| Club Statement 19:27 - May 27 with 9064 views | AVFTT |
On 14 May Blackpool Football Club received a letter of intent on behalf of a consortium setting out proposed terms for the purchase of the football assets of the Club, including a long-term proposal to occupy the Stadium. BFC’s Chairman, Karl Oyston, attempted to engage in a preliminary discussion with the other Board members to consider this offer.
Mr Valeri Belokon, one of the Club’s Directors, and a shareholder, declined to engage in any such dialogue. This would have been vital to give full and proper consideration to the offer that was made for Blackpool Football Club. The Board was saddened at Mr Belokon’s failure to engage, particularly bearing in mind that Mr Belokon has given several indications through the media that he wished to make an offer for Blackpool Football Club himself, but has not done so to date.
Karl Oyston attempted to convene a formal Board meeting to consider this offer. That Board Meeting took place yesterday. Mr Belokon however declined again to engage in these urgent discussions and did not take any part in the Board Meeting, leaving it to his representative Mr Kaspars Varpins. Mr Kaspars Varpins, on behalf of Mr Belokon, whose proxy he held, abstained from voting with the other Directors to take the offer further in a positive way.
As a result of the failure to engage in meaningful discussions and gain the support of all directors and shareholders, the Board has come to the view that it would be impractical to continue any further negotiations with the third party bidder. It has therefore now withdrawn from the proposed transaction.
The Board has also decided that it would not be appropriate to consider offers in the future for the Company below the level of this third party offer, or to consider offers based on a different structure to the one proposed by this potential buyer.
Mr Belokon has not attended a Board Meeting for over two years, last attending in March 2013. This makes it exceptionally difficult for the Board to engage in any collective decision making, as demonstrated by the inability of the Board to progress this third party offer.
It is vital that the Club, having now refused this offer, quickly concentrates on the recruitment of coaching and playing staff in readiness for the forthcoming season. The Club will also now progress the fans’ parliament representative to a stage where there is an active supporters’ representative at Board Meetings.
The Board requested Mr Belokon to clarify his position in relation to board membership and general engagement ahead of the Club's next board meeting date being agreed. It is vital that all board members take an active role in developing the future strategy of the Football Club, in the best interests of all concerned.
The Club will be making no further comment.
|  | | |  |
| Club Statement on 19:47 - May 27 with 8970 views | BringBackTheRedRoom |
1) Oyston's are willing to sell.
2) Thought the Oyston's hold enough shares (80%?) to force through any sale.
3) Were the small shareholders informed of this?
4) Blame Belokon (even tho his proxy didn't vote against, he abstained).
5) "quickly concentrates on the recruitment of coaching and playing staff in readiness for the forthcoming season." First time for everything . |  |
| ‘Where there is harmony, may we bring discord. Where there is truth, may we bring error. Where there is faith, may we bring doubt. And where there is hope, may we bring despair’ |
| |
| Club Statement on 19:55 - May 27 with 8937 views | AVFTT |
| Club Statement on 19:47 - May 27 by BringBackTheRedRoom |
1) Oyston's are willing to sell.
2) Thought the Oyston's hold enough shares (80%?) to force through any sale.
3) Were the small shareholders informed of this?
4) Blame Belokon (even tho his proxy didn't vote against, he abstained).
5) "quickly concentrates on the recruitment of coaching and playing staff in readiness for the forthcoming season." First time for everything . |
Loads of visitors tonight .. just to say we've just stuck our settings to instant access and so register tonight and you'll immediately get an e-mail and then gain access to the site.
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/blackpool/login/register | | | |
| Club Statement on 19:56 - May 27 with 8933 views | steve_g |
Can't help feeling in terms of a stunt whether events are accurate or it is a PR exercise, I can see this one backfiring badly! Always said they weren't businessmen and it's proving that way more and more! | |
| |
| Club Statement on 20:01 - May 27 with 8913 views | BiggieSeasider |
So. Belokon is responsible for all that is wrong at the club. Glad we've sorted that one out. | |
| |
| Club Statement on 20:57 - May 27 with 8824 views | scratchingshed |
| Club Statement on 20:01 - May 27 by BiggieSeasider |
So. Belokon is responsible for all that is wrong at the club. Glad we've sorted that one out. |
What a load of horse shit.  | | | |
| Club Statement on 20:59 - May 27 with 8816 views | terminallytangerine |
| Club Statement on 20:57 - May 27 by scratchingshed |
What a load of horse shit. |
There are more questions than answers...
Look forward to finding out more. | | | |
| Club Statement on 21:18 - May 27 with 8793 views | BFCx3 |
| Club Statement on 20:59 - May 27 by terminallytangerine |
There are more questions than answers...
Look forward to finding out more. |
There are certainly more questions than answers, but there are a few very important questions that spring to mind...
1. Why even bother releasing a public statement at all...What does it aim to achieve?
2. Why is the nature of the statement so anti Belokon (surely such matters ought to be kept within the privacy of the boardroom...Unless of course their is an ulterior motive)?
3. What possible reason could there be for needing VB's authority in any case...(tens of millions have been removed without him even being consulted)?
4. Why would VB see fit to abstain?
Can't say I'm optimistic TBH and I can't help feeling like I smell a rat. | | | |
| Club Statement on 21:23 - May 27 with 8790 views | terminallytangerine |
| Club Statement on 21:18 - May 27 by BFCx3 |
There are certainly more questions than answers, but there are a few very important questions that spring to mind...
1. Why even bother releasing a public statement at all...What does it aim to achieve?
2. Why is the nature of the statement so anti Belokon (surely such matters ought to be kept within the privacy of the boardroom...Unless of course their is an ulterior motive)?
3. What possible reason could there be for needing VB's authority in any case...(tens of millions have been removed without him even being consulted)?
4. Why would VB see fit to abstain?
Can't say I'm optimistic TBH and I can't help feeling like I smell a rat. |
True. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Club Statement on 21:37 - May 27 with 8775 views | ribble |
| Club Statement on 21:18 - May 27 by BFCx3 |
There are certainly more questions than answers, but there are a few very important questions that spring to mind...
1. Why even bother releasing a public statement at all...What does it aim to achieve?
2. Why is the nature of the statement so anti Belokon (surely such matters ought to be kept within the privacy of the boardroom...Unless of course their is an ulterior motive)?
3. What possible reason could there be for needing VB's authority in any case...(tens of millions have been removed without him even being consulted)?
4. Why would VB see fit to abstain?
Can't say I'm optimistic TBH and I can't help feeling like I smell a rat. |
Nice to see you here BFC x3. You should pay us a visit more often.
Your points 1 & 2 mirror precisely my initial reaction. The nature and tone of the statement does seem bizarre, even by the Oyston's current off the wall standards. Very odd.
It doesn't necessarily mean, however, that the O's want or are willing to sell as suggested further up the thread. Any offer received by the Chairman would have to be put to the Board as a matter of course. | | | |
| Club Statement on 22:01 - May 27 with 8751 views | stu |
That's right, any offer, however derisory, would have to be discussed by the board |  |
| Tangerine is the new black |
| |
| Club Statement on 22:26 - May 27 with 8724 views | BiggieSeasider |
Anyway, like the parliament thing, this is just smoke and mirrors, designed to distract us and just emphasise the "We're not selling" mantra. It's like they think if they say it enough, we'll believe it. As such, it should be used to strengthen our resolve.
The Oystons, whether they like it or not, rely on a certain amount of goodwill from their customers to succeed in business. They can shout "We're not selling" as much as they want from the rooftops. If we just keep chipping away at their other businesses, boycott them, spread the word, picket and protest, it WILL hurt them financially.
We just have to keep doing it. We'll find their breaking point. | |
| |
| Club Statement on 22:38 - May 27 with 8708 views | BFCx3 |
| Club Statement on 21:37 - May 27 by ribble |
Nice to see you here BFC x3. You should pay us a visit more often.
Your points 1 & 2 mirror precisely my initial reaction. The nature and tone of the statement does seem bizarre, even by the Oyston's current off the wall standards. Very odd.
It doesn't necessarily mean, however, that the O's want or are willing to sell as suggested further up the thread. Any offer received by the Chairman would have to be put to the Board as a matter of course. |
Ribble 
Bollieboy came up with a very interesting theory on the other site, which perhaps provides potential answers to a few of these questions. All is perhaps not as it seems....But who knows!!?? | | | |
| Club Statement on 23:23 - May 27 with 8663 views | Curryman |
| Club Statement on 22:38 - May 27 by BFCx3 |
Ribble
Bollieboy came up with a very interesting theory on the other site, which perhaps provides potential answers to a few of these questions. All is perhaps not as it seems....But who knows!!?? |
I've just read Bollies piece on the other side and can see some sense in what he is saying. I would though put another theory forward.
I agree that there is a lot more to this statement than meets the eye and would agree that it could be a stalking horse that has made the bid on behalf of a shadow company. But where I differ is in the amount of the bid.
VB did at one stage want his investment back, from memory he invested somewhere in the region of £7m, stating that the O's had not invested as he expected into the club, or words to that effect. He was looking at a figure somewhere in the region of £20m, again from memory, which if it represents a 20% shareholding, values the club at £100m.
For VB it would be a bit like a Turkey voting for Christmas and as such he would have to abstain.
Who, in their right mind, would be prepared to pay anywhere near that amount.
Smoke and mirrors definately, and I'm surprised it isn't Ince's, Ferguson's, Riga's er Clarkes fault. |  |
| |
| Club Statement on 23:38 - May 27 with 8644 views | ribble |
| Club Statement on 22:38 - May 27 by BFCx3 |
Ribble
Bollieboy came up with a very interesting theory on the other site, which perhaps provides potential answers to a few of these questions. All is perhaps not as it seems....But who knows!!?? |
Popped over, read Bollie's theory, didn't understand a word of it, popped back.
*orders 'Mergers & Aquisitions for Idiots'* | | | |
| Club Statement on 23:53 - May 27 with 8634 views | BFCx3 |
| Club Statement on 23:23 - May 27 by Curryman |
I've just read Bollies piece on the other side and can see some sense in what he is saying. I would though put another theory forward.
I agree that there is a lot more to this statement than meets the eye and would agree that it could be a stalking horse that has made the bid on behalf of a shadow company. But where I differ is in the amount of the bid.
VB did at one stage want his investment back, from memory he invested somewhere in the region of £7m, stating that the O's had not invested as he expected into the club, or words to that effect. He was looking at a figure somewhere in the region of £20m, again from memory, which if it represents a 20% shareholding, values the club at £100m.
For VB it would be a bit like a Turkey voting for Christmas and as such he would have to abstain.
Who, in their right mind, would be prepared to pay anywhere near that amount.
Smoke and mirrors definately, and I'm surprised it isn't Ince's, Ferguson's, Riga's er Clarkes fault. |
I think you have to remember, that much of VB's expected return will be tied up in monies that have been paid out of the club, yet which are still currently at least tied up in the rather tangled club accounts as assets. He has cash he loaned for the building of the South Stand as well as his 20% stake in the Football Club itself...I'm not sure it would have resulted in a valuation of £100M though when you delve properly into the detail as you have 3 maybe 4 factors.
1. The actual value of the club in terms of goodwill etc..
2. The cash at the bank (or assets)
3. The oustanding Loans actually due to V.B. (loaned to property company)
4. The cash removed by OO himself
Lets assume for a minute
1. Is around £8M
2. Is around £40M
3. Is around £ 10M
4. Was £11M
If You consider that VB is likely to be looking for a 20% share in 1,2&4 plus his money back for 3, then you get to a figure of around £22M...So a value for the club itself of £100M is certainly not required.. [Post edited 27 May 2015 23:55]
| | | |
| Club Statement on 06:51 - May 28 with 8581 views | AlainBstard |
Spot on BFCx3
Also, assuming that VB did not vote for all the loans to other Oyston Companies by not attending Board Meetings, how did they possibly manage to take such important decisions without him.
 | | | |
| Club Statement on 10:03 - May 28 with 8532 views | basilrobbiereborn |
| Club Statement on 06:51 - May 28 by AlainBstard |
Spot on BFCx3
Also, assuming that VB did not vote for all the loans to other Oyston Companies by not attending Board Meetings, how did they possibly manage to take such important decisions without him.
|
Bollie's theory is ingenious, superficially plausible and, for all I know, possibly illegal.
I'd like to know who the consortium are, before taking a lot of notice of this. As I said yesterday, I view this development, such as it is, and especially the statement, as a means to a couple of ends. | |
| |
| Club Statement on 10:31 - May 28 with 8522 views | BFCx3 |
| Club Statement on 10:03 - May 28 by basilrobbiereborn |
Bollie's theory is ingenious, superficially plausible and, for all I know, possibly illegal.
I'd like to know who the consortium are, before taking a lot of notice of this. As I said yesterday, I view this development, such as it is, and especially the statement, as a means to a couple of ends. |
I think we can expect the consortium to be well hidden behind an NDA Robbie.
Incidentally what is your overall opinion on the professionalism of that statement?
We already know how childlike our chairman can be, but come on!!!? That was pretty embarrassing reading...90% of what was said should never be in the public domain as there is absolutely no need other than pure pettiness. [Post edited 28 May 2015 15:20]
| | | |
| Club Statement on 12:47 - May 28 with 8499 views | basilrobbiereborn |
| Club Statement on 10:31 - May 28 by BFCx3 |
I think we can expect the consortium to be well hidden behind an NDA Robbie.
Incidentally what is your overall opinion on the professionalism of that statement?
We already know how childlike our chairman can be, but come on!!!? That was pretty embarrassing reading...90% of what was said should never be in the public domain as there is absolutely no need other than pure pettiness. [Post edited 28 May 2015 15:20]
|
I'm sure you're right on that first statement x3.
On the statement - at best, very clumsy. At worst, I think the word is amateurish. | |
| |
| Club Statement on 14:00 - May 28 with 8483 views | BertandErnie |
Interesting line from the Daily Mail today:
{i}Blackpool, without a manager and only a smattering of professional players on their books, were unusually forthcoming with the bid, given they normal conduct all business behind closed doors.
They did not divulge any further information, but claimed no other offer under this concealed amount would even be considered — something that sets the tone ahead of BST’s proposals in June.
Taken on face value, the statement contradicts Oyston’s previous utterings that the club is not for sale. |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 14:01 - May 28 with 8483 views | BertandErnie |
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
