Milan Mandaric has targeted leicester!

[reynard]

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?

Well if they did mean 2006, then the report is wrong, it won't be completed by then

why do I sense a feeling of triumphalism here. I feel you want this takeouver to fail. You are in a privelidged postion of knowing more than most of us which is fine and proper but should this takeover fail then as along standing fan of over 30 years and a season ticket holder then I shall be expecting the current set of shareholders to at least double theri investment in the club and i include the foxes trust in this

[Unit]

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

I thought he dismissed that the other day as a "joke"?

[Collymore]

why do I sense a feeling of triumphalism here. I feel you want this takeouver to fail. You are in a privelidged postion of knowing more than most of us which is fine and proper but should this takeover fail then as along standing fan of over 30 years and a season ticket holder then I shall be expecting the current set of shareholders to at least double theri investment in the club and i include the foxes trust in this

I think you're being a tad harsh.

[Kilworthfox]

I thought he dismissed that the other day as a "joke"?

Exactly Mandaric has already explained that he owns nothing of Portsmouth, he said this days ago very quickly after the story broke. That cannot be used as a reason for the dec 19th story to be false / unrealistic as there is no connection between the 2.

[reynard]

I think you're being a tad harsh.

Maybe but I find their tone at best patronising and not sure they have really said anything positive about the proposed takeover ( could be wrong here as I have not checked all their statements). however all the shareholders i have known have always looked after their own interest first and in this case i am not sure what the real interest of the foxes trust is. after all the people who attend the board/shareholder meetings are but a mouthpiece for the multitude of fans who invested in the club and who are really shareholders in their own rightand all should be consulted by the foxes higherarcy at such a time.

would be interested to know whether or not this has happened and if not why not.

[Swedging]

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

Seems plausible. The annual return of Miland Developments 2004 (completed for all transactions up to mid-September, and filed in October) still showed Milan's trust owning half the shares and the Virgin Island company of Gaydamak owning half. Mid September is two months after MM had said he had sold the club. MM also owned, at the time of the last return, all of Miland Developments, which owns some of Pompey's assets.

In some ways this is worse than it initially appears. There is no need (I think, though it is some years since I got involved in the nitty-gritty of this stuff) to declare changes in share ownership before the annual return. Peter Storrie (company secretary for Pompey and other companies) has already shown that either he or MM is an unreliable witness (given their contradictory stories over this). So, my take would be that since the annual return merely has to be completed showing the transfer by next October, MM seriously doubts he will get his money by then - which is why this is such an issue.

And just as an aside, does anyone who thinks that our shareholders should give up their shareholdings on the cheap think that MM should do the same at Pompey?

[Swedging]

I thought he dismissed that the other day as a "joke"?

Joke or not, his trust was still holding 50% of the shares in the company that owned Pompey 2 months after he'd said he'd sold them. His out was that HE didn't hold shares in Pompey. Technically true - but missing the point.

[reynard]

Seems plausible. The annual return of Miland Developments 2004 (completed for all transactions up to mid-September, and filed in October) still showed Milan's trust owning half the shares and the Virgin Island company of Gaydamak owning half. Mid September is two months after MM had said he had sold the club. MM also owned, at the time of the last return, all of Miland Developments, which owns some of Pompey's assets.

In some ways this is worse than it initially appears. There is no need (I think, though it is some years since I got involved in the nitty-gritty of this stuff) to declare changes in share ownership before the annual return. Peter Storrie (company secretary for Pompey and other companies) has already shown that either he or MM is an unreliable witness (given their contradictory stories over this). So, my take would be that since the annual return merely has to be completed showing the transfer by next October, MM seriously doubts he will get his money by then - which is why this is such an issue.

And just as an aside, does anyone who thinks that our shareholders should give up their shareholdings on the cheap think that MM should do the same at Pompey?

agree. Mm should not have to give up his shareholdings on the cheap just to buy another club. as for our shareholders the same applies though they were happy to invest in a club which had just screwed its suppliers who only got back a small percentage of what they were owed.

[Mort]

why do I sense a feeling of triumphalism here. I feel you want this takeouver to fail. You are in a privelidged postion of knowing more than most of us which is fine and proper but should this takeover fail then as along standing fan of over 30 years and a season ticket holder then I shall be expecting the current set of shareholders to at least double theri investment in the club and i include the foxes trust in this

I admit that I'm glad the FT does come on boards like this and try and keep folks up to date on what may be going on, but i agree they seem far more interested in their own personal interests in this deal than anything to do with the long term future of the club (ditto most of the other shareholders)... and I'd like to see the FT and other shareholders stump up the cash and provide the club with the invest it desperatley needs should they kibosh the MM deal, strangly they seem disinclined to do so

[Babylon]

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.

I will put this in capitals as you are obviously not listening to me.

WHY ARE YOU ADDRESSING IT TO ME, I KNOW VERY WELL HOW TAKEOVERS HAPPEN AND THE INS AND OUTS OF BUSINESS. ALL I EVER SAID IS THAT HE WOULD NOT GO TO WOLVES AS THEIR CHAIRMAN SAID "I WILL GIVE THE CLUB AWAY IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND INVESTS 20M IN THE PLAYING SQUAD".

HE WANTED CASH CAPITAL INJECTION, NOT LOANS REPAYABLE TO THE PROSPECTIVE NEW OWNER OR SECURED AGAINST THE CLUBS ASSETS.

I NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT LEICESTER SO STOP MENTIONING MY NAME IN THESE POSTS.

[Kilworthfox]

And just as an aside, does anyone who thinks that our shareholders should give up their shareholdings on the cheap think that MM should do the same at Pompey?

Not really

Our board have at best kept LCFC treading water where as MM took Pimpy from where we are now to a solid Prem outfit.

I believe that MM deserves his money from the south coast due to his success on the field and in the bank as they stayed in the prem, what I do not understand is why the shareholders of LCFC should get what they initially paid for their share.

Example

If you rescued a business & paid for 100% of the shares for £100. Five years on that business is in a poorer position as it is likely to go bust (into adminstration) again, then another person decides to invest & would you expect to get £100 what you paid for it back? Would never happen in business.

[Foxes_Trust]

why do I sense a feeling of triumphalism here. I feel you want this takeouver to fail. You are in a privelidged postion of knowing more than most of us which is fine and proper but should this takeover fail then as along standing fan of over 30 years and a season ticket holder then I shall be expecting the current set of shareholders to at least double theri investment in the club and i include the foxes trust in this

Not at all, it's just Newton seems to think it's going to be done tomorrow, it won't be.

We want what is best for the long term future of the club & certain things that some shareholders are looking for from the deal are not really a concern for us.

If the MM deal doesn't go ahead, it is true that there is need for additional money, however you can't expect every shareholder to be in a position to be able to afford to double their shares. We know of several who put in what they could afford to save the club from ceasing, but are unlikely to have any more money.

Equally there are a number of shareholders who could easily afford more, whether they choose to is another matter.

We would have some funds to enable some further investment, would approach existing members for donations if they can afford it & seek new members, as any increase could also go towards shares.

However the Foxes Trust has already increased it's initial investment since the club was took over by 50%, very few other shareholders have added to their initial investment (count them on the fingers of one hand).

Anyway Reynard how much can we stick you down for?

[Swedging]

I admit that I'm glad the FT does come on boards like this and try and keep folks up to date on what may be going on, but i agree they seem far more interested in their own personal interests in this deal than anything to do with the long term future of the club (ditto most of the other shareholders)... and I'd like to see the FT and other shareholders stump up the cash and provide the club with the invest it desperatley needs should they kibosh the MM deal, strangly they seem disinclined to do so

Well, say the club announced a rights issues to shareholders. Or invited new investors? What would you do?

[davieG]

I gratful that the FT does come on boards like this and try and keep folks up to date on what may be going on, but i agree they seem far more interested in their own personal interests in this deal than anything to do with the long term future of the club (ditto most of the other shareholders)... and I'd like to see the FT and other shareholders stump up the cash and provide the club with the invest it desperatley needs should they kibosh the MM deal, strange that they seem disinclined to do so (not to mention very anoying!).

The only money the Foxes Trust have is that gained by membership fees from Leicester City fans so are hardly in a position to conjure up anymore.

As for their current shares I as a paid up member expect them to protect those shares whilst do everything they can to ensure a stable and hopefully succesful LCFC. That is a difficult balance to make and will never result in every member being satisfied either with their approach or the eventual outcome.

I do however feel that if they have anything to say it should be posted on their official site, I note the last item on this subject was published on November 18th.

[Mort]

We would have some funds to enable some further investment, would approach existing members for donations if they can afford it & seek new members, as any increase could also go towards shares.

We can have a Foxes Trust "Bring and Buy"! just like the market we had the other week at the Walkers... "Loadza Money"!

[Swedging]

Example

If you rescued a business & paid for 100% of the shares for £100. Five years on that business is in a poorer position as it is likely to go bust (into adminstration) again, then another person decides to invest & would you expect to get £100 what you paid for it back? Would never happen in business.

That's probably the most bollox example I've ever seen written down.

[Foxes_Trust]

Exactly Mandaric has already explained that he owns nothing of Portsmouth, he said this days ago very quickly after the story broke. That cannot be used as a reason for the dec 19th story to be false / unrealistic as there is no connection between the 2.

If he is £8m light of what he thought he would be, it is most certainly relevant.

That is without worrying about any regulations on owning 2 clubs, which was the element dismissed

[The People's Hero]

Anyway Reynard how much can we stick you down for?

You might have more luck if you stopped with the oneupsmanship and instead focussed on utilising your CURRENT, EXISTING position and shareholding for the good of the club.

Competence is all we ask for.

[Foxes_Trust]

Maybe but I find their tone at best patronising and not sure they have really said anything positive about the proposed takeover ( could be wrong here as I have not checked all their statements). however all the shareholders i have known have always looked after their own interest first and in this case i am not sure what the real interest of the foxes trust is. after all the people who attend the board/shareholder meetings are but a mouthpiece for the multitude of fans who invested in the club and who are really shareholders in their own rightand all should be consulted by the foxes higherarcy at such a time.

would be interested to know whether or not this has happened and if not why not.

We held one meeting prior to a game a few weeks ago.

We planned to hold a members meeting tomorrow night, but this was on the basis we had an offer document in our hands which we could then discuss with members.

As no formal offer has been received, we had to cancel that meeting for now

[Foxes_Trust]

I admit that I'm glad the FT does come on boards like this and try and keep folks up to date on what may be going on, but i agree they seem far more interested in their own personal interests in this deal than anything to do with the long term future of the club (ditto most of the other shareholders)... and I'd like to see the FT and other shareholders stump up the cash and provide the club with the invest it desperatley needs should they kibosh the MM deal, strangly they seem disinclined to do so

So Mort - how much are you going to put in then?

As we have posted, we do have some funds to put in & have done so twice since the initial takeover by the Consortium.

You seem to think the FT members have a vast array of cash, our members are fans just like everybody else posting on here, the demand to put in cash therefore applies to every City fan, who could do so via the FT

[fantastic_mr_fox]

Trust OUT.

[Swedging]

Exactly Mandaric has already explained that he owns nothing of Portsmouth, he said this days ago very quickly after the story broke. That cannot be used as a reason for the dec 19th story to be false / unrealistic as there is no connection between the 2.

Except:

FORMER Pompey chairman Milan Mandaric today confirmed that he still held a stake in the club.

But he denied that it was large enough to jeopardise his proposed takeover of Leicester, despite reports that he was still heavily involved in the club financially.

His comments followed reports that documents from Companies House show he still owned a 50 per cent stake in the club.

The documents are also said to show that the club borrowed a lot of money in May from a firm called Singer and Friedlander, a subsidiary of a large Icelandic bank.

But Mr Mandaric denied there was any suggestion new owner Alexandre Gaydamak was not in full control of the club.

And he told The News: 'Emotionally, I will have an interest in Portsmouth for the rest of my life, and financially I only have something on a small scale, but that is between myself and Alexandre, and it is not for public discussion.'

Mr Gaydamak bought a £15m, 50 per cent stake in the club at the start of the year, and last summer the club announced that a £32m takeover was complete.

Mr Mandaric said: 'It is absolutely untrue that Alexandre has not completed his deal. He has lived up to all his commitments.

'He is all up to date and he owns the club 100 per cent.'

But Mr Mandaric, who is credited with turning round the fortunes of the club when he bought it when it was in administration in 1999, refused to say how much of a stake he owned.

Under Football Association rules, if he is the majority shareholder in one club, he can only hold a 10 per cent stake in another.

However, he says the money he still has in Pompey would not be enough to jeopardise his £25m deal with Championship side Leicester.

Nigel Tresidder, chairman of Portsmouth FC Supporters' Club, backed both men, saying: 'I wouldn't have thought Mr Mandaric would sell the club down the river, and he obviously knows what he's doing.'

Pompey chief executive Peter Storrie said: 'It's complete and utter rubbish. Milan Mandaric does not own any part of the club. The shares have been 100 per cent paid for by Sacha Gaydamak.

'The figures that the article talks about come from accounts published in 2005 – before Sacha Gaydamak was at the club.'

A Football Association spokesman said: 'We are looking into it but it's unlikely that we will take any action.'

Source

[Mort]

You seem to think the FT members have a vast array of cash, our members are fans just like everybody else posting on here, the demand to put in cash therefore applies to every City fan, who could do so via the FT

I dont, thats the whole point! the potential is out there to bring to the club the funds and leadership it has lacked for years and could restore it to some kind of credibility... your admission that you and the other shareholders cant provide anything of this order just proves the point that you and the current board and sharholders have taken the club as far as you can, so why would you want to deny the clubs future? can you offer more?

[Foxes_Trust]

The only money the Foxes Trust have is that gained by membership fees from Leicester City fans so are hardly in a position to conjure up anymore.

As for their current shares I as a paid up member expect them to protect those shares whilst do everything they can to ensure a stable and hopefully succesful LCFC. That is a difficult balance to make and will never result in every member being satisfied either with their approach or the eventual outcome.

I do however feel that if they have anything to say it should be posted on their official site, I note the last item on this subject was published on November 18th.

Hi DavieG.... we have gone for the message board route as the website articles get published via Newsnow and are picked up far more via the media, and we have to be careful due to the takeover panel rules.

We are trying to keep fans informed as much as possible without breaking those rules. once we get past this restrictive phase we intend to concerntrate on the website articles as we did before the takeover panel rules kicked in.

When we are able to reveal more details, we will in the first instance e-mail members.

It is certainly true about the difficulty you stated above

[reynard]

Not at all, it's just Newton seems to think it's going to be done tomorrow, it won't be.

We want what is best for the long term future of the club & certain things that some shareholders are looking for from the deal are not really a concern for us.

If the MM deal doesn't go ahead, it is true that there is need for additional money, however you can't expect every shareholder to be in a position to be able to afford to double their shares. We know of several who put in what they could afford to save the club from ceasing, but are unlikely to have any more money.

Equally there are a number of shareholders who could easily afford more, whether they choose to is another matter.

We would have some funds to enable some further investment, would approach existing members for donations if they can afford it & seek new members, as any increase could also go towards shares.

However the Foxes Trust has already increased it's initial investment since the club was took over by 50%, very few other shareholders have added to their initial investment (count them on the fingers of one hand).

Anyway Reynard how much can we stick you down for?

typical. you can't help patronising people can you?!

Like many other ordinary supporters of over 30 years standing i have contributed rather a significant amount of my disposable income to the club through tickets and merchandise.I note that some of the current sharehoders are what might be considered to be rather wealthy individuals all of whom exress themselves to be leicester fans. surprising that they have so far been unable to raise any more significant funds whilst other clubs like Derby and Cardiff have managed to find themselves new owners/investors and both are currently doing quite well.

the truth is though that the longer we all fanny around with this bid the less time it gives us to explore other options should this go belly up.

on a seperate issue what is the legal position on the ground being bought by the local council for use as a "local resource" through a one off council tax charge levied on every household in the county/