Will the real Keith Jackson please stand up?

[stewarty 1,876]

Fair point, Bluedell. We do need to get to the point of self-sufficiency to protect ourselves against such unforeseen circumstances. I'm not sure how we can get to that point without ridding ourselves of the spectre of Mike Ashley and the other strands of legal issues that are affecting our ability to move forward on various financial fronts.

 

Additionally, I noted elsewhere that some of the club's detractors continue to be critical of king's supposed inability to get a NOMAD. Thus, conveniently ignoring that this is only a requirement of AIM and therefore no longer needed. The change of intention to maintain the listing is in my view a clear example of the board re-assessing previous intentions once they got their feet under the table. The noise from the previous regime and hangers on not only made it very difficult to maintain the listing (some might even say it was impossible), but also contributed significantly to some of the threads of questioning and messaging that led to some of the interviews mentioned.

 

Apologies for the rambling response on my phone at work, but I guess I'm just saying we should be careful not to re-write history for the sake of some ill-informed noises...

[craig 5,195]

How much do we owe the directors right now (£15m?) and what happens if, for some reason, the loans get withdrawn?

 

All may be well on the pitch but we are still reliant on the goodwill of the directors to keep us afloat. The rand had devalued about 23% at one point and more ISIS activity could have an impact on the economy and therefore our directors.

 

I seem to recall talk of a share issue within the first 18 months (is that correct?) but there is no sign of one.

 

While the directors may have the best interests of the club at heart, we don't know what's going to come along that may be out of their control and it would be good to get these loans turned into capital sooner rather than later.

 

The directors can waive the right to receive those loans though, although there would be tax implications of doing so I think.

 

Not saying that will happen but it is plausible.

[Bluedell 5,329]

The directors can waive the right to receive those loans though, although there would be tax implications of doing so I think.

 

Not saying that will happen but it is plausible.

 

It's not realistic when they could get shares (and therefore influence) for their cash.

[craig 5,195]

It's not realistic when they could get shares (and therefore influence) for their cash.

 

It looks to me that King is in it for the long-haul as an investor so he can play the long game in terms of converting loans to shares. The loan amounts only become an issue when repayment is demanded and is that likely ? I thought they had previously intimated that the loans would be converted once a share issue is done.

 

I always thought that the only reason holding up the share issue, and therefore the conversion from loans to equity was the court proceedings.

 

Obviously equity and, therefore, influence, ownership, distribution would be preferable. Which is still the intent.

 

The only issue that I can see (could be very wrong) is in the event something happens to oust King and his group. At that point I would think they would want repayment of the loans. But so long as they continue to wield the power in the Boardroom everything remains the same - and the conversion of those loans to shares would be merely a timing issue.

[buster. 4,808]

It's got nothing to with the media. Many fans still have the expectation that King is going to pout a lot of cash into the club.

 

 

 

In what way have our circumstances changed? We still have the requirement for an injection of capital.

 

Are you trying to suggest that the directors have said that there will not be a share issue and that King will not be putting in an 8 figure sum into the club? I may have missed that.

.

 

 

 

Again has Paul Murray specifically contradicted the previous statements by King?

 

 

So King will inject the cash that he said? If he's not then in what way is it not moonbeams? It seems that the lesson hasn't been learnt.

 

I disagree and think that it has a great deal to do with the media for the reasons already given in post #31.

That isn't to vindicate DK for using it, he made a bad error of judgement.

 

A number of circumstances have changed surrounding spend (eg. 5M loan paid off) / revenue expectation etc.

Including the timescales (eg. criminal proceedings), AGM resolution votes res.10, other court cases that have had an impact etc.

 

It would take an in-depth analysis BUT the media pick up the one soundbite and run and run and run and run with it.

 

Meanwhile other people in the club speak of a 'sensible financial approach to signings and what may be regarded by some as more realistic timescales re. team being successful in top tier....But this is quickly forgotten as the media go back to the easy 30M line but without any useful background and subsequent impact of various events.....It's beyond them but that doesn't really matter because the commercial line for them is the 30M.

 

That is the line that sparks controversy, gives web clicks and creates traffic.

 

It is also the line used by those who have never fancied DK and the new regime.

They cling onto it because it gives them comfort.

 

 

It isn't comparable to moonbeams for the reasons given in post #31.

 

------------------------------------

 

As has since been mentioned in the thread, there are financial challenges to confront and these are more important and relevant regards ongoing debate.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Buster, maybe we have different definitions of moonbeams but you seem to be backing up my assertion and post 31 doesn't suggest otherwise, but let's not get bogged down on it. It's a word I never really liked.

 

Having a sensib;e financial approach and getting funding are 2 different things and I'd hope that if there was a capital injection that the existing approach was maintained. We should also be able to assess King without reference to the media. They don't have anything to do with the fact that King hasn't followed through (yet) on what he previously suggested.

 

I don't see that the repayment of the loan or the current revenue expectations have changed anything much. I can see the court case may have.

 

The bottom line is that the loans from the directors are getting bigger and there is no clear indication when that will be addressed. Yes, I trust the directors (including King) but I had hoped that we could have moved away from having to do that.

[buster. 4,808]

Buster, maybe we have different definitions of moonbeams but you seem to be backing up my assertion and post 31 doesn't suggest otherwise, but let's not get bogged down on it. It's a word I never really liked.

 

Having a sensib;e financial approach and getting funding are 2 different things and I'd hope that if there was a capital injection that the existing approach was maintained. We should also be able to assess King without reference to the media. They don't have anything to do with the fact that King hasn't followed through (yet) on what he previously suggested.

 

I don't see that the repayment of the loan or the current revenue expectations have changed anything much. I can see the court case may have.

 

The bottom line is that the loans from the directors are getting bigger and there is no clear indication when that will be addressed. Yes, I trust the directors (including King) but I had hoped that we could have moved away from having to do that.

 

I thought current circumstances prevented a major capital injection (MCI) and the loans from directors/shareholders were what would be needed if and when money was required, until a time when a MCI could happen....but I may have got confused.

 

The lack of a clear timescale regards this is concerning and may mean we have to hasten plans to become sustainable or at least make greatly reduced losses. This would require a relatively low wage bill which in turn means no great transfer spend and an emphasis on getting value for money and having a footballing operation and infrastructure that was solid and performed consistently.

 

What is going to be difficult is to manage fans expectations and be seen to be supporting the management team to a reasonable degree whilst newspapers keep harping on about the '30M'. The club need to be clear about things going into next season.

 

There are a 101 other intertwining issues and it's going to be a difficult juggling act for the forseeable.