Surreal Madrid Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 I hardly see how the bid failing would be MM's fault, do you? It would be if he still has an interest in Portsmouth. It could also be held to be his fault if he lowered his indicative bid by £8 million ( the amount Gaydmark has yet to pay him, alegedly ).
Phlashman Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 The fact of the matter is shareholders have 2 choices. 1. Stump up more cash, sell some players, watch the teams get worse, have everyone in Leicester hate them. And then the same happens the next year and the next and the next. 2. Get a small or no return on their investment but cut their losses and give the club to someone who can move things forward. It's a no-brainer. Milan is a businessman, and he wants City for as little cost as he can.
Ric Flair Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 It would be if he still has an interest in Portsmouth. It could also be held to be his fault if he lowered his indicative bid by £8 million ( the amount Gaydmark has yet to pay him, alegedly ). I wonder whether this is why he's not prepared to pay our shareholders all of their money upfront? If this is a way around it and it's legal, then I can't see what the problem is. The shareholders will still get their cash, just not all at once.
Daggers Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 If MM doesn't put a bid in because he's still got the stake in Pompey? Discredited rumour
Ric Flair Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 The fact of the matter is shareholders have 2 choices. 1. Stump up more cash, sell some players, watch the teams get worse, have everyone in Leicester hate them. And then the same happens the next year and the next and the next. 2. Get a small or no return on their investment but cut their losses and give the club to someone who can move things forward. It's a no-brainer. Milan is a businessman, and he wants City for as little cost as he can. It's not hard to work out is it? This shite with him still possibly owning a part in Pompey is just perfect ammo for our board and shareholders to riggle out of it. Let's make one thing clear, if the deal collapses MM will sure to make it known what exactly has gone on. And before anyone says he'll probably lie, let's look at our boards track record for telling the truth (not good).
Swedging Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 would MM come out and say he has no stake in Pompy if he had one? He has said: "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.'"
Swedging Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 Discredited rumour How is it discredited when he has said he has?
Leicfox Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 It's not hard to work out is it? This shite with him still possibly owning a part in Pompey is just perfect ammo for our board and shareholders to riggle out of it. Let's make one thing clear, if the deal collapses MM will sure to make it known what exactly has gone on. And before anyone says he'll probably lie, let's look at our boards track record for telling the truth (not good). Well i think its bollox that he still ownes shares in Pompey, and i believe the other report that says MM is not happy with the accounts and there's more debt than the board 1st made out... Summut dodgey going on either way.
Brummie-FOX Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 At first wasn't it the Shareholders that were going to do the best for the club Now they just want the money?
Ric Flair Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 He has said: "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.'" If there was a problem here, why haven't the FA got involved?
Phlashman Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 TBH, I think most of the shareholders originally invested knowing that they'll never see their money ever again but now someone with some money has come along they suddenly want their money back.
Leicfox Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 TBH, I think most of the shareholders originally invested knowing that they'll never see their money ever again but now someone with some money has come along they suddenly want their money back. Or MM's accountants have found that they have already been skimming the money off the top for the last few yrs, hence he now wants to offer them less.
Surreal Madrid Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 If there was a problem here, why haven't the FA got involved? There is no reason to - he doesn't hold a stake in LCFC.
Swedging Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 If there was a problem here, why haven't the FA got involved? They won't until a bid is made...
Jon the Hat Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 At first wasn't it the Shareholders that were going to do the best for the club Now they just want the money? Or maybe that's what Milan wants you to think. He's playing the game, trying to get the price down while squeezing the shareholders by making them out out be the bad guys if it goes wrong. Has it occured to anyone that it might be quite handy to have a few million quid back in the hands of some local City fans who could come to the clubs rescue again if needs be? I suggest that the amount MM pays for the club will have no bearing whatsoever on how much he spends on players. I am not surprised but somewhat dissapointed by how the average fan seems to regard the board as trying to line their own pockets based on media specualtion, rather than judging them on the facts we have to hand - that they have a history of doing what is best for the club.
Surreal Madrid Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 Or MM's accountants have found that they have already been skimming the money off the top for the last few yrs, hence he now wants to offer them less. That's quite a good conspiracy theory there, but as there are in excess of 30 shareholders ( including the Teacher's pension fund ), and the accounts are subject to overview by Teacher's accountants and are subject to an outside audit, I somehow doubt it.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 Or MM's accountants have found that they have already been skimming the money off the top for the last few yrs, hence he now wants to offer them less. Careful what you write. There are laws against making unfounded allegations of wrongdoing.
The People's Hero Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 That's quite a good conspiracy theory there, but as there are in excess of 30 shareholders ( including the Teacher's pension fund ), and the accounts are subject to overview by Teacher's accountants and are subject to an outside audit, I somehow doubt it. This is why I was so certain/confident that the due dilligence/checking of records and accounts process would run with no problems. Something is afoot here. Now to find a way to somehow blame this on Dennis Wise.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 This is why I was so certain/confident that the due dilligence/checking of records and accounts process would run with no problems. Something is afoot here. Now to find a way to somehow blame this on Dennis Wise. I reckon we are secretly paying off Wise's contract at a rate of £4 a week for the next 3000 years and Milan is unwilling to take on the liability.
Mort Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 I am not surprised but somewhat dissapointed by how the average fan seems to regard the board as trying to line their own pockets based on media specualtion, rather than judging them on the facts we have to hand - that they have a history of doing what is best for the club. Really... they did what was best for the club four years ago, since then with had zero investment and some of our shareholders are in a perfect position to significantly invest only they havent, if they turn down the offer of investment and leadership which MM represents then why havent they stumped up the cash and investment in the past and what about now? I cant belive that those with the cash to buy the amount of shares some of our shareholders have are so stupid, obtuse and shortsighted as not to see whats in the long term interests of the club... it beggers belife!
ithuriel Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 I am not surprised but somewhat dissapointed by how the average fan seems to regard the board as trying to line their own pockets based on media specualtion, rather than judging them on the facts we have to hand - that they have a history of doing what is best for the club. a consortium was brought together to save the club when it was in administration , thus the club was saved but how that is a 'history' of doing what is best for the club i do not know. we went up with the squad and management left by the previous no hopers , hardly spent anything , came down and hardly spent anything and have had half arsed deals done since they have been in charge. jjb annual shirt , stadium used for concerts , appointing that person that kicked up a fuss behind the scenes with the birch and a few others who then walked , making a pigs ear last year with sacking the manager when it was almost to late and trying to find another it was a good job kelly had such an impact otherwise we would in all probability be playing forest this season. i work with a derby supporter and leicester has been nothing but a running joke for the past few years
Smudge Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 .................. let's look at our boards track record for telling the truth (not good). Excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure what you mean here Ric what have they done in the past?
Foxes_Trust Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 As for the second, would you care to explain how? Personally, I can't help but feel that if you couldn't use your "influence" to prevent the reduction of the discount to season ticket holders or the cycle of new shirts then what on Earth can you do when it comes to major club-related issues? We successfully talked the club out of removing the ST discount for 3 years, it would have happened way before now without our influence. One year kit deal, Paul Mace didn't believe in fan consultation therefore the deal was signed before we were aware, we have always spoke against it, wait & see if we have succeeded in persuading the club to switch back to a 2 year cycle next season
The People's Hero Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 We successfully talked the club out of removing the ST discount for 3 years, it would have happened way before now without our influence. Go you! Talk about leaving a legacy which will stand the test of time and never forgotten!
Strokes Posted 18 December 2006 Posted 18 December 2006 We successfully talked the club out of removing the ST discount for 3 years, it would have happened way before now without our influence. One year kit deal, Paul Mace didn't believe in fan consultation therefore the deal was signed before we were aware, we have always spoke against it, wait & see if we have succeeded in persuading the club to switch back to a 2 year cycle next season Are you prepared for the backlash if this deal falls through FT?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.