What Would They Be Buying?

[Hazzman]

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.
.

Yeh, the catering would be good for a change though.

 

[Jeff]

Last season was clearly a example of change giving a positive outcome.

Did it give us a positive outcome?

Sacking a manager quite often leads to short term improvements on the pitch - which we saw last season. But I think it's too early to say whether the current manager is better than Levein.

 

[Jeff]

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.

What makes you think the debt hasn't been reduced?

Also we're not the only club in this division not to have spent money this summer. Some clubs signed only free transers. Others sold players and spent only part of the fee received.

 

[foxpodder]

Don't we own the training ground? Or is it leased from the Council? If we own it ...it is worth a few bob even as houses ... we could train at loughborough Uni? So the debt could be the cost of the stadium from Teachers minus the value of the training ground if we on it -plus any business debt from the football side ... say £3 millionish for this year. Not a bad gamble if you don't buy the stadium till you go up ... and with the prem deal being £27 mill per club plus £9 mill parachute payment for two seasons.

Foxpodder

 

[Jeff]

Don't we own the training ground? Or is it leased from the Council? If we own it ...it is worth a few bob even as houses

I brought the training ground ownership up earlier. Pretty sure it's not owned by the council - http://www.talkingballs.co.uk/showpost.php?p=307760&postcount=27

 

[Chrysalis]

on jeffs points.

1 - yes as I think the alternative was very likely relegation, it may well have been a short term impact but it was positive.

2 - Has someone stated that we are barely covering the interest payments and if thats the case then we are not reducing the debt.

 

[Melton Fox]

Employing Rob Kelly didn't save us from relegation, sacking Levein did. We could have been managerless for the remainder of the season and got the same outcome

So, no, the change of manager didn't work, just getting rid did

 

[Jeff]

2 - Has someone stated that we are barely covering the interest payments and if thats the case then we are not reducing the debt.

The debt you're talking about is just what is owed on the stadium. There were more debts than that when we came out of administration. We had the football related debts which had to be paid in full, and money owed to the Inland Revenue.

 

[Boy Genius]

on jeffs points.

1 - yes as I think the alternative was very likely relegation, it may well have been a short term impact but it was positive.

2 - Has someone stated that we are barely covering the interest payments and if thats the case then we are not reducing the debt.

I thought we rented until further notice, we pay rent based on which division we are in. So where is the interest coming from if we are renting from Teachers?

 

[Hazzman]

Don't we own the training ground? Or is it leased from the Council? If we own it ...it is worth a few bob even as houses ... we could train at loughborough Uni? So the debt could be the cost of the stadium from Teachers minus the value of the training ground if we on it -plus any business debt from the football side ... say £3 millionish for this year. Not a bad gamble if you don't buy the stadium till you go up ... and with the prem deal being £27 mill per club plus £9 mill parachute payment for two seasons.

Foxpodder

I have been told by someone who used to work in the club that City owned the training ground but on at least one occasion a week 'hire' Loughborough Uni for 5k a day or something to that amount. I am sure Newton Fox would clarify. If not they, accordingly to this bloke City ignore their own resources and train at a place with resources just a tad better and pay x amount of money for the privledge. This was in evidence in pre-season.

 

[Melton Fox]

I have been told by someone who used to work in the club that City owned the training ground but on at least one occasion a week 'hire' Loughborough Uni for 5k a day or something to that amount. I am sure Newton Fox would clarify. If not they, accordingly to this bloke City ignore their own resources and train at a place with resources just a tad better and pay x amount of money for the privledge. This was in evidence in pre-season.

In which case somebody needs to be answerable.

We are continuosly being told that we have a top notch academy and training facilities.

If we were training at Lboro for nothing other than renovations at B/Drive then that is farcical

 

[Jeff]

I thought we rented until further notice, we pay rent based on which division we are in. So where is the interest coming from if we are renting from Teachers?

This is what it said in the document that was sent to creditors at the time of administration:


"Walkers Stadium, effectively owned by TIAA under its security, would be rented by Newco under a new lease agreement on terms to be agreed between Newco (as tenant) and TIAA, or a subsidiary of TIAA, (as landlord), for a period of at least 10 years. Representatives of the Lineker Consortium and TIAA are engaged in discussions in this regard."


Don't know the outcome of those discussions though, so I don't know the details of the current arrangement, but I suspect it's a lease and buy-back type arrangement.

 

[Durham Fox]

we are buying back the stadium but in effect our debt is growing whilst we arent in the premiership as the payment level per season agreed whilst we play championship football or below is less than the interest on the debt.

 

[Boy Genius]

This is what it said in the document that was sent to creditors at the time of administration:


"Walkers Stadium, effectively owned by TIAA under its security, would be rented by Newco under a new lease agreement on terms to be agreed between Newco (as tenant) and TIAA, or a subsidiary of TIAA, (as landlord), for a period of at least 10 years. Representatives of the Lineker Consortium and TIAA are engaged in discussions in this regard."


Don't know the outcome of those discussions though, so I don't know the details of the current arrangement, but I suspect it's a lease and buy-back type arrangement.

Nice one Webbo, that puts that one to bed as far as I am concerned

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
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.

As there are 2 interpretations of what we said, to clarify Jeff is correct.

It isn't a topic that has been discussed, hence we don't know the outcome

 

[Foxes_Trust]

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.

That picture is being painted as all rosy, there have been a number of examples where one owner has nearly ruined the club, Knighton, Risdale being 2 examples.

Also single owner could = not listening to fans & high price hikes.

Having said that for clairity once again we will state we aren't against a takeover but only if it is in the long term interest of the club, fans & community.

We don't agree however that a one man takeover is the only answer & the club should look at all options available to them

 

[Foxes_Trust]

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.

Can we just point out you are also calling 3,200 fans who joined the Trust in it's first year muppets - many of who post on here!

 

[Fox Fan]

That picture is being painted as all rosy, there have been a number of examples where one owner has nearly ruined the club, Knighton, Risdale being 2 examples.

Also single owner could = not listening to fans & high price hikes.

Having said that for clairity once again we will state we aren't against a takeover but only if it is in the long term interest of the club, fans & community.

We don't agree however that a one man takeover is the only answer & the club should look at all options available to them

But at this time there is no reason for anybody to beleive that MM would do that.

Foxes Trust I feel you should realise and report to the board that currently 95% of fans feel the only way were going to get out of the Championship and the continual slide we currently seem to be in, is by installing someone with cash. If we fail to get MM because the board are acting like idiots then there will be a fans revolt! And as you 'represnt' us on the board It would be nice if you make it known at the next meeting.

There were already chants of 'Sack The Board' at Birmingham on Saturday

 

[Foxes_Trust]

But at this time there is no reason for anybody to beleive that MM would do that.

Foxes Trust I feel you should realise and report to the board that currently 95% of fans feel the only way were going to get out of the Championship and the continual slide we currently seem to be in, is by installing someone with cash. If we fail to get MM because the board are acting like idiots then there will be a fans revolt! And as you 'represnt' us on the board It would be nice if you make it known at the next meeting.

There were already chants of 'Sack The Board' at Birmingham on Saturday

Our comments are not directed at one individual, we would need to check the plans of any "significant" new investor

We won't make glib statements that 95% etc - where is the proof of that?

The club is seeking new investors & are not sitting in their backsides with fingers crossed, at this point some patience is required

 

[Fox Fan]

Our comments are not directed at one individual, we would need to check the plans of any "significant" new investor

We won't make glib statements that 95% etc - where is the proof of that?

The club is seeking new investors & are not sitting in their backsides with fingers crossed, at this point some patience is required

I wouldn't consider it a Glib statment, look at this board. People are pinning all their hopes on MM coming to us. If he doesn't then lots and lots of people will be massivley dissapointed. And at this time I see absolutly no reason why we he shouldn't come to us, especially as he seems to be making positive noises about it.

I know the board arn't sitting on their arses, and I know this because one of the methods they are trying to employ is asking people who are involved in the club at some level 'do you know anyone who would like to invest?'.

The people who were attempting to buy Villa and failed, why not approach them? They were not (as far as im aware) Villa fans, and they had money. Im sure we could be as big as Villa in less than 10 years given the right investment, surely it would be worth putting that to them?