craig 5,199 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The initial investors couldn't even cover the first months wage bill, without outside "loans". The fans bailed green out by buying season books in great numbers, otherwise his regime was over before it began. So without us, his plan to buy was fucked. Hardly a great starting point, and it does kinda mean that we helped him "buy" the club. When considering "buying" the club surely we have to separate technical perspective from periphery ? I completely understand what you are saying, I really do. But technically the use of outside loans for the 1st month's wages are not part of the purchasing process. The ST monies provided working capital post-purchase, not the purchase price itself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 When considering "buying" the club surely we have to separate technical perspective from periphery ? I completely understand what you are saying, I really do. But technically the use of outside loans for the 1st month's wages are not part of the purchasing process. The ST monies provided working capital post-purchase, not the purchase price itself. it also repaid 1.75 million of loans before the ipo. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComeOffit 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 we now see why brian kennedy imediatly offered to buy them out plus 10%. i wonder how close he came to getting us for that. Probably very close. Green was shiteing because of bomber, and the worry that we wouldn't buy books. If we just held out for another month or so, green would have sold, either to kennedy, or McColl, and we might actually be on the right path, instead of the way we are heading now. We blinked and the rest is history. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 i dont think yo can blame the fans who bought books. i was never pro boycott. these things are up to individuals. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 my reasoning is based on the following evidence. the cva 8.5 million was a loan. the imran ahmed loan detailed in the prospectus. 1.75 million in repaid loans in the prospectus. the details we have regarding this fee being owed by the club. as i say i am entirely happy because of these 4 facts that the club was bought out of club funds. i may have exaggerated my people pleasing nature a touch. i have no issue with being called a bassa especially when its clearly a joke. i hope this clarifies my stance. if people want to say i cant prove it thats fine. if people want to say they dont believe it thats also fine. if you want to say i am wrong then please present the evidence which makes you believe that. i see little evidence relating to why people believe i am wrong. its also fine for people to say they have no issue with it. i do though and i would no matter who had bought us. its what whyte did and it reeks. The 8.5 million CVA being a loan is irrelevant as the CVA didnt go ahead. So, lets assume that the 5.5 million purchase price was also a loan. A loan from where ? The club (oldco) clearly did not have 5.5 million to pay for the assets. And the newco couldnt request ST monies be spent as they didnt even own the club at that point. So if the 5.5 million purchase price was a loan then it didnt come from ST's. Now..... they may have subsequently repaid investors from ST proceeds, but that wouldnt be purchasing the club, it would be repaying debts. And this is perhaps the difference between Green & Whyte.... Whereas Whyte kinda did purchase the club with external finance (in that he promised ST money to Ticketus even before the purchase was approved) Green possibly had his "investors" lined up and informed that once they had the club the ST cash would roll and the investors would then get their "loanss" back. Not a whole lot different but, at the same time, a world apart legally. This invoice now owed, as I said, happens frequently in similar types of transactions. I am not overly perturbed. Imran's loan is akin to loan-sharking. The cash dried up and they had to get finance. Did so at an exorbitant rate. Again, though, Imran provided the loan, not the ST books, correct ? The ST books probably will repay it though, unless of course we get our other streams of revenue up and running appropriately. 1.75 million in loans - again, you say it yourself. Repaid loans. If the ST books had actually paid for the purchase of the club then there would have been no need for these loans in the first place. I do get what you are saying and in a sense it could be that the ST's are paying for the club, but not technically they didnt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComeOffit 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 When considering "buying" the club surely we have to separate technical perspective from periphery ? I completely understand what you are saying, I really do. But technically the use of outside loans for the 1st month's wages are not part of the purchasing process. The ST monies provided working capital post-purchase, not the purchase price itself. I'm sure the first months wages were all part of the deal of purchase, outwith the purchase price. We have only found out yesterday that this was paid with an external loan, to be paid back by the club, ie, the fans. At the very least, they were less than honest at the time. Without that loan, they couldn't have bought, an certainly wouldn't have been the "best bidder", imo. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComeOffit 0 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 i dont think yo can blame the fans who bought books. i was never pro boycott. these things are up to individuals. I'm not blaming them gs. I'm just sayin without the vast uptake, green couldn't have bought us. His whole plan was reliant on the support stepping up in numbers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm sure the first months wages were all part of the deal of purchase, outwith the purchase price. We have only found out yesterday that this was paid with an external loan, to be paid back by the club, ie, the fans. At the very least, they were less than honest at the time. Without that loan, they couldn't have bought, an certainly wouldn't have been the "best bidder", imo. The first month's wages were paod by a loan ? I didnt see that, can you clarify please ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The 8.5 million CVA being a loan is irrelevant as the CVA didnt go ahead. So, lets assume that the 5.5 million purchase price was also a loan. A loan from where ? The club (oldco) clearly did not have 5.5 million to pay for the assets. And the newco couldnt request ST monies be spent as they didnt even own the club at that point. So if the 5.5 million purchase price was a loan then it didnt come from ST's. Now..... they may have subsequently repaid investors from ST proceeds, but that wouldnt be purchasing the club, it would be repaying debts. And this is perhaps the difference between Green & Whyte.... Whereas Whyte kinda did purchase the club with external finance (in that he promised ST money to Ticketus even before the purchase was approved) Green possibly had his "investors" lined up and informed that once they had the club the ST cash would roll and the investors would then get their "loanss" back. Not a whole lot different but, at the same time, a world apart legally. This invoice now owed, as I said, happens frequently in similar types of transactions. I am not overly perturbed. Imran's loan is akin to loan-sharking. The cash dried up and they had to get finance. Did so at an exorbitant rate. Again, though, Imran provided the loan, not the ST books, correct ? The ST books probably will repay it though, unless of course we get our other streams of revenue up and running appropriately. 1.75 million in loans - again, you say it yourself. Repaid loans. If the ST books had actually paid for the purchase of the club then there would have been no need for these loans in the first place. I do get what you are saying and in a sense it could be that the ST's are paying for the club, but not technically they didnt. well the cva loan was to be repaid by the club from future revenue. so i assume any 5.5 million non cva loan would be the same and as our only real revenue pre ipo was ticket sales and we know 1.75 million was repaid we can safely say the fans paid the bulk of it and any other % still came out of club funds. we can only hope the term of the other 1.55 million in loans were better than ahmeds. (as i say i can see why we are going to run at a loss. 1.75 million and this companys cash will account for a fair old whack of the projected 3 million loss. it could indeed be that st paid for the club i believe it most likely is the case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The first month's wages were paod by a loan ? I didnt see that, can you clarify please ? thomson has said that this orlit or whatever provided cash for the first months wages. 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.