because we were doing well. It was only when it went tits up we all complained.

My understanding is the club is moving towards a more solid financial footing under the current regime and the emphasis on younger, homegrown players is part of the business strategy.

Without a MM character taking over the club, surely that is the only way the club can survive and ultimately give itself a chance of success? Without a rich tycoon coming in, there is no point in changing the current regime from a bunch of people running a steady ship with no money to a bunch of people running a steady ship with no money.

And as it stands there isn't one piece of evidence to suggest a benefactor is going to put his money in.

I disagree if we were top of the league now we would still be askign questions why we are unable to reduce our debt and why we are the only club in this league to have not spent on a transfer fee this summer. Their is problems off the pitch as well as on the pitch.

 

[Chrysalis]

Last 10 games

Won 4, Drawn 4 Lost 2.

ITs hardly a sackable record, I do agree we aren't playing to their ultimate potential, but the average age is around 22 at the moment and our 2 key players in Hume and Fryatt are going through a very poor patch as most young players do from time to time.

I'm the opposite of people on here in that i'm normally optimistic about things, and I do genuinely believe that the team will improve week by week and game by game and by the end of the season we'll be in a decent position of around 8-10th.

Changing the manager/board/owner/chairman/tea lady/lawn mower/pie supplier won't do anything positive, in most cases it will just cause undue instability yet again when we need a stable environment with everyone inside the club (and i wished outside) behind what the club have quite publicly stated is their policy for the foreseeable future.

If MM or another benefactor comes in then it changes the policy radically and probably for the better.

Was you one of the few telling us to not sack leiven last season then? Last season was clearly a example of change giving a positive outcome.