sackmycook Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Mandaric fits the bill - by Gary Lineker lineker article in the telegraph from what GL is saying it seems the board would prefer a majority shareholder than a takeover, and it seems milans offer is less than what was paid by shareholders to save club,
davieG Posted 5 November 2006 Author Posted 5 November 2006 Excellent summary of the actual public facts & why all City fans should be equally perched on the fence with you, you should post this on all the message boards DavieG Even though we have much more information, we still require answers to many questions & aim to get them as the situation progresses With all due respect this is something you could've posted on the Foxes Trust Site along with your other comments, a link from here would then be sufficient. This would negate the need for all your posts on here, it would reach a bigger audience, THe Fox Fanzine site are already pissed off with you and posting here only will exacerbate that. You're simply not doing yourselves any favours. I urge you not to post on websites, other than a refreshing link only the Foxes Trust one.
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 If people want to hear from the Foxes Trust (as I do - they're both a trust and a shareholder after all) then it's only right that they post on prominent forums.
davieG Posted 5 November 2006 Author Posted 5 November 2006 If people want to hear from the Foxes Trust (as I do - they're both a trust and a shareholder after all) then it's only right that they post on prominent forums. The problem with that is we don't know if it's the official line or just happens to be the view of the one of several board members with that user name. Besides a prominent 'new' link to their forum with an official statement carries more weight and prevents the Trust poster getting into a debate, where the responses are almost inevitably going to be unapproved by the Trust and can be easily misinterpreted, as we have seen on a regular basis. I see the Trust have now used my statement (not a problem) of the situation I made a few posts back and posted it on the Fox Fanzine site, it really should be on their own site. The last thing posted on there is out of date.
Janx Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Personally I find FT's presence a bit patronising, as if to say...I know more than you buit cant comment...well if you cant comment...dont come in here trying to taunt us with no information.... Like DG states, just post a link with regualr updates of information that you CAN give us.
Trumpet Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 from what GL is saying it seems the board would prefer a majority shareholder than a takeover, and it seems milans offer is less than what was paid by shareholders to save club, What annoys me is, all these rumours of shareholders wanting more than what they put in. The shareholders saved the club, they didnt expect a return did they?
l444ry Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 The really annoying thing is that if Mandaric hadn't shown interest these other mysterious benefactors would still be under the stones they've been under for the last 30 years. All this disinformation and anti-Mandaric nonsense is only muddying the waters. The one certain thing is that, despite their efforts, the current Board need to move on. This club could lose the one great chance to get back on it's feet. And the only real question should be-: Do people seriously think that Milan Mandaric wants to take over Leicester City simply to shaft the club and ruin his reputation? .... because that's the nonsense being implied!!!
Smudge Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Can someone explain to me what influence the Foxes Trust has in this matter; do they own shares in the club? If so, is it enough to carry any weight; if neither, their involvement in this transaction, seems redundant. Of course those courting the club to buy it, will do the right thing by smooching the fans. Unless there are caveats to the contrary, the only people who have any influence in this matter are the ones who have shares and whether they are prepared to sell them or not.
Maybes Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 I feel that if the board reject these takeover bids, many sections of supporters will turns against them.
Louise Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Full list of shareholders (Oct '05) copy/pasted from another forum. Hammond Grange Ltd 500,000 Pukka Pies Ltd 500,000 Greg Clarke 413,000 Trevor Bennett 350,000 HW Coates Ltd 300,000 Jim McCahill 250,000 Michael Edwards 250,000 Kirby & West Ltd 250,000 Andrew Taylor 250,000 AM Widdowson & Son Ltd 250,000 Stephen Lee 200,000 James Johnson 175,000 David Ross 165,476 Foxes Trust 151,000 David Wilson 150,000 Peter Hockenhill 125,000 Alan Upton 120,000 Brian Maddison 110,000 Clive Sharp 100,000 Anthony Wheeler 100,000 Dominic SHorthouse 100,000 Donald Kendal 100,000 Gary Lineker 100,000 Jon Holmes 100,000 Nicholas Wilkinson 100,000 Timothy Days 100,000 Robert Craig 100,000 Roger Paltrey 85,000 Celia Mackay 75,000 Richard Mackay 75,000 Martin Pace 60,000 Roger Pace 60,000 Emile Heskey 50,000 Martin George 50,000 Karin Swann 50,000 Peter Swann 50,000 Peter Freer 50,000 Walter McRobie 50,000 Peter Lennon 35,000 Roger Moore 30,000 Anthony Lander 25,000 Alison Nettleton 25,000 Kenneth Bradstock 25,000 Vanda Craig 25,000 Thomas Bloor 25,000 Teacher's Pension Fund 1 Teresa Lander 25,000
Fez of Mahrez Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Am I right in thinking if Mandaric (or anyone) was recommended by the board, he would only need the support of the top ten shareholders in theory to take control?
Mort Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Am I right in thinking if Mandaric (or anyone) was recommended by the board, he would only need the support of the top ten shareholders in theory to take control? And both St.Gary and the owners of Hammond Grange Ltd are on record as saying they'd probably agree to a take-over. I feel that if the board reject these takeover bids, many sections of supporters will turns against them. So what?... short of not going to the games there is bugger all we can do to force their hand in this, the best news to come to the Club since the mid-90's... but I'm fairly sure that in reality the deal has a good chance of going through, even our board isnt stupid enougth to turn down an offer that could get the club back on it's feet when the alternative is to continue our slow decline that can lead to us winding up as another Bradford, Oxford etc...
Smudge Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Full list of shareholders (Oct '05) copy/pasted from another forum.Hammond Grange Ltd 500,000 Pukka Pies Ltd 500,000 Greg Clarke 413,000 Trevor Bennett 350,000 HW Coates Ltd 300,000 Jim McCahill 250,000 Michael Edwards 250,000 Kirby & West Ltd 250,000 Andrew Taylor 250,000 AM Widdowson & Son Ltd 250,000 Stephen Lee 200,000 James Johnson 175,000 David Ross 165,476 Foxes Trust 151,000..................... Great Info Thanks......
ithuriel Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 And both St.Gary and the owners of Hammond Grange Ltd are on record as saying they'd probably agree to a take-over. So what?... short of not going to the games there is bugger all we can do to force their hand in this, the best news to come to the Club since the mid-90's... but I'm fairly sure that in reality the deal has a good chance of going through, even our board isnt stupid enougth to turn down an offer that could get the club back on it's feet when the alternative is to continue our slow decline that can lead to us winding up as another Bradford, Oxford etc... the club has been struggling with attendances with the fans being more or less onside , imagine how bad it would get if a majority of the fans feel the board has gone from saviour to betrayer. the problem is that the board does not have the best track record for decision making and it creates doubt.
Mort Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 ...the problem is that the board does not have the best track record for decision making and it creates doubt. Too true... but even our board wouldnt reject an offer from somone like Mandaric with an impressive track record, offering just what we need to get back to where we should ("yo-yo Clubdom" at the least)... it's also encouraging that St.Gary seems pretty supportive of the bid, and as most of the shareholders became such as a result of his hard work it's likley that he has a fair deal of influence within the club's board and amougst it's shareholders even if he has no formal power.
reynard Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 speculation guesswork at best scaremongering and name blackening at worst. as far as I can see we know only 2 facts for definite. 1 mandaric has tabled some kind of bid for the club 2 the board have seen fit to agree to meet him. we do not know anything concrete about his bid but if it is complete rubbish then why are the board prepared to meet him? we can only guess that they must at least see some potential in it or surely they would just have made a statement telling mandaric thanks but no thanks. as for other bids. well no one seems to have had the guts to come out in public and declare themselves so at the moment perhaps there are no other definite suitors
Phube Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Hammond Grange Ltd 500,000 Pukka Pies Ltd 500,000 Greg Clarke 413,000 Trevor Bennett 350,000 HW Coates Ltd 300,000 Jim McCahill 250,000 Michael Edwards 250,000 Kirby & West Ltd 250,000 Andrew Taylor 250,000 AM Widdowson & Son Ltd 250,000 Stephen Lee 200,000 James Johnson 175,000 David Ross 165,476 Foxes Trust 151,000 David Wilson 150,000 Peter Hockenhill 125,000 Alan Upton 120,000 Brian Maddison 110,000 Clive Sharp 100,000 Anthony Wheeler 100,000 Dominic SHorthouse 100,000 Donald Kendal 100,000 Gary Lineker 100,000 Jon Holmes 100,000 Nicholas Wilkinson 100,000 Timothy Days 100,000 Robert Craig 100,000 Roger Paltrey 85,000 Celia Mackay 75,000 Richard Mackay 75,000 Martin Pace 60,000 Roger Pace 60,000 Emile Heskey 50,000 Martin George 50,000 Karin Swann 50,000 Peter Swann 50,000 Peter Freer 50,000 Walter McRobie 50,000 Peter Lennon 35,000 Roger Moore 30,000 Anthony Lander 25,000 Alison Nettleton 25,000 Kenneth Bradstock 25,000 Vanda Craig 25,000 Thomas Bloor 25,000 Teacher's Pension Fund 1 Teresa Lander 25,000 Well that one made me raise an eyebrow!!!
Smudge Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Am I right in thinking if Mandaric (or anyone) was recommended by the board, he would only need the support of the top ten shareholders in theory to take control? The first ten shareholders own 52% of the shares, however, given that Hammond Grange have said they would be in favour of selling, you would only need another 44% from the rest to take undisputed control. The largest holders of shares only hold about 8%, As there are so many individulal small shareholders it would seem almost impossible to fend off a hostile takeover if the price is right. Based on what Lineker has said, it would seem to be a price he can live with and I would suspect that others, like he, are delighted to be see that their money might come back.
Master Fox Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Anyone had the super secret e-mail yet? What's the super secret e-mail all about then? Don't say it's a secret ....
Swedging Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Why relying on loans from owners is so dangerous: The case from Portsmouth. I thought I'd call up the past few years of Portsmouth's annual reports to see what light they shed on Mandaric as an owner. The story is quite interesting. First, the most that is documented that he 'put into' Portsmouth is £17,605,000 (at the end of the 2002/3 year). All by loans - the equity stake remains token at all times. The good news is that the rate of interest that he charges then looks minimal - base rate at most, it looks. However, the 2004/5 year (the last year when Mandaric is in full control) is where the story changes. The accounts suggest that he clearly wants his money out. The debt changes from £15,203,000 owed to Mandaric to £10,729,000 owed to Mandaric and a bank overdraft of £9,527,000. In addition, he starts paying himself and charging the company fees of another £156,000. Now, what does this imply? For me, it looks like he was either desperate for money (in which case, it doesn't look like he is as rich as some are suggesting), or bored and wanted his money out. Either way, his actions massively increase the risk for Portsmouth. Had he pulled all of his money out, Pompey would then be looking at an overdraft of at least £20 million with no obvious way of repaying it - especially since avoiding relegation really looked a gamble. To speculate further - it looks like it took him about a year to find buyer. Maybe dodgy buyers aren't as thick on the ground as we think? And if he hadn't found a buyer it really looks like Portsmouth would have been totally fooked: relegated and with massive debts. It just points up what the gamble is.
l444ry Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Why relying on loans from owners is so dangerous: The case from Portsmouth. I thought I'd call up the past few years of Portsmouth's annual reports to see what light they shed on Mandaric as an owner. The story is quite interesting. First, the most that is documented that he 'put into' Portsmouth is £17,605,000 (at the end of the 2002/3 year). All by loans - the equity stake remains token at all times. The good news is that the rate of interest that he charges then looks minimal - base rate at most, it looks. However, the 2004/5 year (the last year when Mandaric is in full control) is where the story changes. The accounts suggest that he clearly wants his money out. The debt changes from £15,203,000 owed to Mandaric to £10,729,000 owed to Mandaric and a bank overdraft of £9,527,000. In addition, he starts paying himself and charging the company fees of another £156,000. Now, what does this imply? For me, it looks like he was either desperate for money (in which case, it doesn't look like he is as rich as some are suggesting), or bored and wanted his money out. Either way, his actions massively increase the risk for Portsmouth. Had he pulled all of his money out, Pompey would then be looking at an overdraft of at least £20 million with no obvious way of repaying it - especially since avoiding relegation really looked a gamble. To speculate further - it looks like it took him about a year to find buyer. Maybe dodgy buyers aren't as thick on the ground as we think? And if he hadn't found a buyer it really looks like Portsmouth would have been totally fooked: relegated and with massive debts. It just points up what the gamble is. Thought I'd just call up a few years of Portsmouth's recent playing record. Oh yes...a piss poor, virtually bankrupt club when Mandaric took over. Now an established Premier League club. Come on Swedging....you obviously know that nearly ALL business in run with other peoples money or with debt. I wonder how many of Mandaric's detractors are squeeky clean of debt either.
Daggers Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 I think that... *Trust gagging order in effect*
Daggers Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 What a great reason to pay your money to the Trust...join up and get a secret email. It reminds me of joining the Warlord comic fan club...you got a secret code to use with other members, a wallet with a secret ID and some other top secret stuff.
lookwhaticando Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Can someone teach me the secret handshake, I want in on this.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.