simplythebest 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I don't think it was the correct way for the administrators to have dealt with the situation because it didn't serve their primary duties to the club and it's creditors properly. How could they justify that so-called 'binding contract' to the creditors if someone else was willing to pay more than Green & co for the asset transfer? If they did have this contract, then McColl could have come in offering £2m more than Green & co for the assets after the CVA failure and you'd assume that D&P would technically have had to say "no we can't accept an offer that gives the creditors more money" which is clearly wrong and points in the direction of a conflict of interest. The deal went through automatically though, so basically they came in when the transaction had already taken place. End of the day there had to be an end point and that was when Green's offer got accepted in May, after all you can in theory contact a seller and put a higher offer in for an ebay item that has already been sold. I believe it was for the best, we had to get the new company up and running straight away and the relevant applications in so the staff could TUPE right away and get our football league situation cleared up ASAP. For a fair bidding process I imagine you'd need to set deadlines again and gives parties a good chance to alter their final bids. How could we afford the time for that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think a few parties were caught out by the deal struck with green. no doubt that's not a coincidence. still its only the crediditors that loose out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think a few parties were caught out by the deal struck with green. no doubt that's not a coincidence. still its only the crediditors that loose out. The creditors lost out the day Murray sold to Whyte. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think a few parties were caught out by the deal struck with green. no doubt that's not a coincidence. Not sure about that, they did virtually plead with Kennedy to consider the new company route. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Not sure about that, they did virtually plead with Kennedy to consider the new company route. they also told him hmrc and ticketus had agreed in writing to a cva. or rather they told p Murray that I assume they told Kennedy the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 they also told him hmrc and ticketus had agreed in writing to a cva. or rather they told p Murray that I assume they told Kennedy the same. I'm not entirely certain HMRC weren't misleading. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm not entirely certain HMRC weren't misleading. either that or they changed their mind. that's assuming d&p weren't lying but I don't think they were personally. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie P 4 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Very interesting opinions, and as a bear based in South Africa, I cannot really add to the debate. However, the question that I would pose in response to how a club is viewed as a success would be - Arsenal. As a business, who can fault them? Make profits year after year by selling off their best players and replacing them with promising youngsters. Would their supporters take the same view? Of course not, they expect that the club will be competing with the Man City's and Chelsea's of this world in the transfer market and that they will be challenging for the title and the Champion's league every season. If the UEFA Fair Play is every properly introduced and enforced Arsenal will be in a good place, but if not, they are destined to be also-rans battling for the fourth ECL place. For Rangers it is about getting the balance right and I am not sure that you can ever meet the expectations of external investors (i.e. not supporters) who will demand a return on their initial investment (whether through dividends or increased share value), and the fans, who would want the money to remain within the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 And market confidence in a football club can only increase if you're prospering on and off the park, just think what a return to the CL would do for example. Can you give me an example of how the share price can go up while hindering our progress on the park? No problem. Let's say we agree a new jersey sponsorship of say £10 million and decide to 'invest' only half of it in football and retain the rest as profit to be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. That should see a rise in our share price whilst hindering our team. Let's say we've a young player with 18 months left on his contract who snaps his cruciate and requires expensive surgery and rehabilitation. He becomes an asset we can realise no potential from for at least 2 years, so we decide not to renew his contract. There are so many possible scenarios where the profitability of the club could be put before progress on the park. Remember that's what this is about, that's what drives the share price, not how well run we are, not how many trophies we'll win but how much profit we'll make. We're a football club not a utility provider, we shouldn't make a profit we should break even every year. Easy to write off the second part as exaggeration now but the club was under huge genuine threat, many have forgotten that easily. Craig Whyte 'saved the club' once apparently. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who views our football club as a way of making money for themselves. It has been but not only do you disapprove of dividends but you disapprove of them selling on their shares for a profit. What's expected, just do everything for no reward at all? I've no problem with employees being paid, handsomely if deserved too. I strongly disagree with our club paying dividends to shareholders and I'm unhappy with people relying on their remuneration coming from a rise in share value. That's not how we should be rebuilding the club in my opinion. I'm not anti-Charles Green but I remain cautious of him. If the bulk of the shares are bought by supporters I'll be happy and wish him well, if they are bought by hedge funds and the like I think that will be to our detriment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 we shouldn't make a profit we should break even every year. If there's no profit....how do you re-invest in the team?? If the club/business is profitable, money is being invested sensibly in the team and the Ground etc, and there is some profit left over I have absolutely no problem with dividend being offered. I'm sure Sainsbury's could make more profit by only selling their value range of goods.....but they would lose a lot of customers who want better quality and therefore reduce that profit. Its about finding a balance that works. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.