Notts County Up For Sale

[Wycombe Fox]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...nty/8405269.stm

[Jon the Hat]

And the dream is over.

[davieG]

This is why no one should take these jonny come lately money grabbing arses seriously.

All they are doing in their pursuit of a fast buck is adding more strife into the football scene, misleading fans into believing they are the saviours of football when all they do is fook clubs over saddle them with debt and generally leave them worse off than they were.

I wish they'd go and fook up some other sport like saddle sniffing and leave football to find it's natural level.

[MC Prussian]

I echo davieG's feelings to a certain extent, but you also have to put it into context. I'd say many Middle-Eastern investors are really starting to be affected by the world economic crisis. When you look at the current situation of Dubai, for instance, then countries on the peninsula are desperate to get as much cash back as possible in order to survive/to pay their debts. I'd dismiss the notion of the original takeover having been just a "joke" move. They're into deep shite now and cannot afford expensive hobbies like owning a football club any longer.

What makes me as a LCFC fan shiver, however, is the way Notts County were originally taken over. Here's a very detailed transcript from the Notts County Supporters' Trust website:

http://nottscotrust.org.uk/eve/forums/a/tp...302/m/510105301

Questions from Trust Website

Answers supplied by

John Armstrong-Holmes, Club Chairman and the Trust Board

I thought that Haydn Green had loaned us the money to buy the shares. Shouldn’t the shares be sold to the proposed new owners and the money handed over to the Haydn Green Estate? Wouldn’t that be the honourable thing to do?

Answer: Haydn Green facilitated the Trust’s acquisition of additional shares which resulted in the Trust becoming the majority shareholder. He did not loan the Trust money to acquire them. Haydn Green’s position in the Club’s history is acknowledged and will be honoured by Munto.

Are all the shareholders gifting their shares?

Answer: That is a matter for each individual shareholder but we understand they are minded to do likewise.

Exactly just how much is being invested?

Answer: It would be foolish to discuss ‘how much’ etc in the public domain. However, it is substantial and will secure the Club’s sustainability and progress for the foreseeable future and beyond.

Will any of the existing board members be on the new board after the takeover??

Answer: Following Trust members and the other shareholders agreement to the takeover, current directors will resign upon completion.

Will the money invested in to Notts be a loan that will then be lumbered back on to the club??

Answer: Munto are investing in Notts, and not lumbering the Club with loans.

What will happen to the stake of the other existing shareholders?

Answer: Following acceptance, Munto will acquire 100% of the shareholding. If they keep them, they will, between them, hold a 40% stake in the club, which can't be satisfactory for the new owners, as the existing shareholders have no further funds to invest and will contribute little to justify a 40% stake in a future, bigger (hopefully) business. See above.

So, that leads to question 2 (if still relevant after question 1). If the existing shareholders are not going to sell or give away their shares, will there be a further issue of shares offered to the new owners. If so, shouldn't this be done to coincide with the Trust giving up their shares? See above.

I understand that part of the Trust's shareholding was purchased using a loan from Haydn Green, which becomes repayable if the Trust offloads those shares. If the Trust is to "gift" its shares to the new investor, how will it repay the outstanding loan to Mr. Green's estate?

Answer: Part of the Trust’s shareholding did not result from a loan from Haydn Green. The late Mr Green facilitated the Trust’s acquisition of the shares. Only if the Trust sells the shares does an amount fall due. Our belief is that Mr Green would approve both of the acquisition by Munto and gifting the shares. as in doing so the Club’s long term sustainability is secured.

Who will be on the Club's Board, and what will be the management structure, after the proposed takeover?

Answer: Peter Trembling and Peter Willett have already joined the Club Board to assist the process towards acquisition. Once completed, Munto will constitute a new Board as they may determine.

Will the Trust retain any formal role in the running of the club if this deal goes through?

Answer: No. Munto will take complete control in the running of the Club.

Are any members of the Trust board benefiting as individuals from this proposed bid?

Answer: NO!

Given we (the Trust) own 60% of the club, what are we getting back in the way of guarantees for the future of the club once we gift the shares and write off the debts?

Answer: The Club/Blenheim 1862 Limited have an irrevocable guarantee from a Merchant Bank. But, it would be irresponsible to state anything other than it is for a substantial sum.

As I believe the people owning the other 40% of the club will not be gifting their shares (they are businessemen, why would they?), surely a better way of ensuring that the funds are put into the club would be to sell the Trust's 60% at the same price and then release the funds back to the club for investment?

Answer: In effect, by gifting the Trust’s shareholding that is what will happen.

Surely any vote should be after receiving the Football League's prior sanction that they have agreed in principle to the potential "new owners" Fit and Proper Persons Test - and any other Football League rules and regulations being satisfied.

Answer: This proposal does not require the Football League’s sanction. It will comply with the necessary regulations and, of course, be subject to the League’s ‘fit and proper test’.

I am very concerned that the offer to exchange appears to be NOT conditional - Being devils advocate, the new owners might only invest 1p once the Trust have signed everything over?

Answer: This is not the case. Whilst it is not prudent to publish an amount, it is substantial and The Club/Blenheim 1862 Limited have an irrevocable bank guarantee that Munto will invest at least this amount in the Club over the next 5 years. If Munto fail to invest the said total amount within the 5 year time frame, then the bank has to pay the Club/Blenheim 1862 Limited any difference.

Reiterating earlier posts:

How is the finance of the club being undertaken. Is it by loans - at what interest and terms / conditions?

Answer: The proposal is financial investment and is not based on loans.

We do not want to fall back into administration again. We tested the FL's patience last time during administration, they may not be so accommodating next time, if it were to ever happen.

Answer: Munto’s proposal will secure the Club’s long term financial sustainability and enable it to progress up the Leagues.

I'm all for the takeover, but why say that Haydn Green donated the shares to the Trust when the truth is that he loaned the Trust the money to buy them? Surely there's still a debt which the Trust owes to the Green estate of around £150k which has to be repaid if the takeover proceeds?

Answer: The truth is that Haydn Green did not loan the Trust money to acquire part of his shareholding. True, he facilitated the arrangement and if the Trust sold the shares (ie made a profit from the sale), they would have to pay Haydn Green’s estate a fixed sum. By gifting the shares, nothing becomes payable.

Would "gifting" the shares to Munto not mean that the Trust was £150k in the red?

Answer: NO.

Would this leave the Trust unable to repay the debt owed to the estate of the man who saved the club from oblivion a few years ago?

Not applicable. See above.

If the Trust is to survive in any form, it has to be in a financial state to do so, and debts potentially owed as a result of the share sale do relate to that.

Not applicable. See above.

Until my suspension from the Trust Board two months ago the rules appertaining to voting on relinquishing Trust shares was NOT a simple majority. Because of the potential consequences of relinquishing complete control the bar was set much higher.

Answer: NOT TRUE. The decision requires a majority of members to agree.

Can you confirm that you have recently changed the rules in this respect and lowered the bar for acceptance of any such offer?

Answer: The Rules have not been changed,

What would be the next step in terms of shareholder agreement?

Answer: If Munto’s proposal is accepted by all shareholders, then the original shareholder’s agreement would become obsolete.

I assume there would be a ballot, but under Trust rules would a simple majority be needed or higher?

Answer: Yes a ballot, requiring a simple majority.

Please can you confirm whether the Football League have given their prior approval to the prospective new owners, in satisfying their rules for ownership?

Answer: This proposal fulfils Football League Regulations, but will be subject to the ‘fit and proper’ test and we have no doubt that will be met.

Whilst I have an initial feeling of excitement and happiness that we might be about to see a step-change in the fortunes of Notts, I have a nagging concern that we are again not being given a full picture of what is happening. The "Middle Eastern consortium" is, perhaps inevitably, a very vague and opaque description for the prospective new owners and their apparent insistence on a full takeover would appear to include the removal of the Trust as a moderating influence on any owner. Therefore what, if anything, will be forthcoming from the Trust and club boards to allay concerns about the long term future of the club?

Answer: Hopefully, your fears will be set aside upon reading various answers to questions already given. More information will be made available over the coming days/weeks.

How much new money are we actually talking about going into the club once shares are purchased and debts are paid off, and of that how much are loans from the new owners which will have to be repaid?

Answer: It is not prudent to say publicly the amount involved, but it is substantial. The investment is not in loans.

What do the proposed new owners expect to get out of the deal - what levels, and what form, of remuneration will they be receiving, and how will that impact on the club?

Answer: In real terms very little, other than enormous pride and satisfaction from restoring the fortunes of the World’s Oldest League Club.

How will the lease of Meadow Lane be affected?

Answer: Not at all. The Club holds the sub-lease and the Haydn Green estate the Head-lease. [/color]

Who are the Directors and shareholders of Munto Finance Ltd - and who ultimately controls it (or if it's a subsidiary company, who has ownership and control of the ultimate parent company)?

Answer: It is a special acquisition vehicle, managed by a bone a fide Investment Trust.

Why is the company registered in Switzerland?

Answer: The Trustees of the Investment Fund are based there.

Where is the money coming from - if it's been raised by loans, what are the loans secured on (and if they're not loans from normal commercial sources where do they come from and on what terms)? Alternatively, if the funds come from the investors own resources how did they make their money - again considering the Trust's commitment to social responsibility, you would hope any investment was generated from an ethical source.

Answer: The investment is from their own resources.

What commitments will the proposed new owners make to the principles of supporter representation and community engagement that underpin the work of the Trust?

Answer: Munto have a commitment to the community and will put in place a line of communication between them and supporters.

Note the substantial amount of information given out. If anything like this was ever to happen to Leicester City, I hope the current shareholders as well as the Supporters' Trust dare to dig a little deeper than our fellow Notts fans.

[Guest Bilo]

I have a horrible feeling that Notts County could now be in deeper shit than Elton John's helmet. Munto Finance spent well eyond their means and it'll be the club who pay the price.

[lou]

This is why no one should take these jonny come lately money grabbing arses seriously.

All they are doing in their pursuit of a fast buck is adding more strife into the football scene, misleading fans into believing they are the saviours of football when all they do is fook clubs over saddle them with debt and generally leave them worse off than they were.

I wish they'd go and fook up some other sport like saddle sniffing and leave football to find it's natural level.

Like the ones that MM will more than likely sell us too as soon as we got to the Prem (if it ever happens!)

[BoneDog]

I have a horrible feeling that Notts County could now be in deeper shit than Elton John's helmet. Munto Finance spent well eyond their means and it'll be the club who pay the price.

lol

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Something very dodgy here. There is something wrong with football if you can just buy a club then sell it a few months later.

[marknotts]

Munto Finance have well and truly fooked us up.

[Daggers]

Munto Finance have well and truly fooked us up.

250% increase in attendance, in with a shout of promotion - there's silver linings for you!

[Guest Mee-9]

I have a horrible feeling that Notts County could now be in deeper shit than Elton John's helmet. Munto Finance spent well eyond their means and it'll be the club who pay the price.

HAHAHAHA

That deserves post of the year.

[BoneDog]

Things might turn out ok for Notts County if rumours are true. If the two people who are being mentioned in the papers today do buy the club it sounds good for them if I read it right. Can't remember what I read now but I remember thinking "Aargh they'll be alright".

Good luck to 'em anyway. I've had a fair bit of love for Notts County since the Steve Cherry days. What a fricking brilliant keeper he was. Class, and consistent class too as far as I remember. Went to watch them a few times when I was a kid and Steve Cherry always entertained me.

[tartanowl]

It all seems very dodgy whats going on there.

I have a horrible feeling that Notts County could now be in deeper shit than Elton John's helmet. Munto Finance spent well eyond their means and it'll be the club who pay the price.

[MPH]

Their chairman was on the news this evening - he bought them for a quid and inherited their debt too. he said their debt was less now then what it was when Munto finance bought them. But there was still some there. He was looking for investors.. sounds like Sven will stay if their 5 year plan to get into the prem works...

[Wycombe Fox]

Notts County manager Hans Backe has stepped down from his role after just seven weeks in charge.

The 57-year-old was installed as successor to Ian McParland on a three-year deal on 27 October.

Backe, a friend and former assistant to director of football Sven-Goran Eriksson, announced his decision to the players before training this morning.

Last week the club's chairman Peter Trembling completed a takeover from Middle East owners Munto Finance.

When asked for his response to the news last Thursday Backe told BBC Radio Nottingham: "I am rather calm about it. I have no problems with it.

"I just focus on the football and leave the other things to Peter Trembling. What can you do about it? I just take it easy."

The Swede presided over just nine matches, his final game in charge was the 2-1 home defeat by Accrington Stanley on Saturday.

His departure is the latest twist in a saga stretching back over the last five months since Munto took over the League Two side.

Expectations were raised at Meadow Lane after the Middle East consortium arrived promising back-to-back promotions and talk of Premier League football.

Fans' hopes continued to elevate following Eriksson's appointment and a number of impressive signings, including Sol Campbell, during the summer.

But the Campbell move disintegrated into a high-profile debacle when he walked out after just one appearance.

Then McParland, a Magpies stalwart on the pitch over eight seasons, lost his manager's job despite Notts being fifth in the table.

The news that Munto Finance were selling up appeared to cast doubt on Eriksson's future at the club but Trembling's takeover meant those fears were calmed.

Now Backe's departure means the questions about the former England manager's role at Meadow Lane look to be raised again.

[ash6290]

to make it worse for the "notts o good" football team which are notts county they have now lost backe

[Fox92]

Damn, I wanted them to steamrole into the Prem.

[leicesterfox86]

And the dream is over.

Didn't last very long did it?!

[MC Prussian]

And the shit is about to hit the fan...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/04/notts-county

Notts County face new threat from taxman

• Club served with second winding-up petition

• HMRC says bankruptcy proceedings a 'last resort'

Peter Trembling, Notts County's executive chairman, said the club's dispute with HMRC had been resolved before an earlier winding-up order. Photograph: Andrew Boyers/Action Images

Notts County's future has been plunged into fresh doubt after it emerged that the club have been served with a second winding-up petition by the taxman.

According to an insolvency notice published on Christmas Eve in the London Gazette, a petition was served by HM Revenue & Customs on 27 November. That was just 15 days after County's executive chairman, Peter Trembling, said the club had "resolved the dispute" with HMRC over a six-figure tax debt that had been the subject of a previous petition due to be heard in court on 18 November.

A spokeswoman for HMRC said yesterday: "Bankruptcy proceedings are a last resort. We provide time to pay for viable businesses."

Unless County can find the funding to cover their tax obligations, the latest dispute will head to the high court in London on 27 January. There lawyers for HMRC will press for the club to be placed into administration.

Trembling, who could not be contacted yesterday, claimed publicly when he completed what he described as a "management buyout" last month that the Meadow Lane club have sufficient funding to continue operations until the end of the season. But the latest winding-up petition would seem to cast doubt on that announcement.

Indeed, the club's apparent cashflow difficulties will have been worsened by the postponements of two home matches in recent weeks. The loss of the Boxing Day match against Grimsby, who would have expected to bring a travelling crowd of between 1,000 and 2,000, was compounded by the deferment of the FA Cup third-round tie against Forest Green Rovers on Sunday. That match also carries the incentive of a potential £67,500 in prize money and the promise of a possibly televised fourth-round tie against Premier League Wigan Athletic. Trembling also reportedly planned to use it as an opportunity to entertain potential investors in the club.

The recent turmoil at Meadow Lane notwithstanding, Sven-Goran Eriksson, the director of football, remains involved. But despite his ongoing commitment he has conveyed for the first time his feeling that he has been "let down" by the club's former owner, Qadbak. That British Virgin Islands-registered company pledged millions of pounds in transfer funds to Eriksson when it used Russell King, the businessman who is under investigation for his alleged involvement in a multimillion-pound fraud in Jersey, to recruit him.

Speaking on the BBC's Sportsweek, Eriksson expressed in bullish terms his belief that the club's fortunes will rise again. "The project to get Notts County in to the Premier League in five years is on hold unfortunately for the moment because things went bad," he said.

"But hopefully in just a couple of weeks it will take off again. That's what we are hoping and that's what we are working very, very hard for. I still believe it's possible. What is needed is funding. It's money. It's very easy if you want to reach the Premier League from the position we are in you need money of course.

"When I signed we saw and we believed that everything which was said was true but obviously it wasn't. Of course I feel let down. But you can't talk so much about it you have to find other people, and real people.

"It's been too many bad things about Notts County during these six months but hopefully in a couple of weeks' time things will change."

Precisely how that will change is unknown but the Magpies are reported to have received a six-figure sponsorship commitment from Ludo, a Norwegian mobile telecoms firm, in December.Eriksson is believed to have been instrumental in those sponsorship negotiations, having visited the company's founder, Idar Vollvik, at his home in Marbella last month.

When asked why he is still involved, Eriksson said: "Because of the challenge to take a team from 19th place in League Two up to the Premier League, that is the biggest thing you can do in football, if we can do it. Because of the challenge, it is very easy [to stay]."

[Babylon]

When asked why he is still involved, Eriksson said: "Because of the challenge to take a team from 19th place in League Two up to the Premier League, that is the biggest thing you can do in football, if we can do it. Because of the challenge, it is very easy [to stay]."

More like the club is committed to a ridiculous contract he signed, he's not going to walk away from a contract like that.

[BoneDog]

Things might turn out ok for Notts County if rumours are true. If the two people who are being mentioned in the papers today do buy the club it sounds good for them if I read it right. Can't remember what I read now but I remember thinking "Aargh they'll be alright".

What the hell are you on about Empty?

I feel for Notts County now. The fans must have been in dreamland for a short while and now they are rate in the crap. I wish I had read more about this story cos I still don't really know what's cracked off over the last few months there.

[Wycombe Fox]

You've got to feel for Notts County. They started the season full of optimism and now it's come to this;

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport...for-County.html

[Webbo]

BBC

Eriksson off after Notts takeover

Sven-Goran Eriksson resigns as director of football at Notts County following the club's takeover by former Lincoln City chairman Jim Trew.

[Guest Bilo]

Back to normality for Notts County then. Shame really, hope they still get promoted anyway.

[Webbo]

Telegraph.

Eriksson has also apologised to Notts County supporters and said he was walking away with a heavy heart but had also helped the Football League's oldest club stave off the threat of administration.

"Time was short for us and in the end I signed the agreement to leave the club because the alternative would maybe have been for the club to disappear," said Eriksson, who is understood to have waived a £2.4million pay-off following his departure.

"I don't want to be the man to take Notts County into administration, that's why I signed the agreement yesterday.

"I am very sorry because I like the club and everyone in the club; they are very nice, very genuine people.

"I am deeply sorry for the players, the coaches working in the stadium - hard-working, down-to-earth people and for the fans. It was a dream for them, and they have suffered big problems.

"I am sorry this happened at the last moment but it's going on as a club, even if it is not in the Premier League."

Fair play to Sven. A real gent. I wonder if all of us would have walked away from £2.4 million.