| Takeover Confirmed on 23:45 - Jun 7 with 1620 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:36 - Jun 7 by skippyjack |
F*cking hell.. the last few pages are full of absolute bollocks.. I find it all funny.. a few well written paragraphs.. but the points being raised are pointless.. it's like building a Ferrari without a f*cking engine..
The new owners have not made their plans public.. until they do.. shut the f*ck up mun.. I'm reading paragraphs and paragraphs of 'inconsequential' gibberish.. I'm just baffled that lecturers deemed you all skilled.. dear.. dear.. |
To be fair skip , few are as expert as yourself when it comes to 'paragraphs of inconsequential gibberish'. |  | |  |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:50 - Jun 7 with 1608 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:50 - Jun 7 by jackonicko |
Make your mind up, Nookie. You've gone from balance of probabilities that the trust would win, to can't lose, and then back to balance of probabilities in just three posts and 30 minutes. I thought it was hard keeping up with the selling shareholders over the last few weeks. |
For the avoidance of doubt Jacko - you can always lose in court even with say 95% to 5% probability of winning.
What puts people off taking cases to court is that they could lose their homes - if lost the case even with a 95% chance of winning - as could not bear the consequences if lost. So they don't actually take the case to court - even though have 95% chance of winning their case.
In the Trust's case it has a circa £1m war chest to take this to court and no one in the Trust will personally lose any money - if Trust then does lose case.
This in my view is a very important point - as if the Trust did not have any money in the bank - the other parties would know the Trust could not take this to court. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:52 - Jun 7 with 1600 views | Landore_Jack |
FFS, lets not ruin this thread. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 23:54]
|  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 00:17 - Jun 8 with 1568 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:29 - Jun 7 by Joe_bradshaw |
I tend to agree with your sentiments and posted that as I would expect it to be a publicity stance that they would use.
I can't agree that we are not owned by VCs though. When the Is are dotted and the Ts are crossed shortly we may well be owned by VCs. Unfortunately we haven't a clue who we will really be owned by at this point. 79% owned that is. |
I agree VC's will now have ownership. I would qualify that to say 'in the short term.'
My argument is that football is random and very fluid - ups and and downs - a bit of luck / bad luck here and there and what that means is that 40 or more clubs have played in the PL.
It also means a lot of clubs have been relegated from the PL.
3 clubs each and every season get relegated.
If it is all about Premier League status then people are going to be disappointed because eventually we will be relegated (strangely will probably occur when we are very well managed but have a lot of bad luck with injuries in a season).
Let the VCs have their time owning the club - the time will come when we are relegated and what then happens? | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 01:20 - Jun 8 with 1533 views | Lord_Bony |
If we get relegated and the money dries up?
They will cash in their shares and suck out as much cash through as many different channels as they can and walk away...leaving the club with a big debt for the "investment" of £50 million.
I'm being too cynical here but that's a worse scenario...and that's the way some ruthless operators work...or it could be a good thing long term we ll just have to wait and see.
Remember,the main goal of the shareholders is to increase the value of the stock and sell on for a profit...of course that comes with an inherent risk factor too. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 02:20 - Jun 8 with 1511 views | DJack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:53 - Jun 6 by Starsky |
I have to say Monny.
I've been reading you the last week or so and I think you either have several people using your username or your tri-polar  |
And you, over the last year, sounded bipolar...but we still love you (both)  |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 02:43 - Jun 8 with 1499 views | DJack |
One other point from me, and to paraphrase...
Another great thread improved by the usual suspects!
Thanks to Lisa, Jacko, Uxy, Nookie and others. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 06:58 - Jun 8 with 1457 views | Dr_Winston |
It's a shame people don't have as much faith in the Trust as they did in Jenkins, Dineen and co before this takeover news broke. If nothing else, current events should clarify for everyone who truly has the best interests of the club at heart and nothing else.
Support the Trust. Everyone else is just passing through.
As for the "go to court to sell shares" argument, if the new board are entitled to receive dividends then so shall the Trust be. Their fighting fund will increase anyway as a result, so I don't see the financial incentive for selling.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:04 - Jun 8 with 1449 views | SwaneeRiver |
| Takeover Confirmed on 06:58 - Jun 8 by Dr_Winston |
It's a shame people don't have as much faith in the Trust as they did in Jenkins, Dineen and co before this takeover news broke. If nothing else, current events should clarify for everyone who truly has the best interests of the club at heart and nothing else.
Support the Trust. Everyone else is just passing through.
As for the "go to court to sell shares" argument, if the new board are entitled to receive dividends then so shall the Trust be. Their fighting fund will increase anyway as a result, so I don't see the financial incentive for selling.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Off point Dr, don't know if you watch "Game of Thrones"but your avatar Ian McShane was in the last episode. I won't say too much in case any out there not seen it yet ... just that he won't get rich from G of T  | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:10 - Jun 8 with 1445 views | MattG |
The question of whether to sell (assuming the Americans would or could be forced to buy) is an interesting one.
Setting aside any possible negative impact on whatever funds may or may not be available for investment, it would certainly put the Trust in a position, should the worst happen, to become a key player once again.
However, it would remove us completely from the Boardroom, losing any influence (aside from as a "noisy neighbour") and potentially hastening the day when the Trust is needed to step in.
Very tricky. |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:12 - Jun 8 with 1439 views | Dr_Winston |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:04 - Jun 8 by SwaneeRiver |
Off point Dr, don't know if you watch "Game of Thrones"but your avatar Ian McShane was in the last episode. I won't say too much in case any out there not seen it yet ... just that he won't get rich from G of T |
Those "Brotherhood without Banners" c*cksuckers. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:47 - Jun 8 with 1401 views | jackonicko |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:50 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
For the avoidance of doubt Jacko - you can always lose in court even with say 95% to 5% probability of winning.
What puts people off taking cases to court is that they could lose their homes - if lost the case even with a 95% chance of winning - as could not bear the consequences if lost. So they don't actually take the case to court - even though have 95% chance of winning their case.
In the Trust's case it has a circa £1m war chest to take this to court and no one in the Trust will personally lose any money - if Trust then does lose case.
This in my view is a very important point - as if the Trust did not have any money in the bank - the other parties would know the Trust could not take this to court. |
And that is precisely my point. Go to court and it's a crap shoot. Even if it's 95% in your favour you might lose - judge having a bad day, counsel having a bad day. And then we are much worse off as a Trust. Hence last resort.
I'm still to be convinced that our rights have even been prejudiced, let alone unfairly. The big boys ganged up on us and wouldn't talk to us is not a legal argument.
On the point re directors, 2 is better than 1. You only have to look at some of the disgusting personal abuse that Huw C gets on here and elsewhere to realise that the SD role is hard and thankless. If the trust had 2 directors, it would be easier to be the 'lone voice' making an argument if there are actually two voices making it. You have to have courage to stand up for something if the rest of the room disagree with you. And the people taking on that thankless role will be less of a lightning rod for the personal abuse, which would make it a more attractive for people to volunteer for. |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:21 - Jun 8 with 1358 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:47 - Jun 8 by jackonicko |
And that is precisely my point. Go to court and it's a crap shoot. Even if it's 95% in your favour you might lose - judge having a bad day, counsel having a bad day. And then we are much worse off as a Trust. Hence last resort.
I'm still to be convinced that our rights have even been prejudiced, let alone unfairly. The big boys ganged up on us and wouldn't talk to us is not a legal argument.
On the point re directors, 2 is better than 1. You only have to look at some of the disgusting personal abuse that Huw C gets on here and elsewhere to realise that the SD role is hard and thankless. If the trust had 2 directors, it would be easier to be the 'lone voice' making an argument if there are actually two voices making it. You have to have courage to stand up for something if the rest of the room disagree with you. And the people taking on that thankless role will be less of a lightning rod for the personal abuse, which would make it a more attractive for people to volunteer for. |
Does the current Shareholders Agreement stop anyone obtaining 25% holding at moment - or was that an informal agreement?
Trust is currently second largest shareholder and there appears to have been formal or informal agreement that no shareholder should have a stake of 25% or more.
All other shareholders:-
1. Sell their shares bar some residual shares to VCs
2. Maybe have Assigned voting rights on residual shares to VCs
3. Maybe have given options to VCs to sell residual shares
Trust is totally kept out of the discussions and is left with 21% Minority stake.
Trust now can't sell 21% because it is in a Minority position - what other investor would buy the shares - given the VCs have a 79% controlling interest.
Or if Trust could sell could only do so at a substantial discount to current value of its shares - based on current position where it is 2nd largest shareholder.
If that is not unfairly prejudicial - I don't know what is?
When it comes I the 2 Directors - I get the argument that might provide support to current SD at Board meetings.
However with the VCs having 79% voting power - they have full control of the Board.
You have got to be careful here - as it gives the impression that Trust has negotiated a good deal now having 2 Directors - however the reality is have lost all control and are in a total minority position of:-
VCs 79% and Trust 21%
You can't get away from this - even with 2 Directors. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:52 - Jun 8 with 1314 views | monmouth |
I think it's fairly clear that to run to court now would be pretty much insane. The implied 'threat' (plus, I believe the equally powerful threat of a sustained PR shitfest) is probably more effective in terms of trying to create an agreement that builds in realistic protections as exemplified by Ux earlier. If that can't be done, then the options can surely be considered in more concrete form.
Jacko's posts have certainly helped me cool my wellies. Thanks. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:58 - Jun 8 with 1306 views | jackonicko |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:21 - Jun 8 by Nookiejack |
Does the current Shareholders Agreement stop anyone obtaining 25% holding at moment - or was that an informal agreement?
Trust is currently second largest shareholder and there appears to have been formal or informal agreement that no shareholder should have a stake of 25% or more.
All other shareholders:-
1. Sell their shares bar some residual shares to VCs
2. Maybe have Assigned voting rights on residual shares to VCs
3. Maybe have given options to VCs to sell residual shares
Trust is totally kept out of the discussions and is left with 21% Minority stake.
Trust now can't sell 21% because it is in a Minority position - what other investor would buy the shares - given the VCs have a 79% controlling interest.
Or if Trust could sell could only do so at a substantial discount to current value of its shares - based on current position where it is 2nd largest shareholder.
If that is not unfairly prejudicial - I don't know what is?
When it comes I the 2 Directors - I get the argument that might provide support to current SD at Board meetings.
However with the VCs having 79% voting power - they have full control of the Board.
You have got to be careful here - as it gives the impression that Trust has negotiated a good deal now having 2 Directors - however the reality is have lost all control and are in a total minority position of:-
VCs 79% and Trust 21%
You can't get away from this - even with 2 Directors. |
The trust hasn't negotiated anything yet. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:03 - Jun 8 with 1295 views | Nookiejack |
I just wanted to add - this is not just 1 shareholder trying to sell their shares.
This is ALL other shareholders selling and the Trust being totally kept out of discussions. The Trust being 2nd largest shareholder.
Currently the voting rights poison is equally balanced with the Trust being the 2nd largest shareholder and no other shareholder having more than 25%.
If Position going forward is 79% v 21% then the value of the Trusts current stake is devalued.
Surely one of the Trust's role is as a fund manager to protect the value of its holding on behalf of its members.
If we roll forward 3 months and the Trust is left in a 79% to 21% position. The VCs if they ever then did want to buy the Trust out - could then offer substantially less to Trust than current market value they are offering to other shareholders at the moment. Given Trust in 3 months time will be in such a minority position.
So If Trust does decide to sell has to do it now - it will be too late in 3 months time. Value of shares then will have significantly fallen - all other things being equal. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:07 - Jun 8 with 1289 views | Landore_Jack |
Taking court action would be madness. Like others have said there is always a possibility we would loose the case. It would go against the best interests of SCFC.
The trust was setup to protect the football club. Selling shares would go against our principles. It's best to be inside the circle than outside.
The new owners may be fine to work with. Lets not shoot ourselves now. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:08 - Jun 8 with 1288 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:52 - Jun 8 by monmouth |
I think it's fairly clear that to run to court now would be pretty much insane. The implied 'threat' (plus, I believe the equally powerful threat of a sustained PR shitfest) is probably more effective in terms of trying to create an agreement that builds in realistic protections as exemplified by Ux earlier. If that can't be done, then the options can surely be considered in more concrete form.
Jacko's posts have certainly helped me cool my wellies. Thanks. |
I don't understand why going to court is insane if say
1. Current value of Trust's shares are say £20m
2. Value in a minority position may be between £10m and £15m - maybe less? | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:33 - Jun 8 with 1258 views | Uxbridge |
I think the key thing is that going to court should be a course of last resort.
Let's see if we can work with the Yanks. If not, then we go from there. There are options. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 10:39 - Jun 8 with 1184 views | MoscowJack |
This is an excellent thread. I was away when the deal was announced and didn't have much time to check the online reaction to it so it's good to see there's some balanced and experienced views on here. Thanks Jacko, Ux and Lisa (in the main) for such detailed info. It's so helpful.
I think one of the main problems is that the Trust can be blamed for certain moves (or even inactivity) but basically only with the benefit of hindsight.
Let's be honest here - what would Huw Cooze have been asked to do when he began representing the Trust on the main Board? Apart from representing and reporting all his findings, being the eyes and ears of the Trust, etc, he would have been expected to build on any relationships with HJ, MM, BK, LD, JvZ, etc. I think he did that exceptionally well, but perhaps too well in the end. The Trust thought he was too close to the Board and vice-versa. He couldn't alienate himself from the Trust and couldn't from the Board either or his job would have been impossible. It's a thankless position and a very tough one to win unless you've got more commercial, financial and legal knowledge than the others around the table.
HC has been let down bitterly and I think this was the first red flag for me as it showed how ruthless some were going to be in order to get their "lottery win" (as I call it).
In hindsight, the Trust might have been more vocal in their willingness to CONSIDER selling their shares. I'm not saying they would or should have sold, but more of a willingness might have seen them involved in the negotiations a lot more from the start. Maybe. The Trust have had chances to enter down this route but, rightly or wrongly, decided it wasn't the way the Trust should go.
For me, it's pretty clear what the Americans will do - they'll buy the stadium and expand it. The problem is that the Americans will put in circa £30m-£40m and will expect the Trust to contribute their 21%. How could they do this?
HJ, MM, BK, LD etc will afford it as (a) they've just been paid out a lottery win and (b) their % will be 1%-5% so a lot less than the Trust's 21%.
Could the Trust raise £6m-£8m?
The Americans are businessmen first and foremost and they aren't in a business known for kindness and generosity so I think they wouldn't give a second thought to reducing the Trust's shares, if it was needed or even as a planned strategy.
The Trust now find themselves in a horrific situation - they don't know who they're dealing with (behind the two front men) and they don't know their plan either. I personally think it's disgusting the way the Americans have been treated, but who cares about that?
The ONLY thing I think the Trust has on its side is fan power. The Americans, as I said above, are ruthless...but not stupid. The last thing they want is protests from the fans on the first game of the season, so there is hope.
Going back to my original post about hindsight being one of the problems, I think it's good to see people like Jacko, Ux and others (who have the intelligence, knowledge and experience in these sorts of matters) working to protect the Trust. The Trust needs to be clever, calm and as informed as it possibly be right now so that all the options are on the table for when they have enough facts to be able to react.
My guess is that it's going to turn very, very ugly and if it does, this site (and others) will explode.
Let's hope it doesn't effect the playing side as we've seen too many clubs in turmoil (off the pitch) become distracted on it too. The last thing the Trust or Americans want is another relegation struggle next season....especially a failed one. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 10:50 - Jun 8 with 1165 views | MoscowJack |
Just want to add one more thing.....
This coming season sees the TV money go up by 50-70% - many say this extra money will end up in player's pockets but not until they have new contracts/
Most of our players will be on their old deals so that 80% income:wages percentage will probably be closer to 50%. Suddenly we could see a nice £30m profit if we don't have a big net spend on players.
Considering the huge jump in revenue and the sexy gross profit (but with new player contracts starting to eat away at that) this would be the perfect time to sell and a £200m valuation wouldn't be a surprise me at all. Also considering that these guys are professionals at buying AND selling, they'll probably get a very good deal too.
Whatever the argument about whether they're good or bad, I think we'll only see them around for 12-15 months as they flip us as soon as they can. Whether buying and expanding the stadium will help them do that is open to argument, but they would take £200m tomorrow and I don't think it's going to be hard for them to achieve. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:03 - Jun 8 with 1133 views | whiterock |
| Takeover Confirmed on 10:39 - Jun 8 by MoscowJack |
This is an excellent thread. I was away when the deal was announced and didn't have much time to check the online reaction to it so it's good to see there's some balanced and experienced views on here. Thanks Jacko, Ux and Lisa (in the main) for such detailed info. It's so helpful.
I think one of the main problems is that the Trust can be blamed for certain moves (or even inactivity) but basically only with the benefit of hindsight.
Let's be honest here - what would Huw Cooze have been asked to do when he began representing the Trust on the main Board? Apart from representing and reporting all his findings, being the eyes and ears of the Trust, etc, he would have been expected to build on any relationships with HJ, MM, BK, LD, JvZ, etc. I think he did that exceptionally well, but perhaps too well in the end. The Trust thought he was too close to the Board and vice-versa. He couldn't alienate himself from the Trust and couldn't from the Board either or his job would have been impossible. It's a thankless position and a very tough one to win unless you've got more commercial, financial and legal knowledge than the others around the table.
HC has been let down bitterly and I think this was the first red flag for me as it showed how ruthless some were going to be in order to get their "lottery win" (as I call it).
In hindsight, the Trust might have been more vocal in their willingness to CONSIDER selling their shares. I'm not saying they would or should have sold, but more of a willingness might have seen them involved in the negotiations a lot more from the start. Maybe. The Trust have had chances to enter down this route but, rightly or wrongly, decided it wasn't the way the Trust should go.
For me, it's pretty clear what the Americans will do - they'll buy the stadium and expand it. The problem is that the Americans will put in circa £30m-£40m and will expect the Trust to contribute their 21%. How could they do this?
HJ, MM, BK, LD etc will afford it as (a) they've just been paid out a lottery win and (b) their % will be 1%-5% so a lot less than the Trust's 21%.
Could the Trust raise £6m-£8m?
The Americans are businessmen first and foremost and they aren't in a business known for kindness and generosity so I think they wouldn't give a second thought to reducing the Trust's shares, if it was needed or even as a planned strategy.
The Trust now find themselves in a horrific situation - they don't know who they're dealing with (behind the two front men) and they don't know their plan either. I personally think it's disgusting the way the Americans have been treated, but who cares about that?
The ONLY thing I think the Trust has on its side is fan power. The Americans, as I said above, are ruthless...but not stupid. The last thing they want is protests from the fans on the first game of the season, so there is hope.
Going back to my original post about hindsight being one of the problems, I think it's good to see people like Jacko, Ux and others (who have the intelligence, knowledge and experience in these sorts of matters) working to protect the Trust. The Trust needs to be clever, calm and as informed as it possibly be right now so that all the options are on the table for when they have enough facts to be able to react.
My guess is that it's going to turn very, very ugly and if it does, this site (and others) will explode.
Let's hope it doesn't effect the playing side as we've seen too many clubs in turmoil (off the pitch) become distracted on it too. The last thing the Trust or Americans want is another relegation struggle next season....especially a failed one. |
Some good points Nick
I've seen it in print many times that the Trust was willing to listen to offers about selling its shares, however, it suited HJ's agenda to wrongly assume otherwise.
This was mentioned in a public Forum in April at the Liberty and again at the the London Forum in May with HJ as guest. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:04 - Jun 8 with 1132 views | DafyddHuw |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:33 - Jun 8 by Uxbridge |
I think the key thing is that going to court should be a course of last resort.
Let's see if we can work with the Yanks. If not, then we go from there. There are options. |
Yes, but Ux, by the time the Trust can see if it can work with the Yanks or not, won't it be too late for court action? Surely it's gonna take months to find out if a sustainable working partnership can be formed? |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:08 - Jun 8 with 1128 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:04 - Jun 8 by DafyddHuw |
Yes, but Ux, by the time the Trust can see if it can work with the Yanks or not, won't it be too late for court action? Surely it's gonna take months to find out if a sustainable working partnership can be formed? |
No. The Shareholders Agreement will tell us enough. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:12 - Jun 8 with 1110 views | NeiltheTaylor |
Thanks all. Some great food for thought here | |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
