Chandler Posted 16 December 2006 Posted 16 December 2006 No chance, they want cash and not loans. Shows you don't know what a takeover is Babylon (like many others on this board). A takeover is only about purchasing the majority of a company's shares - it is not about providing it with working capital. LCFC is more attractive than Wolves to MM because he can purchase the shares more cheaply. Whether he chooses to purchase LCFC's shares (or any clubs shares' for that matter) by borrowing funds (from a third party) rather than using his own capital is a matter for MM - it is NOT an issue for the existing shareholders (who are the club's owners) whose shares he wishes to buy. The issue at stake here is whether MM offers a fair price to current LCFC shareholders (the 48ers) for their shares. The issue NOT at stake is whether subsequent to any takeover additional funds are then ploughed into the club by the new owner(s). If such funds were made available by the owner(s) than this money would be consider for accounting purposes as a loan to the club and the owner(s) would have to be repaid over time by it. Alternatively, the new owner may decide to issue for sale more shares in the club. This is called a rights issue (where new shares are offered to exisitng shareholder in proportion to the shares they currently hold). The monies received from such an issue could then by used by the club as working capital and would not have to be repaid. If MM took over he could issue new shares to himself and then sell them on.
JoeyB Posted 16 December 2006 Posted 16 December 2006 we should get doug ellis get him to spend all his money on us then he can retire properly
Chrysalis Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 However MM chooses to purchase his shares is principally a matter for him and not for the shareholders. They just want their money. And when MM has acquired 100% of LCFC shares he is to all intents and purposes LCFC and can choose any funding mechanism he likes (or none) to improve his asset. LCFC is a commercial case and is nothing more than the sum total of its owners (the shareholders). I couldnt give a shit if all his investment was done on credit and we had to pay him back , me and most fans want promotion, that requires a decent manager, good leadership from the board room (we are lacking this), and investment in the team. Please tell me who is more likely to provide this manderic or the current board. The board are more like accountants then football men, manderic is a football man.
Chrysalis Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 How can I have overstated by a quarter I haven't put any figures down. I've just suggested where the savings suggested may not be as large/full as indicated. Without knowing actually numbers I'm just putting forward areas where the cuts wont be 100% which some people are saying. Having said that I've been involved in more than a dozen restructurings, outsourcing/downsizing and the savings have NEVER matched original or planned estimates and 75% were regretted afterwards. Consultants do a wonderful job pulling the wool over people's eyes in these sort of situations knowing full well they can walk away and wont be around when the shit finally hits the fan. I'd put money on that being the case here. Funnily enough I have also, not as many but 2. Both occasions the company regretted it. Modern day business men often look at ways to increase profit now by cutting costs instead of speclating to accumulate, our current board are more like accountants and thinking exactly the same way. They could invest in a proven manager and the playing squad be out of pocket in the short term but they get more income from premiership football then a groundshare would ever bring.
Chrysalis Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 its all ok -- LINK http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=30013 doesnt work. I spoke to my shareholder he doesnt know much but confirmed he recieved no details of a bid.
Chrysalis Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Barber said "The bid was not dead but it was in trouble" He went on to say "The crux is down to the conditions that have been put in that would enable the shareholders to get there money back. Barber added " City would have to be virtually in the champions League before they would get it all back and the club dont want to risk putting it before the shareholders" In other words its about the shareholders cash? Anyone reminded them how much they get back if manderic walks away.
Chrysalis Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Your talk mainly. Unless he actually puts in a bid to test the shareholders, it's a little unfair to blame them. After all, a more sceptical point of view would be to suggest that he hasn't sorted out the sale of Portsmouth. He certainly hadn't sold it 2 months after he said he had. I think you and the trust cam keep saying that but the fact no bid has been placed doesnt mean the shareholders are innocent I expect the board who have shareholders themselves may have decidedif they dont like it they wont pass a bid on, or even they could have been in discussion with some lage shareholders off record about draft bids, and these have been rejected.
Mort Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Anyone reminded them how much they get back if manderic walks away. What i was wondering, they wont get much for their shares in League One, when we're [deep breath] missing the likes of Nissa, Williams and Tiatto... it seems so short sighted and selfish, which almost makes me think that this talk of a talks breaking down might be some kind of bargining ploy by MM to get the shareholders where he wants them by threatening to walk away... and if he walks away, well you know what to expect...
Chandler Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 I couldnt give a shit if all his investment was done on credit and we had to pay him back , me and most fans want promotion, that requires a decent manager, good leadership from the board room (we are lacking this), and investment in the team. Please tell me who is more likely to provide this manderic or the current board. The board are more like accountants then football men, manderic is a football man. Another one. This business has been going on for more than six weeks and very few people seem to understand what is going on. I blame the media for this. ****witted financially illiterate journalists don't get it either. Taking over a football club has NOTHING to do with investing in players, buying back stadia or bringing in backroom staff. A football club takeover is EXACTLY the same as a company takeover. It just means acquiring the majority of the shares in it. That means paying the exisitng shareholders (NOT the football club) for their shares. For the benefit of remedials, the feeble minded and the exceptionally slow witted NONE OF THIS CASH GOES INTO LCFC COFFERS - it all goes into shareholders' back pockets. Whatever promises MM may make to current shareholders about investing in LCFC after he has bought their shares they are nothing more than a rogue heir's deathbed promises - they won't be around to make him keep them.
London_Fox Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 "Whatever promises MM may make to current shareholders about investing in LCFC after he has bought their shares they are nothing more than a rogue heir's deathbed promises - they won't be around to make him keep them." Why not? I understand the whole thing about money to buy out shareholders and not to the club, that's not an issue and is fairly basic BUT surely as part of a contract (when they sell the shares) they can negotiate with Milan on any number of issues. They can only sell if he gives them all the money immediately or if he pays them over a number of months or dependent on results right? Surely then they can stipulate a clause which says that they will only sell if he invests a certain amount or buys the stadium (for the club)? You can put anything into a contract within reason. In a normal company if someone buys out the existing owners then it's not unsual for contracts to stipulate that they must keep on certain employees for a minimum time period or pay off certain debts etc. That can be the case here as far as I can see...then you're right that the shareholders won't be around to ensure Milan keeps his promise but the courts will be (and if details are published the fans can hold him to some account too) as it will be a contract not just a 'promise.'
Chrysalis Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Another one. This business has been going on for more than six weeks and very few people seem to understand what is going on. I blame the media for this. ****witted financially illiterate journalists don't get it either. Taking over a football club has NOTHING to do with investing in players, buying back stadia or bringing in backroom staff. A football club takeover is EXACTLY the same as a company takeover. It just means acquiring the majority of the shares in it. That means paying the exisitng shareholders (NOT the football club) for their shares. For the benefit of remedials, the feeble minded and the exceptionally slow witted NONE OF THIS CASH GOES INTO LCFC COFFERS - it all goes into shareholders' back pockets. Whatever promises MM may make to current shareholders about investing in LCFC after he has bought their shares they are nothing more than a rogue heir's deathbed promises - they won't be around to make him keep them. We all know this so why repeat it. You made a post suggesting milan will not use his own cash for shares purchases some will be on credit hence my comment about credit. I then point out I dont care if the investment in the club 'after' the takeover is loans or direct investment since money is money and it wont matter if we stay in the premiership for a decent period of time say 5+ years. One thing your reply does point out tho so all those people saying the sticking point is shareholders negotiating better long term deal for the club is that the sticking point WILL be about how much and when the shareholders get so this negotiation if its even still going on is about them getting mor emoney and NOTHING to do with what happens to the club after.
Babylon Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Shows you don't know what a takeover is Babylon (like many others on this board). A takeover is only about purchasing the majority of a company's shares - it is not about providing it with working capital. LCFC is more attractive than Wolves to MM because he can purchase the shares more cheaply. Whether he chooses to purchase LCFC's shares (or any clubs shares' for that matter) by borrowing funds (from a third party) rather than using his own capital is a matter for MM - it is NOT an issue for the existing shareholders (who are the club's owners) whose shares he wishes to buy. The issue at stake here is whether MM offers a fair price to current LCFC shareholders (the 48ers) for their shares. The issue NOT at stake is whether subsequent to any takeover additional funds are then ploughed into the club by the new owner(s). If such funds were made available by the owner(s) than this money would be consider for accounting purposes as a loan to the club and the owner(s) would have to be repaid over time by it. Alternatively, the new owner may decide to issue for sale more shares in the club. This is called a rights issue (where new shares are offered to exisitng shareholder in proportion to the shares they currently hold). The monies received from such an issue could then by used by the club as working capital and would not have to be repaid. If MM took over he could issue new shares to himself and then sell them on. How the hell can you make the assumption I know nothing about takeovers from me saying "they want cash not loans". Before suggesting what I do and don't know, I think in future you should get your facts correct. I know full well what a takeover is all about thank you very much. The the facts are, as majority shareholder Hayward has the say so about who he sells the club to. He has publicly said that he would give the club to someone who came in and stumped up £20m for players. That is cash, and not replayable loans as most of the capital Mandaric puts in would be. So me saying there is no chance he will go Wolves as they want cash and not loans, is a perfectly correct statement. Because hayward would not give away his club to someone only offering a repayable loan to the club. Hayward can get them 20m in debt tomorrow and still control the club should he want to. You bleating on about it being nothing to do with working capital is WRONG as far as wolves are concerned.
Chandler Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 For the benefit of London Fox, Chrysalis & Babylon: 1) Current LCFC shareholders have to make a judgement as to whether MM is a so called 'white knight' or is an aggressive bidder. The commercial heartland of Britain is littered with corporate corpses 'murdered' by white knights who sweet talked their way in with undertakings they never had any intention of keeping. 2) Once existing LCFC shareholders sell out to MM they relinquish any voting rights they once had. MM will have 100% control over the club. 3) MM could, if he wished, just use his own capital to acquire 100% of LCFC shares. But it would make more sense to borrow say 80% of the funds required at around 5% pa and invest the balance of his own capital elsewhere and make 10 - 15% pa. Whatever, this is a matter for him. It is not an issue for the current shareholders and is neither here nor there as far as the LCFC balance sheet is concerned. 4) There are few, if any, philanthropists left in football (Madejski and Wjelan are probably the last of this breed). Working capital to purchase players, build stadia etc over and above TV, ticket & merchandising revenue comes from LOANS of which there are three prinicpal types: i) bank overdraft ii) commercial loans from an institution (for a specified purpose) iii) director's loans Some directors after ploughing in funds to keep clubs going might write off these debts if repayments threaten to hobble their club. The Walkers and Hayward (possibly Ellis too) are examples of elderly benefactors who decided to forgive such loans. But these were all people who supported the clubs from childhood and were prepared to take these hits in their dotage. MM is an entrepreneur, not a benefactor.
davieG Posted 17 December 2006 Author Posted 17 December 2006 Posted by Wizzyfox on the fox Fanzine Forum Reports aired on local southcoast radio in the past hour state: "Former Pompey owner MM, is to finalise the takeover of Leicester City Football Club on December 19th 2007. He and his team of accountants, although not entirely happy with the clubs finances as they stand, are prepared to heavily invest in the clubs future. Meanwhile, Wolvehampton Wanderers chairman Jack Hayward, has failed in his last ditch bid to lure MM to Molineux. These talks are thought to have been going on into the early hours of Sunday." We'll see eh? I presume he means 2006
lookwhaticando Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Posted by Wizzyfox on the fox Fanzine Forum I presume he means 2006 Well people did say it wouldn't be completed before the new year.
Brummie-FOX Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 You never know It wouldn't be very surprising now, would it
gosfox Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 I know how the club could make a fortune......... Make a film about the life and times of LCFC over the last five years or so Promotion, relegation, La manga, administration, top of the premiership, bottom of the championship. Milan Mandaric.....the list goes on Surely it would make a great box office hit movie trouble is no-one would believe it
lookwhaticando Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 We could sell the La Manga thing as a separate franchise - a line in erotic films if you will. There'd be plenty of weirdos who'd buy it, no doubt.
Milky Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 We could sell the La Manga thing as a separate franchise - a line in erotic films if you will. There'd be plenty of weirdos who'd buy it, no doubt. cooee!
lookwhaticando Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 cooee! How does a tenner sound to you?
Foxes_Trust Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 We all know this so why repeat it. You made a post suggesting milan will not use his own cash for shares purchases some will be on credit hence my comment about credit. I then point out I dont care if the investment in the club 'after' the takeover is loans or direct investment since money is money and it wont matter if we stay in the premiership for a decent period of time say 5+ years. One thing your reply does point out tho so all those people saying the sticking point is shareholders negotiating better long term deal for the club is that the sticking point WILL be about how much and when the shareholders get so this negotiation if its even still going on is about them getting mor emoney and NOTHING to do with what happens to the club after. That is a very big if, with no certainty in football. So therefore is does matter, do you really want the club to be saddled with additional debt & the associated risk whch is what you imply?
Foxes_Trust Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 QUOTE Reports aired on local southcoast radio in the past hour state: "Former Pompey owner MM, is to finalise the takeover of Leicester City Football Club on December 19th 2007. He and his team of accountants, although not entirely happy with the clubs finances as they stand, are prepared to heavily invest in the clubs future. Meanwhile, Wolvehampton Wanderers chairman Jack Hayward, has failed in his last ditch bid to lure MM to Molineux. These talks are thought to have been going on into the early hours of Sunday." We'll see eh? Posted by Wizzyfox on the fox Fanzine Forum I presume he means 2006 Well if they did mean 2006, then the report is wrong, it won't be completed by then
Foxes_Trust Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 and here is why... from today's Sunday Times ""Ex-owner Milan Mandaric’s departure from the club to pursue other ventures (an attempted takeover of Leicester City) involved the transfer of his remaining half share in the club to an offshore trust. Gaydamak is still to pay £8m of the outstanding debt." It's part of this report http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2093-2508430.html
The People's Hero Posted 17 December 2006 Posted 17 December 2006 Another one. This business has been going on for more than six weeks and very few people seem to understand what is going on. I blame the media for this. ****witted financially illiterate journalists don't get it either. Taking over a football club has NOTHING to do with investing in players, buying back stadia or bringing in backroom staff. A football club takeover is EXACTLY the same as a company takeover. It just means acquiring the majority of the shares in it. That means paying the exisitng shareholders (NOT the football club) for their shares. For the benefit of remedials, the feeble minded and the exceptionally slow witted NONE OF THIS CASH GOES INTO LCFC COFFERS - it all goes into shareholders' back pockets. Whatever promises MM may make to current shareholders about investing in LCFC after he has bought their shares they are nothing more than a rogue heir's deathbed promises - they won't be around to make him keep them. Well said.. and of course you are absolutely correct. I've posted a similar thing on many occasions. Unfortunately, you sir, like I was... are wasting your time. A lot of people who use this forum just do not understand and seemingly cannot grasp this concept.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.