0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Mallard on March 23, 2020, 01:50:58 PMQuote from: TonyM on March 23, 2020, 01:42:27 PMQuote from: Stan on March 23, 2020, 01:28:21 PMQuote from: Mallard on March 23, 2020, 01:10:34 PMWould anyone want to ‘invest’ by buying shares in the Football with a big wedge of directors loans. ? Unless Mr Cleeve wrote them off ( or converted the loans into shares). For those fans without a financial background, could you explain that please?Basically SC hasn't 'given' the club money, rather he as loaned the money to the club. All well and good whilst he is the sole owner as we all know we are basically one man's play thing until such time as he gets bored / runs out of cash, no real difference between us and Chelsea in that respect.What I think Mallard is saying is why would the Trust membership vote to effectively 'burn' a sizable amount of the funds they have raised over the years to buy into a club that could still cease to exist by the start of next season should SC decide to call in his loans? Personally as a Trust member, I would vote against such a proposal.Exactly Tony. There speaks the voice of reasonBut with a limited liability company a company can only pay out what it has in assets. The chairman can't just take back money loaned if there are no assets to pay them.
Quote from: TonyM on March 23, 2020, 01:42:27 PMQuote from: Stan on March 23, 2020, 01:28:21 PMQuote from: Mallard on March 23, 2020, 01:10:34 PMWould anyone want to ‘invest’ by buying shares in the Football with a big wedge of directors loans. ? Unless Mr Cleeve wrote them off ( or converted the loans into shares). For those fans without a financial background, could you explain that please?Basically SC hasn't 'given' the club money, rather he as loaned the money to the club. All well and good whilst he is the sole owner as we all know we are basically one man's play thing until such time as he gets bored / runs out of cash, no real difference between us and Chelsea in that respect.What I think Mallard is saying is why would the Trust membership vote to effectively 'burn' a sizable amount of the funds they have raised over the years to buy into a club that could still cease to exist by the start of next season should SC decide to call in his loans? Personally as a Trust member, I would vote against such a proposal.Exactly Tony. There speaks the voice of reason
Quote from: Stan on March 23, 2020, 01:28:21 PMQuote from: Mallard on March 23, 2020, 01:10:34 PMWould anyone want to ‘invest’ by buying shares in the Football with a big wedge of directors loans. ? Unless Mr Cleeve wrote them off ( or converted the loans into shares). For those fans without a financial background, could you explain that please?Basically SC hasn't 'given' the club money, rather he as loaned the money to the club. All well and good whilst he is the sole owner as we all know we are basically one man's play thing until such time as he gets bored / runs out of cash, no real difference between us and Chelsea in that respect.What I think Mallard is saying is why would the Trust membership vote to effectively 'burn' a sizable amount of the funds they have raised over the years to buy into a club that could still cease to exist by the start of next season should SC decide to call in his loans? Personally as a Trust member, I would vote against such a proposal.
Quote from: Mallard on March 23, 2020, 01:10:34 PMWould anyone want to ‘invest’ by buying shares in the Football with a big wedge of directors loans. ? Unless Mr Cleeve wrote them off ( or converted the loans into shares). For those fans without a financial background, could you explain that please?
Would anyone want to ‘invest’ by buying shares in the Football with a big wedge of directors loans. ? Unless Mr Cleeve wrote them off ( or converted the loans into shares).
Also, if the club goes into liquidation it would be sent down the leagues. Surely the trust would want to prevent that from happening again?
Stan, slowly but surely you are getting there and now hopefully you see why I am so against the single benefactor model, although something tells me that you might have drawn a different conclusion. If SC decided he no longer wanted the hassle of running the club he would be left with either getting what he could by selling it (if a buyer could be found) or by winding up the company to reduce any further losses. I am sorry to say but with the sums involved on the directors loan accounts the Trust would have very little it could do to influence that decision one way or the other.
Quote from: TonyM on March 23, 2020, 05:38:53 PMStan, slowly but surely you are getting there and now hopefully you see why I am so against the single benefactor model, although something tells me that you might have drawn a different conclusion. If SC decided he no longer wanted the hassle of running the club he would be left with either getting what he could by selling it (if a buyer could be found) or by winding up the company to reduce any further losses. I am sorry to say but with the sums involved on the directors loan accounts the Trust would have very little it could do to influence that decision one way or the other.I'm glad that you think that I am getting there Tony: finance is not really my area. Here's another question for you? If the trust were able to use their funds to support the club at the present time with what is basically a severe cash flow problem and the deal was some shares perhaps, it appears that, if your view is typical, that the trust would have nothing to do with it because of the current indebtedness to the chairman? So, while these loans exist, the trust will not really have anything to do with the club and because these loans will only ever go away if the club becomes either so profitable that it can afford to clear them or the chairman writes them off or the company goes into liquidation and the first two options are unlikely, the trust's likely course of action is to do nothing and wait for the club to go bust?
Whilst not being a Trust member I fully appreciate the need for them to be in place. Of course I hope there is never a need for them to help mount a rescue plan.QuoteThis is a fundamental problem for the B&G Trust, they have allowed themselves to be painted into a corner, first by Buster and now the present owner, marginalising them as a disgruntled safety net and nothing more. Trusts at some other clubs have a much better working relationship with their club's owners and, in turn, have a much wider involvement with helping their club. Hopefully, one day, this will also be true at Lynn, although I can't see it in the near future with how SC currently operates.
This is a fundamental problem for the B&G Trust, they have allowed themselves to be painted into a corner, first by Buster and now the present owner, marginalising them as a disgruntled safety net and nothing more. Trusts at some other clubs have a much better working relationship with their club's owners and, in turn, have a much wider involvement with helping their club. Hopefully, one day, this will also be true at Lynn, although I can't see it in the near future with how SC currently operates.
Quote from: Mallard on March 24, 2020, 08:55:01 AMWhilst not being a Trust member I fully appreciate the need for them to be in place. Of course I hope there is never a need for them to help mount a rescue plan.QuoteThis is a fundamental problem for the B&G Trust, they have allowed themselves to be painted into a corner, first by Buster and now the present owner, marginalising them as a disgruntled safety net and nothing more. Trusts at some other clubs have a much better working relationship with their club's owners and, in turn, have a much wider involvement with helping their club. Hopefully, one day, this will also be true at Lynn, although I can't see it in the near future with how SC currently operates.A disgruntled safety net is indeed how they come across, if I'm honest. I have seen a lot of implicit and explicit anti-club (in its current form) rhetoric on this forum over the last few years and would suggest that this hasn't helped the perception of the trust or their cause. I can recall being called Stephen Cleeve in the early days of his tenure simply because of playing devil's advocate and putting his case. I like the idea of a trust in principle but would not wish to wed myself to a partisan: trust = good; sole-owner = bad or vice versa, as this tends to lead to reductive: if you're not with us you're against us type of thinking and arguments. For me the trust's ostensible intransigence at being ideologically against the sole-owner model is part of the problem. Personally, I don't care which model the club uses so long as it provides good quality and progressive football for the fans.I support QPR. During the early '60s QPR's typical home attendance was about 4,000. Jim Gregory, a rich sole-owner came in and transformed the club to the extent that in 1976 they were vying for the old first division title and 35,000 watched them play Leeds at home.Sole-owners aren't always the devils that some paint them. Perhaps both sides need to be a bit more open minded.
Whilst not being a Trust member I fully appreciate the need for them to be in place. Of course I hope there is never a need for them to help mount a rescue plan.QuoteThis is a fundamental problem for the B&G Trust, they have allowed themselves to be painted into a corner, first by Buster and now the present owner, marginalising them as a disgruntled safety net and nothing more. Trusts at some other clubs have a much better working relationship with their club's owners and, in turn, have a much wider involvement with helping their club. Hopefully, one day, this will also be true at Lynn, although I can't see it in the near future with how SC currently operates.A disgruntled safety net is indeed how they come across, if I'm honest. I have seen a lot of implicit and explicit anti-club (in its current form) rhetoric on this forum over the last few years and would suggest that this hasn't helped the perception of the trust or their cause. I can recall being called Stephen Cleeve in the early days of his tenure simply because of playing devil's advocate and putting his case. I like the idea of a trust in principle but would not wish to wed myself to a partisan: trust = good; sole-owner = bad or vice versa, as this tends to lead to reductive: if you're not with us you're against us type of thinking and arguments. For me the trust's ostensible intransigence at being ideologically against the sole-owner model is part of the problem. Personally, I don't care which model the club uses so long as it provides good quality and progressive football for the fans.I support QPR. During the early '60s QPR's typical home attendance was about 4,000. Jim Gregory, a rich sole-owner came in and transformed the club to the extent that in 1976 they were vying for the old first division title and 35,000 watched them play Leeds at home.Sole-owners aren't always the devils that some paint them. Perhaps both sides need to be a bit more open minded.
How much of a circle can this carry on going round? Has anyone actually emailed the trust to see what their position is,or emailed the club?
Quote from: Grissles Oleary on March 24, 2020, 08:28:23 PMHow much of a circle can this carry on going round? Has anyone actually emailed the trust to see what their position is,or emailed the club? Old Loopy was a lot better than Stan. Grissles.
Author
Topic: The problem football clubs are now facing. (Read 9044 times)