Jump to content

Club statement


Recommended Posts

Guest Ripley Owl

Get back 2 the boardroom?

Yeah ok, in my rumblein wildest!

£5 million down. £2 million 2 loan note holders(which I dont agree with) n fees. £3 Million to the club (cover 3 mill shortfall? Or wage budget? Given to al?). Club9 have been in talks for how long?

Read the board statement again. Imho, the club and the bank wont entertain cs9 as they dont believe they are credible.

Sorry if that upsets you ripley, but thats how it looks to me.

As for twelve posts: yeah ok, more a voyuer than not accepting opinions of others or implying theyre close to the club or have an agenda.

You sound a bit like Walkley3 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kingscross2hirst

Walkey 3?

Sorry mate, barkin up the wrong tree there. Look, I admire your enthusiasm for cs9. But from what ive read on here since may, star n os, its not goin 2 happen. Not 'connected', not itk, just an honest opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain why NP would recommend investment from a party who would almost immediately replace him?

This thread started with poo poo in the form of the three stooges' statement, and has continued in the same vein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bank do not have the power to force the board into investment

They effectively do though.

If the board threaten to turn a down a proposal the bank want to accept, the bank will threaten the board with calling in the debt we owe them, which (as all of us know) would leave us in administration.

If the board said no anyway, then any debts and shares they had in the club would become even more worthless than they currently are, and they would all have taking a club into administration on their CV's, something i'm especially sure Nick Parker would want to avoid.

The Co-Op are calling the shots here, and baring in mind how much money we owe them, that's probably only fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They effectively do though.

If the board threaten to turn a down a proposal the bank want to accept, the bank will threaten the board with calling in the debt we owe them, which (as all of us know) would leave us in administration.

If the board said no anyway, then any debts and shares they had in the club would become even more worthless than they currently are, and they would all have taking a club into administration on their CV's, something i'm especially sure Nick Parker would want to avoid.

The Co-Op are calling the shots here, and baring in mind how much money we owe them, that's probably only fair.

I really don't think the bank are calling the shots. I might be totally wrong but, I think the bank have agreed a deal with C9S (debt reduction etc) but the final decision is left to the board and the bank 'officially' support the decision (even if they didn't recommend it) which the club likes to remind us as if it justifies there stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They effectively do though.

If the board threaten to turn a down a proposal the bank want to accept, the bank will threaten the board with calling in the debt we owe them, which (as all of us know) would leave us in administration.

If the board said no anyway, then any debts and shares they had in the club would become even more worthless than they currently are, and they would all have taking a club into administration on their CV's, something i'm especially sure Nick Parker would want to avoid.

The Co-Op are calling the shots here, and baring in mind how much money we owe them, that's probably only fair.

If the bank are calling the shots (and I think they are), and if the bank favour the latest C9S deal; then the board are on borrowed time.

It is interesting that they (the board) are continually making statements that "the bank agree", "the bank support"; this seems to acknowledge that the bank's support is not guaranteed.

Could we finally be witnessing the old guard's last attempts to cling on to control of the club that they ruined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think the bank are calling the shots. I might be totally wrong but, I think the bank have agreed a deal with C9S (debt reduction etc) but the final decision is left to the board and the bank 'officially' support the decision (even if they didn't recommend it) which the club likes to remind us as if it justifies there stance.

I don't think Co-Op like the C9S proposal- if they really wanted to see it happen, they definitely could have made it happen by now. I think the bank are probably hoping that we do well on the pitch this season, can keep our heads above water financially, and we can become a more attractive investment opportunity in a years time.

We're all making guesses here obviously- i just think that the bank has more than enough power over SWFC PLC to force them to accept C9S's offer should they so wish.

If the bank are calling the shots (and I think they are), and if the bank favour the latest C9S deal; then the board are on borrowed time.

It is interesting that they (the board) are continually making statements that "the bank agree", "the bank support"; this seems to acknowledge that the bank's support is not guaranteed.

Could we finally be witnessing the old guard's last attempts to cling on to control of the club that they ruined?

The board are clearly worried- about 10 days ago, DeejayOne kindly found out (after being asked by someone on here) why no statement was made regarding C9S and their offer. The answer James was told to pass on was that we didn't want to get drawn into a *** for tat PR scrap. And yet less than 2 weeks later, and the board have felt sufficiently pressured as to release a statement which they didn't feel was neccesery so recently- i reckon they're feeling the heat as you say.

Edited by TheBoyBeevers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fulham Fox

For those who know about these things, can I ask if the bank are legally allowed to publically support the C9S bid if the club aren't doing so, and what this might mean in terms of the situation we're at now? Just wondered. Seems strange that a company providing a service to a customer should side with the opposition that's all

They can appoint advisors to find a buyer if they wish - happens day in day out, although I have no reason to believe this is the co-op's agenda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my explanation about 4 or 5 posts up as to how the board would go about it.

So basically they'd turn their 20m into 4m, at best.

Adminstration is the last thing the Co-op wants. So how do they get the board to do anything they want, bearing any mind the don't own any shares and have more to lose than everyone out of admin...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ogsowl

So basically they'd turn their 20m into 4m, at best.

Adminstration is the last thing the Co-op wants. So how do they get the board to do anything they want, bearing any mind the don't own any shares and have more to lose than everyone out of admin...?

Haven't they already refused to sanction an extra £3M to cover the projected shortfall this season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fulham Fox

So basically they'd turn their 20m into 4m, at best.

Adminstration is the last thing the Co-op wants. So how do they get the board to do anything they want, bearing any mind the don't own any shares and have more to lose than everyone out of admin...?

I agree. The banks are all playing extend and pretend at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't they already refused to sanction an extra £3M to cover the projected shortfall this season?

Maybe so.

So what do they do after that?

From what I see, the bank are owed 20m, the board members around 1m in total?

The bank want to do a deal with people who may possibly pull them out of the poo poo.

The people who want to do the deal don't want to pay the very people who put us in the poo poo.

The people who put us in the poo poo hold an ace in their pocket by the fact they can lose the bank millions by putting us in admin.

In the meantime we pray to God / Allah / Tom Cruise we get out of this division first time or we are in a whole world of pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer to my earlier post.

Are the bank, publicly at least, obliged to support the board as a legal obligation? I hope that makes my question easier to understand.

I'd like to know the answer if anyone has it?

You're going to have to explain.

In theory, what legal obligation would the bank be under?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...