| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 121362 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:00 - Jul 23 with 1706 views | E20Jack |
Completely agree Nookie. If there was a better offer on the table. £10m for 10% (regardless of league). Tag but no drag rights on the remaining 11% - I'd be advocating taking the offer.
As it is I feel The Trust will have let the club, its members and the general support down if the vote returns what they have pushed hard for, to accept the awful lowball deal.
I am convinced that the threat of going to court when they have a weak case, they would rather stump up the extra few million and agree to the terms rather than risking having to shell out £20m+ added to legal fees and their principle investment possibly suffering as a result.
They would settle out of court. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:14 - Jul 23 with 1693 views | DJack |
Currently my view is the legal route...
Shell corporation headed by Venture Capitalists.
Articles of agreement "ripped up".
Only risible deals offered over months and then a poor one offered which our Trust board thinks is worth offering to the members.
No engagement with the Trust until it went pear-shaped and all of a sudden they start.
All Ok(ish) then Trust excluded from friendly ticket prices.
We are being taken for a ride by money vampires who are one step below Hedge-fund managers.
Let them have their way and both the club and Trust WILL die - maybe not for a 4/5 years but it's inevitable, Pompey, Villa et al.
Legal route and lose, we could lose the club (well we already have as the Yanks have it) but QC says we have a strong case so we as as the Trust members MUST fight for our club.
If we take the legal route, yes, it will be a sad day but remember that we didn't cause this greedy businessmen and Venture capitalists saw a fattened pig they wanted. We cannot stand aside and do nothing we must fight for our club or we give it away cheaply |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:58 - Jul 23 with 1651 views | Sean |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:35 - Jun 29 by LeonWasGod |
Sorry if I missed it in that statement, but why would the Trust want to sell shares? We have a rare model where fans can directly be involved in the club management (albeit remotely throu the Trust reps). Isn't the aim to have as big an influence as possible, which can only be achieved through as large a shareholding as possible? These owners will soon go, but the Trust preserves the link between the fans and the club, so our kids and their kids still have a stake one day. Why would we want to dilute that link? [Post edited 29 Jun 2017 20:39]
|
LeonWasGod asked some good questions:
why would the Trust want to sell shares?
and
Isn't the aim to have as big an influence as possible, which can only be achieved through as large a shareholding as possible?
The only answers I've seen that address the first question see us gaining money that MIGHT allow us to buy a greater share at some point in the future. But there is no guarantee that we'll ever own as much again.
Yes, there's speculation about share issues that would dilute our 21%, but it's as speculative as the scenario in which we use our windfall to buy a controlling stake (in League One).
The actual reality is that we end up with a diminished interest.
In my opinion, all the talk about our stake being a zombie shareholding, being passed around, and having a lesser or negligible financial value, is to look at things the wrong way round. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:03 - Jul 23 with 1645 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:58 - Jul 23 by Sean |
LeonWasGod asked some good questions:
why would the Trust want to sell shares?
and
Isn't the aim to have as big an influence as possible, which can only be achieved through as large a shareholding as possible?
The only answers I've seen that address the first question see us gaining money that MIGHT allow us to buy a greater share at some point in the future. But there is no guarantee that we'll ever own as much again.
Yes, there's speculation about share issues that would dilute our 21%, but it's as speculative as the scenario in which we use our windfall to buy a controlling stake (in League One).
The actual reality is that we end up with a diminished interest.
In my opinion, all the talk about our stake being a zombie shareholding, being passed around, and having a lesser or negligible financial value, is to look at things the wrong way round. |
21% is meaningless, it gives just as much influence as having 5% (minimum amount to be on the board) if another sharholder has 75.1% of the voting rights (which they do). It isn't a case of the higher % we own the more influence we have in this scenario, as unless the Americans sell us some shares (which they obviously wont) we will never get enough of a % to influence anything under the current deal. The current deal has essentially rendered our shares worthless.
The Trusts aims to own a bigger % of the club as possible was made when our fellow shareholders and ourselves were under a shareholders agreement protecting us all. However that was torn up in favour of a windfall for the other individual shareholders to do the deal behind our backs. As soon as that changed then the Trusts aims that were based on the old SHA went out the window, and anyone still applying them to today doesnt understand how significant the change is.
Having £21m in the bank WILL allow us to own the club at some point in the future and can ensure it never falls into the hands of venture capitalists again. If it never happens, it means the club has retained its value and continues to be relatively successful. Either way is good.
You also fail to realise that if we stay the same, our shares can (and surely will be) evaporated by dilution - it is not an unlikely scenario in the slightest. If we take the deal, our shares can be sold from under our feet for pennies to people we have no control over at a time we have no control over. We could be booted out of the club as early as the day after agreeing the deal.
The Trust has no influence now and until we own a majority share we never will have any influence again. The only way for that to happen is by acquiring an amount of money that can realistically achieve that.
Ever played McDonalds Monopoly? There is 1 piece in the collection in which if you complete the set - it allows you to win a car. To relate that to our situation. It is like continuing to strive to spend money building up all the tokens even though you know the rare single piece to the collection has already been found and cashed in by someone else. Its futile to continue to harbour the ambition to keep acquiring shares as the end goal is now impossible to achieve. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 16:27]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:26 - Jul 23 with 1600 views | PozuelosSideys |
Fhuck it. If the offer is only £4m, see you in court. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:38 - Jul 23 with 1590 views | Sean |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:03 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
21% is meaningless, it gives just as much influence as having 5% (minimum amount to be on the board) if another sharholder has 75.1% of the voting rights (which they do). It isn't a case of the higher % we own the more influence we have in this scenario, as unless the Americans sell us some shares (which they obviously wont) we will never get enough of a % to influence anything under the current deal. The current deal has essentially rendered our shares worthless.
The Trusts aims to own a bigger % of the club as possible was made when our fellow shareholders and ourselves were under a shareholders agreement protecting us all. However that was torn up in favour of a windfall for the other individual shareholders to do the deal behind our backs. As soon as that changed then the Trusts aims that were based on the old SHA went out the window, and anyone still applying them to today doesnt understand how significant the change is.
Having £21m in the bank WILL allow us to own the club at some point in the future and can ensure it never falls into the hands of venture capitalists again. If it never happens, it means the club has retained its value and continues to be relatively successful. Either way is good.
You also fail to realise that if we stay the same, our shares can (and surely will be) evaporated by dilution - it is not an unlikely scenario in the slightest. If we take the deal, our shares can be sold from under our feet for pennies to people we have no control over at a time we have no control over. We could be booted out of the club as early as the day after agreeing the deal.
The Trust has no influence now and until we own a majority share we never will have any influence again. The only way for that to happen is by acquiring an amount of money that can realistically achieve that.
Ever played McDonalds Monopoly? There is 1 piece in the collection in which if you complete the set - it allows you to win a car. To relate that to our situation. It is like continuing to strive to spend money building up all the tokens even though you know the rare single piece to the collection has already been found and cashed in by someone else. Its futile to continue to harbour the ambition to keep acquiring shares as the end goal is now impossible to achieve. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 16:27]
|
Thanks for your reply, E20Jack.
You misunderstand the first point: I'm not claiming 21% gives us more influence on the current operation of the club than will 10%. Any influence we have at the moment is dependent on the fiat of the current majority shareholders, and (I'm not suggesting you're recommending this) trying to buy influence by selling them part of our share is a pretty silly idea.
But I'd rather we stick in there, standing for what we believe, rather than getting out in the possibly vain hope that we will inherit the club at some later date. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:57 - Jul 23 with 1575 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:38 - Jul 23 by Sean |
Thanks for your reply, E20Jack.
You misunderstand the first point: I'm not claiming 21% gives us more influence on the current operation of the club than will 10%. Any influence we have at the moment is dependent on the fiat of the current majority shareholders, and (I'm not suggesting you're recommending this) trying to buy influence by selling them part of our share is a pretty silly idea.
But I'd rather we stick in there, standing for what we believe, rather than getting out in the possibly vain hope that we will inherit the club at some later date. |
Im not with you Sean.
We have no influence now. None. We tried to influence a change of price for a friendly and couldn't manage it. There is no influence to lose.
Selling our shares to gain shares is the only way we can achieve the aim to own a meaningful stake in the club. What is the point in owning 21% of something that can be taken away at a moments notice for hardly any return when that 21% provides no influence anyway?
Owning the club with £21m sat in the bank is not "vain hope", it is an eventual inevitability - unless you believe we will continue to be successful. In which case it doesn't matter anyway. However you would get very long odds of us remaining in the Premier League indefinately.
If the aim is to own a meaninful stake in the club to gain fan influence then keeping the status quo or voting for the deal is possibly the silliest thing anyone can ever do - as either make the goal completely impossible to achieve from then onwards. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:44 - Jul 23 with 1529 views | Dewi1jack |
If we look at gaining £21 million+ from legal action, I'm positive that the next owners wouldn't mind a bit of that HARD COLD CASH being brought in as part of their consortium.
Nice little every bit helps!
£5 million- tax etc gives a consortium the right to pat us on the head saying 'there there' nobody. |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:51 - Jul 23 with 1518 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:58 - Jul 23 by Sean |
LeonWasGod asked some good questions:
why would the Trust want to sell shares?
and
Isn't the aim to have as big an influence as possible, which can only be achieved through as large a shareholding as possible?
The only answers I've seen that address the first question see us gaining money that MIGHT allow us to buy a greater share at some point in the future. But there is no guarantee that we'll ever own as much again.
Yes, there's speculation about share issues that would dilute our 21%, but it's as speculative as the scenario in which we use our windfall to buy a controlling stake (in League One).
The actual reality is that we end up with a diminished interest.
In my opinion, all the talk about our stake being a zombie shareholding, being passed around, and having a lesser or negligible financial value, is to look at things the wrong way round. |
What's your understanding of the concession of the Drag rights?
If you think the Trust should retain the 21% - the concession of the Drag rights doesn't do this.
So will you be voting for do nothing scenario? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:52 - Jul 23 with 1514 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:44 - Jul 23 by Dewi1jack |
If we look at gaining £21 million+ from legal action, I'm positive that the next owners wouldn't mind a bit of that HARD COLD CASH being brought in as part of their consortium.
Nice little every bit helps!
£5 million- tax etc gives a consortium the right to pat us on the head saying 'there there' nobody. |
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that dragging the current owners through the courts will make the Trust an attractive business partner in the future?
Sorry, Dewi - I'm really not following you on this. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:57 - Jul 23 with 1505 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:52 - Jul 23 by MattG |
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that dragging the current owners through the courts will make the Trust an attractive business partner in the future?
Sorry, Dewi - I'm really not following you on this. |
Absolutely. What business partners worth their salt wouldn't take a litigation option when their shareholders agreement has been torn up and become the victims of unfair prejudice? It is surely the foundations that business is build upon in partnerships?
Unless of course you want to make us an attractive business partner because we are meek, easily led and submissive to being walked all over? In which case I would say the investors attracted to us due to that are probably not in it for the best of intentions, wouldnt you?
Taking that £21m would put us in a massively advantageous position to negotiate a way back into the club im the future, with interest building on it yearly. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:12 - Jul 23 with 1481 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:57 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Absolutely. What business partners worth their salt wouldn't take a litigation option when their shareholders agreement has been torn up and become the victims of unfair prejudice? It is surely the foundations that business is build upon in partnerships?
Unless of course you want to make us an attractive business partner because we are meek, easily led and submissive to being walked all over? In which case I would say the investors attracted to us due to that are probably not in it for the best of intentions, wouldnt you?
Taking that £21m would put us in a massively advantageous position to negotiate a way back into the club im the future, with interest building on it yearly. |
But which sort of investors do you think are most likely?
Ones that will want to do similar to what the Americans have done and flip the Club in a few years?
Or ones that will come in with a long-term plan and a burning desire to involve the Trust fully in the running of the Club?
If the latter then you may have a point but my money would be much more on the former. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:20 - Jul 23 with 1467 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:12 - Jul 23 by MattG |
But which sort of investors do you think are most likely?
Ones that will want to do similar to what the Americans have done and flip the Club in a few years?
Or ones that will come in with a long-term plan and a burning desire to involve the Trust fully in the running of the Club?
If the latter then you may have a point but my money would be much more on the former. |
Absolutely would be a venture capitalist, no real doubt about that. But eventually that WILL go wrong. It nearly did at the first attempt last year. So it is only a matter of time.
What position would you rather be in when that does happen? £21m in the bank earning interest and an ability to look for a consortium in which their goals and the Trusts can be mutually achieved seems a very favourable position to me.
The Trust is a not for profit organisation. We can be incredibly good partners for a venture capitalist as we could happily weight any financial benefits of owning the club in their favour, something no other partner would do. I would happily give them a predetermined % of profits in the form of a dividend that outnumbers what we take 80% to 20%.
For that £20m we would have enough shares to veto any dilution and contest any decisions made my the owners. We would be in as safe a position as we could wish to be in other than owning the club lock stock and barrel. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:23 - Jul 23 with 1455 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:20 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Absolutely would be a venture capitalist, no real doubt about that. But eventually that WILL go wrong. It nearly did at the first attempt last year. So it is only a matter of time.
What position would you rather be in when that does happen? £21m in the bank earning interest and an ability to look for a consortium in which their goals and the Trusts can be mutually achieved seems a very favourable position to me.
The Trust is a not for profit organisation. We can be incredibly good partners for a venture capitalist as we could happily weight any financial benefits of owning the club in their favour, something no other partner would do. I would happily give them a predetermined % of profits in the form of a dividend that outnumbers what we take 80% to 20%.
For that £20m we would have enough shares to veto any dilution and contest any decisions made my the owners. We would be in as safe a position as we could wish to be in other than owning the club lock stock and barrel. |
OK, so you are talking maybe many years down the line when things have probably gone a bit pear-shaped - different situation and I would probably agree that, in that kind of scenario, a more "friendly" consortium might be possible with the Trust potentially even taking the lead.
Dewi's point that I picked up on actually mentioned "the next owners" which, IMO, would be a very different scenario. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:30 - Jul 23 with 1439 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:23 - Jul 23 by MattG |
OK, so you are talking maybe many years down the line when things have probably gone a bit pear-shaped - different situation and I would probably agree that, in that kind of scenario, a more "friendly" consortium might be possible with the Trust potentially even taking the lead.
Dewi's point that I picked up on actually mentioned "the next owners" which, IMO, would be a very different scenario. |
Not necessarily, it depends when we get relegated. If we get relegated when the Americans still own us then it may well be "the next owners" that we go into partnership with.
Upon relegation the Americans may well be looking to sell their 89% (assuming we have taken the litigation route and they have been forced to buy thr Trusts stake).
If the club was valued at £100m when we were a relatively mid table PL side with an income of £100m+ then I assume an offer of 50/60m would represent a valuation of which they would consider.
£20m gives us scope to maybe get 40% of those shares with 60% going to another investor. That amount of shares aquired by the Trust will put in protections that we have been striving for for over a decade and were always impossible to achieve in hindsight. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:37 - Jul 23 with 1425 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:30 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Not necessarily, it depends when we get relegated. If we get relegated when the Americans still own us then it may well be "the next owners" that we go into partnership with.
Upon relegation the Americans may well be looking to sell their 89% (assuming we have taken the litigation route and they have been forced to buy thr Trusts stake).
If the club was valued at £100m when we were a relatively mid table PL side with an income of £100m+ then I assume an offer of 50/60m would represent a valuation of which they would consider.
£20m gives us scope to maybe get 40% of those shares with 60% going to another investor. That amount of shares aquired by the Trust will put in protections that we have been striving for for over a decade and were always impossible to achieve in hindsight. |
We may need to agree to disagree - I love the sound of your idea but I just think it could be quite difficult to find someone willing to stump up £30m+ to get into partnership with the Trust, particularly if we were holding 40% of the shares and the protections that brings.
I certainly don't see the Americans selling us 40% and then hanging around waiting for someone to buy up the remainder so we would quite likely need to find them ourselves. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:51 - Jul 23 with 1406 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:37 - Jul 23 by MattG |
We may need to agree to disagree - I love the sound of your idea but I just think it could be quite difficult to find someone willing to stump up £30m+ to get into partnership with the Trust, particularly if we were holding 40% of the shares and the protections that brings.
I certainly don't see the Americans selling us 40% and then hanging around waiting for someone to buy up the remainder so we would quite likely need to find them ourselves. |
I'm undecided but I am with you on this Matt.
A legal win and a buy out of shares to me means no fan involvement for many years if ever. Now I may still go with this route with my vote, but let's not give it as a given that the Trust will get the club back.
You have said that if still on the board after the election you would stay and carry out the legal route if that was the case.
Now there may be a delay in getting a court slot etc, how many of the current board can guarantee still being part of the Trust board for the next few years - court case and beyond.
In my view a court win will change the Trust dramatically and will become a supporters group. There will be no need for the board as it is today, and would expect many to stand down. The decision what to do with the money in the future could well be down to different people and that is if any put their name forward
Let's not rule anything in or out as fact | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:56 - Jul 23 with 1391 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:51 - Jul 23 by 3swan |
I'm undecided but I am with you on this Matt.
A legal win and a buy out of shares to me means no fan involvement for many years if ever. Now I may still go with this route with my vote, but let's not give it as a given that the Trust will get the club back.
You have said that if still on the board after the election you would stay and carry out the legal route if that was the case.
Now there may be a delay in getting a court slot etc, how many of the current board can guarantee still being part of the Trust board for the next few years - court case and beyond.
In my view a court win will change the Trust dramatically and will become a supporters group. There will be no need for the board as it is today, and would expect many to stand down. The decision what to do with the money in the future could well be down to different people and that is if any put their name forward
Let's not rule anything in or out as fact |
Agree with much of that, 3swan - whether we go legal or end up being bought out via drag / tag, the Trust will have a very different profile.
One thing is for sure, if we don't have a shareholding, we will need a hell of a lot more than 1,800 members to make any sort of difference. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:04 - Jul 23 with 1379 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:37 - Jul 23 by MattG |
We may need to agree to disagree - I love the sound of your idea but I just think it could be quite difficult to find someone willing to stump up £30m+ to get into partnership with the Trust, particularly if we were holding 40% of the shares and the protections that brings.
I certainly don't see the Americans selling us 40% and then hanging around waiting for someone to buy up the remainder so we would quite likely need to find them ourselves. |
Of course it may be difficult, but still very likely. It surely is better than the alternative which is the impossible? If we accept the deal we will NEVER get to own a stake in the club which protects it. Never. And i dont use that word lightly.
We are a dream partner for any investor. It can take the lions share of dividends without having to spend the amount of money to get the proportionate amount of shares. They would need to stump up £30m for 80% of future potential premier league dividend profits, thats quite the proposal for any investor. It is what makes this all the more likely to happen in the future.
The protections our c35% would bring would simply be the ability for us not to get screwed over, we would be permenant partners in the club. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:10 - Jul 23 with 1359 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:51 - Jul 23 by 3swan |
I'm undecided but I am with you on this Matt.
A legal win and a buy out of shares to me means no fan involvement for many years if ever. Now I may still go with this route with my vote, but let's not give it as a given that the Trust will get the club back.
You have said that if still on the board after the election you would stay and carry out the legal route if that was the case.
Now there may be a delay in getting a court slot etc, how many of the current board can guarantee still being part of the Trust board for the next few years - court case and beyond.
In my view a court win will change the Trust dramatically and will become a supporters group. There will be no need for the board as it is today, and would expect many to stand down. The decision what to do with the money in the future could well be down to different people and that is if any put their name forward
Let's not rule anything in or out as fact |
3Swan. What do you constitute as fan involvement?
You soeak as if it is something you don't want to lose. But I ask where is it? We tried to get a pretty trivial thing changed recently. The Trust said they made their views clear regarding the friendly ticket pricing - "tough" was the response seemingly. How is this supporter involvement? Completely and utterly powerless now they have 75+% voting rights.
You also fail to recognise that when they sell their stake, they also sell the voting rights, meaning we will never - ever - have any fan involvement in the club, regardless of shareholding.
The only way to get fan involvement back to the club is if we are the ones buying the shares and thus voting rights. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:11 - Jul 23 with 1351 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:04 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Of course it may be difficult, but still very likely. It surely is better than the alternative which is the impossible? If we accept the deal we will NEVER get to own a stake in the club which protects it. Never. And i dont use that word lightly.
We are a dream partner for any investor. It can take the lions share of dividends without having to spend the amount of money to get the proportionate amount of shares. They would need to stump up £30m for 80% of future potential premier league dividend profits, thats quite the proposal for any investor. It is what makes this all the more likely to happen in the future.
The protections our c35% would bring would simply be the ability for us not to get screwed over, we would be permenant partners in the club. |
I know we've had this discussion before but I don't see how you can say NEVER.
If we accept the deal then we will (or at least will have the option to) be involved in any future sale which could actually value our residual shares at a higher figure and would give us at least an equivalent opportunity for future involvement. I accept that there's a possibility that the value would be lower but that still doesn't equate to NEVER.
I'm not quite sure I follow your second paragraph - you were previously talking about a 60% / 40% split but are now suggesting they would get 80% of dividends. Are you suggesting that we might give up part of our dividends to the other investor(s)? I don't have a particular problem with that as a possibility (depending on what we might get in exchange) but just want to clarify. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:15 - Jul 23 with 1342 views | QJumpingJack |
Thinking what happened with Brexit in Summer 2016, if the members vote goes a certain way which board members don't agree with, are trust board members likely to resign ? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:18 - Jul 23 with 1327 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:10 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
3Swan. What do you constitute as fan involvement?
You soeak as if it is something you don't want to lose. But I ask where is it? We tried to get a pretty trivial thing changed recently. The Trust said they made their views clear regarding the friendly ticket pricing - "tough" was the response seemingly. How is this supporter involvement? Completely and utterly powerless now they have 75+% voting rights.
You also fail to recognise that when they sell their stake, they also sell the voting rights, meaning we will never - ever - have any fan involvement in the club, regardless of shareholding.
The only way to get fan involvement back to the club is if we are the ones buying the shares and thus voting rights. |
Involvement is being on the board of the club and having access to certain information that we wouldn't if we were on the outside.
I agree that the Trust are limited in what they can achieve, and I'm not blind to that.
You put across the "tough" was the response seemingly." but is that fact?. The Trust could have put the case forward and the club said they needed a certain amount to cover the cost of the game.
I don't know the answer but there has been so much put forward as fact over the last few weeks it is difficult to know what the truth is.
What I do know is I am very wary of the owners, now the decision for me is having limited involvement or the legal route.
There is no given either way it is down to pros and cons | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:20 - Jul 23 with 1316 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:11 - Jul 23 by MattG |
I know we've had this discussion before but I don't see how you can say NEVER.
If we accept the deal then we will (or at least will have the option to) be involved in any future sale which could actually value our residual shares at a higher figure and would give us at least an equivalent opportunity for future involvement. I accept that there's a possibility that the value would be lower but that still doesn't equate to NEVER.
I'm not quite sure I follow your second paragraph - you were previously talking about a 60% / 40% split but are now suggesting they would get 80% of dividends. Are you suggesting that we might give up part of our dividends to the other investor(s)? I don't have a particular problem with that as a possibility (depending on what we might get in exchange) but just want to clarify. |
Ok, never in my opinion then. I dont see how it could ever happen. It would be dependant on us staying in the PL for years (something that seems to be getting harder) and of course dependant on them acting honourably (something they also failed at the first hurdle at). There is a concern regarding a shell company. We will be entering into an agreement with people we havent even met, we all know Levien and Kaplan are just the face of the consortium. We know nothing of them.
Secondly, I made the point that due to the Trust being not for profit organisation (nobody can personally financially gain in the Trust through dividends) we can enter into a partnership where it is mutually beneficial in order to make us more attractive. The venture capitalists want a return, and we want whats best for the club.
We would be a very attractive business proposition by taking a disproportiante amount of dividends weighted in the favour of the venture capitalists. So although they only own say 55% of the club (us owning 35% and 10% varied as it is today) they could take 80% of a predetermined % of profits.
That means they are getting the return of an 80% investment yet only owning 55% of the company. It also means we get all the protections we need for the club and are able to take it over when it is still in a good position (£60m is a championship valuation based on what we were valued at last year). [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:22]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:24 - Jul 23 with 1308 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:20 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Ok, never in my opinion then. I dont see how it could ever happen. It would be dependant on us staying in the PL for years (something that seems to be getting harder) and of course dependant on them acting honourably (something they also failed at the first hurdle at). There is a concern regarding a shell company. We will be entering into an agreement with people we havent even met, we all know Levien and Kaplan are just the face of the consortium. We know nothing of them.
Secondly, I made the point that due to the Trust being not for profit organisation (nobody can personally financially gain in the Trust through dividends) we can enter into a partnership where it is mutually beneficial in order to make us more attractive. The venture capitalists want a return, and we want whats best for the club.
We would be a very attractive business proposition by taking a disproportiante amount of dividends weighted in the favour of the venture capitalists. So although they only own say 55% of the club (us owning 35% and 10% varied as it is today) they could take 80% of a predetermined % of profits.
That means they are getting the return of an 80% investment yet only owning 55% of the company. It also means we get all the protections we need for the club and are able to take it over when it is still in a good position (£60m is a championship valuation based on what we were valued at last year). [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:22]
|
Thanks. That's what I thought you meant, just didn't think it was clear. As I said, I don't have a problem in principle with giving up a proportion of our dividends, as long as we were benefiting in some other way as a result.
Just on the shell company, it's been mentioned previously that this would need to be covered contractually if the deal was to be accepted. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
