craig 5,195 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 You are reinventing the financial wheel here , he can't reasonably argue anything , what he spent to buy shares is his and only his business , whether that was £1 or £100 million , it isn't investment. He's using the old SDM smoke and mirrors trick and some are buying into it , it's bullshit . It IS investment rbr. He CAN say HE invested that money. What he cannot say though is that he invested that money into the Club. HIs investment was HIS investment "in" the Club, but the Club saw no benefit of that. As BH says, he is being very disingenuous if he is saying that his original share purchase was an investment into the Club - that is, in fact, a lie. No other way to put it. That said though I also believe that we are taking things a bit literal. But, as BD says, when running a public entity you have to be very guarded and careful with how you word any statement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 fair enough maybe a poor exampleso you don't agree the term investment is linked to the project? And costs associated with a project cannot be tallied or referred to as investment even though thats the definition of investment? No, you are wrong. Go look on the books of the Club and tell me where that investment shows up in the Club's financials. It doesn't. If the Club invests or if DK invests in the Club, as he likes to say, then you would see the Club's financial statements show this investment. Nowhere does that happen because his "investment" was his own personal investment which saw absolutely no benefit accrue to the Club. To include it as "investment in the Club" the Club would have to see some benefit accrue to it. It didn't for the original shares purchased. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 It is semantics, but, frankly, without buying shares from x, y, and z, (an investment of money) he would not have control of the Club. I am comfortable with him saying that the acquisition represents part of his overall, personal, investment into the Club.After all, you can't build a house without buying the land (forget pedantry re: leasing). But is he changing his original observations ? If he meant that then fine. But was his talk of investment in the Club not AFTER he had made the original purchase of shares and therefore his quoted 30 million or whatever it was would be subsequent to the money he had already paid for the shares i.e. that share purchase should be excluded from the 30 million as he had already spent it when he spoke of the needed investment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 It IS investment rbr. He CAN say HE invested that money. What he cannot say though is that he invested that money into the Club. HIs investment was HIS investment "in" the Club, but the Club saw no benefit of that. As BH says, he is being very disingenuous if he is saying that his original share purchase was an investment into the Club - that is, in fact, a lie. No other way to put it. That said though I also believe that we are taking things a bit literal. But, as BD says, when running a public entity you have to be very guarded and careful with how you word any statement. That's my point Craig , he seems to be changing his position to suit now , it's blatantly obvious to even a blind man that his share purchase was never going to fly as an "investment" and to be fair to him then , he never claimed it was , now however he appears to be altering his position to make it look better than it is IMHO . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 if we follow this reasoning we now need to start putting out statements for those fans who work in the financial markets another for those fans in the legal professions another for butchers another for plumbers since words and meanings often differ across professions, that or the speaker/writer could define the terminology and everyone could stop trying to force comments through their personal prism of knowledge! No matter how you take his words the truth still stands be it £18m or £12.9 it is still within the promise made of £30m over 5 years, But still we moan. The quicker we go back to not talking to fans the better for the club and also the moral of fans. We clearly don't have the ability to grow and learn collectively. The same crap was all explained the last time a club statement mentioned the investment to date. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 if we follow this reasoning we now need to start putting out statements for those fans who work in the financial markets another for those fans in the legal professions another for butchers another for plumbers since words and meanings often differ across professions, that or the speaker/writer could define the terminology and everyone could stop trying to force comments through their personal prism of knowledge! No matter how you take his words the truth still stands be it £18m or £12.9 it is still within the promise made of £30m over 5 years, But still we moan. The quicker we go back to not talking to fans the better for the club and also the moral of fans. We clearly don't have the ability to grow and learn collectively. The same crap was all explained the last time a club statement mentioned the investment to date. No what he needs to do as Chairman of a PLC is put out factually correct statements , he has a duty to the company to do that as well as a fiduciary duty , if he was just a normal shareholder he could put out whatever and as many statements as he liked on the hour every hour . However he's not a normal share holder , he's the Chairman of our club . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 if we follow this reasoning we now need to start putting out statements for those fans who work in the financial markets another for those fans in the legal professions another for butchers another for plumbers since words and meanings often differ across professions, that or the speaker/writer could define the terminology and everyone could stop trying to force comments through their personal prism of knowledge! No matter how you take his words the truth still stands be it £18m or £12.9 it is still within the promise made of £30m over 5 years, But still we moan. The quicker we go back to not talking to fans the better for the club and also the moral of fans. We clearly don't have the ability to grow and learn collectively. The same crap was all explained the last time a club statement mentioned the investment to date. Very good point. And, to be fair, any misunderstanding of the communication from the Club is something we should be well accustomed to anyway. I guess we don't know if this is being disingenuous or if it is an honest mistake. To be honest, we all know that we need more than even the 30 million anyway. It is a matter of how we can raise the funds and then ensuring that they are directed to the appropriate departments. I said when they came in that I would be more than prepared to suffer from a playing personnel perspective so long as the investment was being invested wisely in the infrastructure which gives you, or should give you, far more longevity than spending a couple million on any given player. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) And i have experience running projects and companies and this is how investment is always described. Turn it round then if you think he is purposefully being misleading then why would he do so? £12.9m is still within the promises made. Yes, I genuinely think he is deliberately misleading. Show me one other example of a PLC chairman who includes the purchase of third party shares in a "project" when talking with his chairman hat on. I've never come across it before. Yes, £12.9m is still within the promises made, and I don't know why he has the need to exaggerate. SDM used to do it too. From memory he said that he had invested £60m, which included the purchase of his shares from the Laurence family and the amount that King himself invested. He didn't have to do that. he had invested £35m into the company and all credit for him for doing so, and likewise, credit to King and Co for putting in the £12.9m. Why add in the additional money? He's not speaking personally. If he was he can use whatever figures he likes. he's speaking as chairman and there's a big difference. Edited February 13, 2017 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 No, you are wrong. Go look on the books of the Club and tell me where that investment shows up in the Club's financials. It doesn't. If the Club invests or if DK invests in the Club, as he likes to say, then you would see the Club's financial statements show this investment. Nowhere does that happen because his "investment" was his own personal investment which saw absolutely no benefit accrue to the Club. To include it as "investment in the Club" the Club would have to see some benefit accrue to it. It didn't for the original shares purchased. it wasn't a personal investment it was the first step of a defined project. Each member didn't look at the club and decide to buy shares for monetary concerns and personal gains, they bought a combined controlling interest so the project could begin. It wasnt an ad hoc purchase of random amounts of shares that just happened to give them the percentage they wanted. The shares are a fundamental part of the plan implemented by king and the three bears and clearly come under the definition of a project. Ask yourself this could the project as it stands happen without first the purchase of those shares? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 it wasn't a personal investment So they don't personally own the shares? They have gifted the shares to the club? You're still not getting the fact that he said it as chairman, which changes what numbers he refers to. Where is the £18m in the accounts? 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.