Why 48% of us are likely very wrong

[sonofbert2]

2 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

I wouldn't be daft enough to pour millions into a business I knew little about in the first place.

 

That’s why he bought advisors.

 

I should also say advisors with a previously very good track record.

 

Leicester City were champions of the Premier League very recently.

 

MM, Paixao and Sir Dave were all heavily involved in getting them up, then there.

 

A much better comparison, Thai owners etc, than some random other folk from China (who might look a bit similar).

 

Also Reading as a sidenote.......

Edited July 7, 2020 by sonofbert2

[bazapeps]

2 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

That’s why he bought advisors.

Paxo? Or the numerous staff that have arrived at SWFC and always last just a matter of weeks?

[sonofbert2]

2 minutes ago, bazapeps said:

Paxo? Or the numerous staff that have arrived at SWFC and always last just a matter of weeks?

 

He bought a 3 year investment package from MM which included at least Paixao, Sir Dave and maybe others?

 

But the initial deal is easy to find if you do some research and was fronted by MM.

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.  The whole recent mad history of this club can be tracked via our shirt sponsors.

[Manwë]

Not that I answered the survey, but I'd firmly be in the 52%.  Maybe "worry" is the wrong word however, "annoyed" is more appropriate.

 

The Club is interlinked with the stadium, it's our home and has been for over a century.  You can't just turn it in to a buy-to-let and become a tenant without a tinge of sadness attached.  

 

Selling Hillsborough was the equivalent of selling the family jewels in my opinion, and the first time that I questioned Chansiri, followed by the 10 year season tickets.  These are the actions of someone who is playing catch up on debt, and gambling to have enough to pay for the next debt that lands on the doormat.  It's hand to mouth stuff, it's desperate.

 

If I was to worry, then it's on two things:

a) I don't believe that Chansiri can "gift" Hillsborough back to Wednesday.  I'm not an accountant, but it feels wrong and I'm sure HMRC would wonder why an asset previously recognised to be worth £60m (in our words, or that of a third-party assessor) is now changing hands for £0.  I believe that if Hillsborough is ever to come under the Wednesday umbrella, we (the club) are going to need to pay for it.

b) If/When we are eventually sold, that the club and Hillsborough are a permanent landlord-tenant relationship.  

 

Remember two things also.  The sale of Hillsborough wasn't to fund investment in the Club, a new ground or anything else.  it was to pay the operating costs for a season or two.    Secondly, an example on our very doorstep, we have seen Rotherham United play football at Don Valley when the owner of Millmoor couldn't/wouldn't agree that they could play football in what I would describe as their rightful home.

 

What do we have to show for all of this?  A few transfer embargoes, an EFL hearing about our finances and mid-table football.  Forestieri doing his love-heart thing.  Woohoo.  And like the addicts we are, we thank the man who put us in this  god-awful financial position for keeping us treading water while slowly sinking.   

 

We must be off our rockers! 

 

[WalthamOwl]

Completely agree OP. Really don’t understand how some aren’t concerned about the fact the ground has been sold. We are on a very slippery slope. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by WalthamOwl

[bigthinrob]

35 minutes ago, cbirks said:

 

Hillsborough was not owned by DC, it was owned by Sheffield Wednesday. If DC sold Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough would have gone with it, remaining in Sheffield Wednesday's possession. 

 

It is now not owned by Sheffield Wednesday, it is owned by DC - or rather, actually, a different company owned by DC. Now if DC sells Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough will not go with it, it will remain in the possession of DC. 

 

I've made this point many times, and normally the response is, like yours, that the sale of the stadium makes no difference. 

 

The cartoon indicates that the 'that'll never happen' attitude of many is overly trusting at best. At Wigan, the owning company created another company, loaned a fortune to it, sold Wigan to that company, and used repayments owed to itself by the new company to pump all value out of Wigan.

 

This is the reality of limited company ownings, dealings, and behaviour. 

I think your argument is a strong supporting case for DC not the reverse as you clearly intend. Isn't the bigger danger, the constant clamour of the anti DC mob, that he bug**rs off and sells to someone else. That SOMEONE actually meaning ANYONE as in completely ANYONE.

 

I think DC has shown a level of naivety, some would say incompetence, (probably the same thing to be fair) but at least he comes across as having the club at heart.

 

We could maybe find better if we were unbelievably lucky, or (more likely) we could do infinitely worse, as demonstrated by numerous recent examples and dodgy business practises as you highlight, Wigan being just the latest. 

 

Usually, maintaining the status quo & doing nothing is not my style, but in this case, 'sticking' rather than gambling is the best option, unless we want to end up like some of the other casualties. 

 

 

[Animis]

51 minutes ago, cbirks said:

 

Hillsborough was not owned by DC, it was owned by Sheffield Wednesday. If DC sold Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough would have gone with it, remaining in Sheffield Wednesday's possession. 

 

It is now not owned by Sheffield Wednesday, it is owned by DC - or rather, actually, a different company owned by DC. Now if DC sells Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough will not go with it, it will remain in the possession of DC. 

 

I've made this point many times, and normally the response is, like yours, that the sale of the stadium makes no difference. 

 

The cartoon indicates that the 'that'll never happen' attitude of many is overly trusting at best. At Wigan, the owning company created another company, loaned a fortune to it, sold Wigan to that company, and used repayments owed to itself by the new company to pump all value out of Wigan.

 

This is the reality of limited company ownings, dealings, and behaviour. 

 

But surely it's about the business valuation in the end.

 

If DC excludes the stadium from any sale, and for example rents it out to the club purchaser, this is simply valued and a price agreed accordingly.

 

DC has a hell of a lot of money wrapped up in SWFC, and will need most if not all back when he comes to sell. Every loss making season in the EFL that goes by just adds to the negative column.

[sMacLean]

I suppose it's time the 48% actually won something so I will say no infact they are correct.

[lanzaroteowl]

1 hour ago, cbirks said:

 

Hillsborough was not owned by DC, it was owned by Sheffield Wednesday. If DC sold Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough would have gone with it, remaining in Sheffield Wednesday's possession. 

 

It is now not owned by Sheffield Wednesday, it is owned by DC - or rather, actually, a different company owned by DC. Now if DC sells Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough will not go with it, it will remain in the possession of DC. 

 

I've made this point many times, and normally the response is, like yours, that the sale of the stadium makes no difference. 

 

The cartoon indicates that the 'that'll never happen' attitude of many is overly trusting at best. At Wigan, the owning company created another company, loaned a fortune to it, sold Wigan to that company, and used repayments owed to itself by the new company to pump all value out of Wigan.

 

This is the reality of limited company ownings, dealings, and behaviour. 

 

If anyone would be daft enough to buy the Club without the ground, more fool them.

[bigthinrob]

25 minutes ago, bazapeps said:

I should be surprised but I’m not. The last few months has seen a huge amount of bizarre and unfounded support and loyalty to our owner. Well it’s either that or a large % of fan base aren’t the most intelligent 

Sounds a bit like the majority of 'leave' supporter's who were touted by the cosy, Islington type chattering classes as "Not understanding the arguments" because they didn't happen to agree with them.

 

Ever considered, this 'Bizarre & unfounded' support is only 'Bizarre &unfounded' in your opinion and people who share your views.

 

Ever considered, this 'Bizarre & unfounded' support is as a result of fans that "aren't the most intelligent" as you put it, see with their own eyes and that what has happened to other clubs could easily happen to us if the anti DC mob got their way.

 

Ever considered that the way DC handled the season ticket refund issue compared to other owners & Chairmen, made them realise DC maybe isn't as bad as made out. 

 

Ever considered, the people who provide this "Bizarre & unfounded' support, are actually the ones capable of seeing the bigger picture and it is you and the ones who share your views that are actually the "percentage of fan's that aren't the most intelligent".

[sonofbert2]

MM came in, squared up with the bank, made us stable, got us up and all whilst maintaining the status quo.

 

It was a truly huge call to swap Megson for Jones and it paid off but he saw the potential and was always intent on flipping us at some point.

 

He had experience of the same at both Leicester and Portsmouth, most probably the same agents/advisors (definitely re. Leicester) and remember he first “sold” us to Mammadov and we had a shirt sponsor for a year not paid for before DC turned up.

 

The old Hillsborough “establishment” had their noses put out by MM because he beat them to it but he kept them sweet and remember we went up in a head to head with United.

 

DC was sold an investment, project and business plan along with the personnel to oversee it.  Folk think he’s daft but he wasn’t daft enough to go for the initial plan which involved huge commissions to Doyen as a whole rather than one-offs for work done.

 

The ticket prices were factored in, the reach out to locals on the commercial side were ignored, bit like some of our playing squad, been on too much of a good thing for too many years.

 

It’s turned messy and if I was him I’d probably feel that folk were a bit ungrateful.

 

He’d quite obviously lined Bruce up before Jos’ departure then gives him a break prior to starting before being fuckedover.

 

There’s more to the story but my battery is going but I still think he gets more stick than he’s due and naivety/inexperience and being a bit soft are probably his worst traits.

 

We lost to Hull at Wembley with a proper dodgy chairman who fans hated so much they didn’t turn up ffs!

 

Modern football, especially at our level, is totallyfucked.

 

 

[sonofbert2]

3 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

Sounds a bit like the majority of 'leave' supporter's who were touted by the cosy, Islington type chattering classes as "Not understanding the arguments" because they didn't happen to agree with them.

 

Ever considered, this 'Bizarre & unfounded' support is only 'Bizarre &unfounded' in your opinion and people who share your views.

 

Ever considered, this 'Bizarre & unfounded' support is as a result of fans that "aren't the most intelligent" as you put it, see with their own eyes and that what has happened to other clubs could easily happen to us if the anti DC mob got their way.

 

Ever considered that the way DC handled the season ticket refund issue compared to other owners & Chairmen, made them realise DC maybe isn't as bad as made out. 

 

Ever considered, the people who provide this "Bizarre & unfounded' support, are actually the ones capable of seeing the bigger picture and it is you and the ones who share your views that are actually the "percentage of fan's that aren't the most intelligent".

 

You should have voted remain ffs....

 

[HighworthOwl]

[Manwë]

3 minutes ago, HighworthOwl said:

22% of people can't spell the number they're saying either.

[Nero]

1 hour ago, cbirks said:

As you may or may not be aware one of the best things in the ever-declining once-Manchester Guardian are the David Squires fooball cartoons. This week's is on Wigan's administration, and it does a very nice job of summarising a lot of the umbrella/holding/foreign-registered/sister company shenanigans that are going on at the moment:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2020/jul/07/david-squires-on-wigan-athletic-going-into-administration

 

I post this here because I remain numbly dumbfounded that, according to that survey, 48% of us aren't worried about the sale of the stadium to DC (or his company Sheffield Wednesday A/B/C/whatever-the-letter-is). 

 

We should all be worried. We should be really, really worried. 

 

Ps: bookmark David Squires page. The cartoons are great. 

Cheers

Have to say I love David Squires and there are some unbelievably funny cartoons in the archive. Plenty on Jose Mourhino.

Not many will bother looking at them though.

 

Im not quite as worried as you BTW, I dont think Chansiri is that bad although the source of his funds is a worry....all in all football is absolutely skrewed.

[pazowl55]

33 minutes ago, Manwë said:

Not that I answered the survey, but I'd firmly be in the 52%.  Maybe "worry" is the wrong word however, "annoyed" is more appropriate.

 

The Club is interlinked with the stadium, it's our home and has been for over a century.  You can't just turn it in to a buy-to-let and become a tenant without a tinge of sadness attached.  

 

Selling Hillsborough was the equivalent of selling the family jewels in my opinion, and the first time that I questioned Chansiri, followed by the 10 year season tickets.  These are the actions of someone who is playing catch up on debt, and gambling to have enough to pay for the next debt that lands on the doormat.  It's hand to mouth stuff, it's desperate.

 

If I was to worry, then it's on two things:

a) I don't believe that Chansiri can "gift" Hillsborough back to Wednesday.  I'm not an accountant, but it feels wrong and I'm sure HMRC would wonder why an asset previously recognised to be worth £60m (in our words, or that of a third-party assessor) is now changing hands for £0.  I believe that if Hillsborough is ever to come under the Wednesday umbrella, we (the club) are going to need to pay for it.

b) If/When we are eventually sold, that the club and Hillsborough are a permanent landlord-tenant relationship.  

 

Remember two things also.  The sale of Hillsborough wasn't to fund investment in the Club, a new ground or anything else.  it was to pay the operating costs for a season or two.    Secondly, an example on our very doorstep, we have seen Rotherham United play football at Don Valley when the owner of Millmoor couldn't/wouldn't agree that they could play football in what I would describe as their rightful home.

 

What do we have to show for all of this?  A few transfer embargoes, an EFL hearing about our finances and mid-table football.  Forestieri doing his love-heart thing.  Woohoo.  And like the addicts we are, we thank the man who put us in this  god-awful financial position for keeping us treading water while slowly sinking.   

 

We must be off our rockers! 

 

Thing regarding the ownership of the ground will remain the same until Chansiri decides it's time to sell us. Then he will just include it in the price of the ground. if they have to be separate then that's what he will do price for each. 

I dont see what he has to gain from keeping hold of it. We arent Manchester United. It's not going to make him massive amounts of money.

[Shiregreenowl 80]

1 hour ago, cbirks said:

 

Hillsborough was not owned by DC, it was owned by Sheffield Wednesday. If DC sold Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough would have gone with it, remaining in Sheffield Wednesday's possession. 

 

It is now not owned by Sheffield Wednesday, it is owned by DC - or rather, actually, a different company owned by DC. Now if DC sells Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough will not go with it, it will remain in the possession of DC. 

 

I've made this point many times, and normally the response is, like yours, that the sale of the stadium makes no difference. 

 

The cartoon indicates that the 'that'll never happen' attitude of many is overly trusting at best. At Wigan, the owning company created another company, loaned a fortune to it, sold Wigan to that company, and used repayments owed to itself by the new company to pump all value out of Wigan.

 

This is the reality of limited company ownings, dealings, and behaviour. 

Who would buy the club without the stadium?  And if he was to,  the value would be drastically reduced.  The only way I can see it going royaly wrong is if we do a macabe and get an outside investor in and there is a fall out. 

[daleblue]

2 hours ago, cbirks said:

 

Hillsborough was not owned by DC, it was owned by Sheffield Wednesday. If DC sold Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough would have gone with it, remaining in Sheffield Wednesday's possession. 

 

It is now not owned by Sheffield Wednesday, it is owned by DC - or rather, actually, a different company owned by DC. Now if DC sells Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough will not go with it, it will remain in the possession of DC. 

 

I've made this point many times, and normally the response is, like yours, that the sale of the stadium makes no difference. 

 

The cartoon indicates that the 'that'll never happen' attitude of many is overly trusting at best. At Wigan, the owning company created another company, loaned a fortune to it, sold Wigan to that company, and used repayments owed to itself by the new company to pump all value out of Wigan.

 

This is the reality of limited company ownings, dealings, and behaviour. 

 

OK, read all that but whats the point your making?

[kirksandallowl]

What can the chairman do now that he couldn’t before he sold the ground to himself?

 

there are a number of club who’s grounds are owned by separate related entities to the actual club, including our noisy neighbours who despite their recent public fanfare don’t actually own the ground, it’s owned by the parent company not the actual club. 

[OriginalAlien]

It's only an issue if the football club and the ground are owned by different people. As it stands DC owns both.

 

If you were looking to buy a football club and SWFC was on the list of clubs you were interested in would you go ahead and buy it if the ground wasn't included? I think anyone in their right mind would say no thanks, I'll look elsewhere.

 

If DC wanted to sell (no indication that he does) he would have to sell both club and ground as a single package.

 

Move on, nothing to see here. We've got other things to worry about.