Have we sold our ground

[Semedo's ferret]

I'm presuming he's sold it to himself like Derby did. If that's the case then we don't have a problem. He's simply moved a tenner from left pocket to right pocket, passing some hairy balls (EFL) en route. Now if he's involved another enterprise (TUF or Bin Laden for example) then that's different. It puts swfc into the real possibility of future conflict. 

[Inspector Lestrade]

3 minutes ago, Semedo's ferret said:

I'm presuming he's sold it to himself like Derby did. If that's the case then we don't have a problem. He's simply moved a tenner from left pocket to right pocket, passing some hairy balls (EFL) en route. Now if he's involved another enterprise (TUF or Bin Laden for example) then that's different. It puts swfc into the real possibility of future conflict. 

 

Bloody ferrets explaining things succinctly and simply.  

[fred mciver]

3 minutes ago, Semedo's ferret said:

I'm presuming he's sold it to himself like Derby did. If that's the case then we don't have a problem. He's simply moved a tenner from left pocket to right pocket, passing some hairy balls (EFL) en route. Now if he's involved another enterprise (TUF or Bin Laden for example) then that's different. It puts swfc into the real possibility of future conflict. 

Good point but 5 years ago McCabe had never met the Prince.

 

What happens when DC  or next owner - next needs cash because club can't now borrow using stadium as security.

 

Also, why doesn't DC convert  his loans to gifts so we have no borrowing?

[Guest mkowl]

2 minutes ago, fred mciver said:

Do we also want to be funded by Bin Laden's family?

 

To see what can happen when you seperate ground from club, see McCabe v Prince Abdullah in High Court now.

 

Only on Planet Wednesday can one back an owner who charges us £49 a seat to fund Abdi, Urby and Doyen.

 

Now paying the price for ego, a (voting ) share offer would raise dosh while giving us a chance guard our great club for future generations.

 

The fact a lot of folk can't see or don't want to see that there is a long term risk here in pursuit of a short term fix.

 

At the time just pre MM the concern was that the Club would be targeted by asset strippers.

 

8 years down the line we could in a roundabout way be in that place.

 

At WTID we warned about that risk. Today as a former member of WTID I will re-iterate that risk. 

 

That risk is 5, 10 or 20 years down the line we may look back and totally regret this happened.

 

Eh ho alyernatively we might get round FFP as a result be promoted and be in the Premier League for 20 years who knows

 

[vulva]

Do we still have a mortgage on the training ground portercabins?

[ChinaOwl]

10 minutes ago, Semedo's ferret said:

I'm presuming he's sold it to himself like Derby did. If that's the case then we don't have a problem. He's simply moved a tenner from left pocket to right pocket, passing some hairy balls (EFL) en route. Now if he's involved another enterprise (TUF or Bin Laden for example) then that's different. It puts swfc into the real possibility of future conflict. 

 

It will not be put into the asset register of Thai Union Group because they would have very little interest in a largely worthless UK based asset. It may end up in the asset register of some unknown private company in Thailand owned by one of the Chansiri family. From there on in, control would be largely lost. If that company was liquidated or the assets frozen, it may become impossible to regain ownership. It would, like every other asset, be sold off to the highest bidder entirely outside the control of Chansiri.

 

The other risk may be that, when Chansiri runs into cash flow issues again in the future, he uses the ground as collateral to loan money. If the ground is registered overseas, it will then be tied into an unknown third party until the loan is settled.

 

If people are comfortable with these constraints, so be it. I am resigned to the inevitability of it happening but I am not entirely comfortable with the prospect.

Edited May 18, 2019 by ChinaOwl

[spike1867]

8 minutes ago, Semedo's ferret said:

I'm presuming he's sold it to himself like Derby did. If that's the case then we don't have a problem. He's simply moved a tenner from left pocket to right pocket, passing some hairy balls (EFL) en route. Now if he's involved another enterprise (TUF or Bin Laden for example) then that's different. It puts swfc into the real possibility of future conflict. 

Best post of the thread.

 

Sorry mkowl, yours are more knowledgeable and informative but you never mentioned passing hairy balls.

[Guest mkowl]

2 minutes ago, fred mciver said:

Good point but 5 years ago McCabe had never met the Prince.

 

What happens when DC  or next owner - next needs cash because club can't now borrow using stadium as security.

 

Also, why doesn't DC convert  his loans to gifts so we have no borrowing?

That does not get round FFP.

 

And let's be clear here DC invested in the Club in the hope of one day getting in the Premier League. And yep getting those loans back

 

Selling the stadium to himself reduces those loans just the same

[Guest mkowl]

3 minutes ago, vulva said:

Do we still have a mortgage on the training ground portercabins?

No that was settled and the charge discharged

[Guest mkowl]

3 minutes ago, spike1867 said:

Best post of the thread.

 

Sorry mkowl, yours are more knowledgeable and informative but you never mentioned passing hairy balls.

 

Because I shave em 

[billyblack]

6 minutes ago, mkowl said:

That does not get round FFP.

 

And let's be clear here DC invested in the Club in the hope of one day getting in the Premier League. And yep getting those loans back

 

Selling the stadium to himself reduces those loans just the same

Doesnt answer what happens to the stadium if DC packs his bags up and we get a new owner

[vulva]

5 minutes ago, mkowl said:

No that was settled and the charge discharged

Good news. Any chance we can secure some lending over one of the corner flags, or even groundsmans mower?

[spike1867]

 

4 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

Because I shave em 

 

 

 

[spike1867]

I read somewhere yesterday in some article that one of the PL clubs has there club name tied to the stadium, Chelski I think. If they move grounds, they have to change name. If the fan base had some sort of consultation, could we not have devised similar safeguards?

 

https://www.propertyweek.com/news-analysis/who-owns-premier-league-stadiums/5090883.article

 

Check out the bit about Chelsea.

[Guest mkowl]

4 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Doesnt answer what happens to the stadium if DC packs his bags up and we get a new owner

No it doesn't

 

But whenever you get a new owner this is always a risk.

 

If you know how private equity deals work, assets get shifted about.

 

 

[Semedo's ferret]

@ChinaOwl is obviously much more on it than me. But I'll wait until after seeing the nitty-gritty of the deal before worrying too much. Chansiri will have protected himself as much as swfc in whatevers been done. I expect transparency and a safeguarding element of the deal for future ownership. 

[Guest mkowl]

Is that the same sort of transparency when MM owned the club via a Delaware LLC and family Trust 

 

 

[Guest addedtime]

So it's been confirmed then?

[billyblack]

36 minutes ago, mkowl said:

No it doesn't

 

But whenever you get a new owner this is always a risk.

 

If you know how private equity deals work, assets get shifted about.

 

 

For me he has just placed the club with an unnecessary risk born out of not managing the finances correctly.

[daleblue]

1 hour ago, Semedo's ferret said:

I'm presuming he's sold it to himself like Derby did. If that's the case then we don't have a problem. He's simply moved a tenner from left pocket to right pocket, passing some hairy balls (EFL) en route. Now if he's involved another enterprise (TUF or Bin Laden for example) then that's different. It puts swfc into the real possibility of future conflict. 

 

My concern would be that if it went a different route, 

we could end up in sh it Creek.