My thoughts about new manager etc...

[lenny3k 506]

You better hope the new manager buys into the academy project then , otherwise we are as well shutting it down , some one like Walter never trusted kids , I fact if you look back if it wasn't for advocatt Ferguson might never have made it with us , that I agree is a huge guess on my part .

 

I hope the board get a director of football sorted first , we need especially at this point in time a long term strategy not a short term one to get 2nd place , because as for Europe there is next to no difference between 2 nd and 4 th in reality .

 

I think (I hope) that one of the things made very clear to any new manager, will be that there are not large sums of money to be spent and they will have to understand that a reliance, and therefore improvement on the academy is one of the priorities....

[rbr 1,247]

I think (I hope) that one of the things made very clear to any new manager, will be that there are not large sums of money to be spent and they will have to understand that a reliance, and therefore improvement on the academy is one of the priorities....

 

Well they better make the same statement to the fans then , and make clear it's going to be a long long road back , some of our fans are going nuts about this year , the next few aren't going to be much better unless serious money can be found from somewhere .

[lenny3k 506]

Well they better make the same statement to the fans then , and make clear it's going to be a long long road back , some of our fans are going nuts about this year , the next few aren't going to be much better unless serious money can be found from somewhere .

 

I agree, I think a lot of pressure (obviously not all) can be relieved on all sides if there is just better communication.

[Bluedell 5,356]

In regards to the OP, exactly the same thing was said prior to Warburton starting, and much of it was meant to be addressed. Given that it hasn't, whose fault is it?

 

Is it Warburton's or is there not enough cash to put everything in place, and that's not going to happen, no matter who we bring in?

 

All the right noises were being made when Warburton started, and if we are back to square one then what the hell has been going on?

[Darthter 542]

In regards to the OP, exactly the same thing was said prior to Warburton starting, and much of it was meant to be addressed. Given that it hasn't, whose fault is it?

 

Is it Warburton's or is there not enough cash to put everything in place, and that's not going to happen, no matter who we bring in?

 

All the right noises were being made when Warburton started, and if we are back to square one then what the hell has been going on?

 

It would appear that MW had made in-roads with regard to the Academy side of things, implementing a joined-up strategy etc. So it's now up to the board to analyse what has been done, and is it a suitable base to continue to build on.

As for the signing, I think MW did bring in a few signings with a view to resale - Windass, Crooks, Rossiter, Dodoo.....but they will never increase in value if they aren't in the shop window. Out of them we've only seen Windass with any regularity, and his performances have been somewhat inconsistent - that must be addressed & developed, otherwise he is just another young player going no-where.

[Uilleam 5,497]

My understanding is that the Board members who have given soft loans will convert those to equity, and will not, for reasons of control, primarily, opt to take repayments. Of course, circumstances change, and their are no guarantees, but other things being equal, debt swap for shares remains the plan, as far as anyone outside the Boardroom can tell.

 

Therefore raising £20M will mean raising £20M, over and above the £12M debt/equity exchange.

 

The problems with a shares issue, seem to me to lie elsewhere, not with the soft debt - legal actions, civil and criminal, retail income strangled, institutional and other fingers burned in the recent past, and other factors, rehearsed elsewhere over recent months. It does seem difficult for the Board to issue a positive Prospectus, and to attract many investors beyond already committed Bluenoses. Underwriting of the issue may be a matter of concern, too. Raising massive amounts, short to medium term, will be problematic, and a flop in the market could be very damaging.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't see how the current soft lenders of the Board will gain by pulling out their capital, and losing ownership/control. Nonetheless, the support, particularly the organised support, needs to keep eyes on the ball.

[Darthter 542]

Everyone is talking about the finances.....how we need more money.

 

Yet we are being seriously challenged domestically, by clubs that are operating on considerably lower budgets than ours. How are they doing that???

Folk don't want D McInnes as the next manger, yet Aberdeen are currently sitting above us in the league, with a game in hand and Hearts only 6 points behind. These teams seem capable of bringing in players of a decent standard without bursting the bank.

[Darthter 542]

The problems with a shares issue, seem to me to lie elsewhere, not with the soft debt - legal actions, civil and criminal, retail income strangled, institutional and other fingers burned in the recent past, and other factors, rehearsed elsewhere over recent months. It does seem difficult for the Board to issue a positive Prospectus, and to attract many investors beyond already committed Bluenoses. Underwriting of the issue may be a matter of concern, too. Raising massive amounts, short to medium term, will be problematic, and a flop in the market could be very damaging.

 

As we are at the moment, we're not attractive to investors - there are no signs that we are improving & therefore going to generate a return on their investment. Bluenose investors, may not be bothered about a return, but wealthy bluechip investers certainly will be.

[Uilleam 5,497]

As we are at the moment, we're not attractive to investors - there are no signs that we are improving & therefore going to generate a return on their investment. Bluenose investors, may not be bothered about a return, but wealthy bluechip investers certainly will be.

 

The nub is that the factors which reduce the attractiveness of the Club, are historical, and largely outwith the Board's control. Of course, factors which they may be able to influence are football performance, and value for money from football investment, and I take your point on this. However, as we know, as we as we are seeing, this is not as easy as it sounds. It's bloody frustrating.

[rbr 1,247]

My understanding is that the Board members who have given soft loans will convert those to equity, and will not, for reasons of control, primarily, opt to take repayments. Of course, circumstances change, and their are no guarantees, but other things being equal, debt swap for shares remains the plan, as far as anyone outside the Boardroom can tell.

 

Therefore raising £20M will mean raising £20M, over and above the £12M debt/equity exchange.

 

The problems with a shares issue, seem to me to lie elsewhere, not with the soft debt - legal actions, civil and criminal, retail income strangled, institutional and other fingers burned in the recent past, and other factors, rehearsed elsewhere over recent months. It does seem difficult for the Board to issue a positive Prospectus, and to attract many investors beyond already committed Bluenoses. Underwriting of the issue may be a matter of concern, too. Raising massive amounts, short to medium term, will be problematic, and a flop in the market could be very damaging.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't see how the current soft lenders of the Board will gain by pulling out their capital, and losing ownership/control. Nonetheless, the support, particularly the organised support, needs to keep eyes on the ball.

So we are raising £32 million then , they can't just separate the debt for equity swap