calscot 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I'm not sure what that statement clarifies, except that all Mash likes to throw a bit of mud. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I agree 100% that everyone wants what is best for the club, the ambiguity as to whither the loan is repayable on demand does not help us get there although Ashley is not demanding anything be repaid, that he has left to the shareholders. Mash batted the loan payment straight back to the board by saying they are entitled to pay it back at anytime and leaving it hanging there. The club/board can and should clarify their understanding of the loan agreement, as it is clearly at odds with the view of Mash and Mash hold the securities so better to be on the same page as them for everyone. I don't think everyone does unfortunately. I think MASH want what's best for them - as seen by the onerous contracts they've put in place with our club. Now, as long as the club is fulfilling their end of the loan agreement (and there's nothing to suggest it isn't) then there's no worries over securities and this EGM is merely wasting the club money and time. Would you agree that's a disappointment and, if MASH do indeed want the best for the club, they should cancel the EGM and renegotiate the terms of the retail contract so fans can get back to buying merchandise that can benefit both parties in an agreeable fashion? Let's be clear, the involvement of Mike Ashley with our club has been nothing short of disgraceful. I'm sure we're all agreed on that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I'm not sure what that statement clarifies, except that all Mash likes to throw a bit of mud. It does show they are/were holding the club to ransom when it comes to the retail arrangement and repayment of this kind 'loan'. But if we pay the money back now, we'll be back to the great days of a 49/51 split! Haud me back! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Sports Direct notes from the recent voting advice statement issued by the new Board on 3 June 2015 that the New Board are saying that there has been: "a continued and dramatic reduction in income generated by retail operations". Sports Direct is of the opinion that there is no basis for this statement whatsoever, and invites the New Board (subject to complying with confidentiality obligations) to explain in detail the facts behind this statement. That should be a 5 minute job. We got £18m upfront and £3.5m a year from the JJB deal. What was our distribution from the retail company during the year to 30/6/14? Around £100K? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 That should be a 5 minute job. We got £18m upfront and £3.5m a year from the JJB deal. What was our distribution from the retail company during the year to 30/6/14? Around £100K? Even if we're extremely generous and round the figures to £5m p/a from JJB compared to £500k p/a from SportsDirect it's still an absolute disgrace to be getting 10% of what JJB were paying us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Utter wanks 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 That should be a 5 minute job. We got £18m upfront and £3.5m a year from the JJB deal. What was our distribution from the retail company during the year to 30/6/14? Around £100K? I assume MASH are taking actual retail sales in isolation as opposed to the overall deal. It seems to me they're suggesting there's been no obvious decrease in retail sales since the retail contract was brokered. Problem with that is, many fans have only just become aware of the onerous nature of the deal in recent months so there may be no financial figures available to back up the claims of the incumbent regime. Spin, spin, spin and more spin. I'm sure Jack's minions can take us through it from his viewpoint though... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Au contraire mate. I suspect that MASH very much wanted us to pay it back - in perpetuity via the disgraceful retail profit agreement... Mash wanted the asset. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Mash wanted the asset. Possibly but I think they'll be more than happy with the retail arrangement which - according to their statement - is performing well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmu 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Kings got this one right. 51 or 75 percent doesn't make a whole lot of difference as the bulk of fans just won't buy the strips whilst Ashley has his stinking fingers in the pie. Make the fucker sweat for his 5 mil and just plan for income without the jerseys. ... 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.