Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: What's the problem?  (Read 3264 times)
herthab
TEF Travel

Offline Offline

Posts: 12016





Ignore
« on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 16:46:18 »

With regard to the 'new investment', I can't see why some people are getting their panties in a bunch.

If the new investor is prepared to pump millions into the club, he's probably a pretty shrewd businessman and would therefore identify any 'problem' people at the club and get rid. (Unless of course the 'problem people' aren't a problem, just not very likeable).

If the new investor is a figment of the boards imagination, that will become crystal clear over the next couple of weeks.

The Consortiums takeover proposals are in the hands of the solicitors, nothing can be done with regard to this bid by anyone not directly involved (Ie the consortium principals and the board).

Although worrying, the impending CVA payments are out of our control (and always have been) I can understand people's anger, but whether this new investor story was released or not, what can we do about it?

People talking about these issues is one thing, but there are an ever growing number on this forum who seem to react to every twist and turn in a totally disproportionate way, as if they themselves are involved and know all the facts. Some may, but a lot (Including me) don't and it's getting a bit annoying.

If you've had a converstion with MW, BP, PE and they've told you their plans in detail, great. If not, stop pretending that you know what's going on.

It's doing my fucking head in!


That is all.
Logged

It's All Good..............
stfctownenda

Offline Offline

Posts: 1803





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:11:38 »

We all have reservations on the investment, not too many people against it in all honesty, think we all just want more information.  I am sure I am one of many who would welcome a wealthy investor if he removed the current fools but without doing that nothing changes, surely you see that.

This guy puts millions of pounds in but somehow we still end up operating at a loss, we have no ground development and no money is being invested in the squad.  The accounts are inexplainable and the realisation that money is going missing from the club is a big worry.

Paying the CVA is a short term fix its like breaking your leg and using crutches but to fully recover we need an operation to get back on our feet again.  Bill Power, Phil Emmel and Mike Wilks have been open and honest from the start and yet the club still refuse to talk to them.

An investor can be kept under control and can have things hidden from them where as someone who takes over the club will be able to view all the incomings and outgoings of the last few years, which for me is the whole reason they will not enter talks IMO as 'dodgy' goings on have been frequently happening each season and the possibility of facing that being exposed and even criminal charges is holding certain board members back.

Having explored all sides in this I still hold the same opinion that the consortium is the best way forward for the club.  We get CVA paid, ground re-developed with profits ploughed back into the club and a fan on the board along with substancial financial clout to keep us going long term.

The laughable thing is the board think with these continued statements that we will go away the bottom line is that we have all been pushed too far to turn back now, I will not be happy until they all leave.
Logged
manc red

Offline Offline

Posts: 732





Ignore
« Reply #2 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:15:17 »

:goodpost:  thats sounds to me like common sense which means it has no place on here!
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34692





Ignore
« Reply #3 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:28:25 »

The problem is that its mosst likely total bullshit.....

    I can't think there would be anyone against a bona fide investor coming in and removing Newbury from the scene.   But we've reached the situation where very few people believe anythig emanating from the Board....I certainly don't believe a thing until I see it.
Logged
RobertT

Offline Offline

Posts: 7664




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:34:11 »

Quote from: "Reg Smeeton"
The problem is that its mosst likely total bullshit.....

    I can't think there would be anyone against a bona fide investor coming in and removing Newbury from the scene.   But we've reached the situation where very few people believe anythig emanating from the Board....I certainly don't believe a thing until I see it.


too trusting Reg, I want to be able to poke the investor in the eye before I'll believe it.
Logged
herthab
TEF Travel

Offline Offline

Posts: 12016





Ignore
« Reply #5 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:35:10 »

Yes Reg. It's quite possibly bullshit.....

So what?

Why not just ignore it until it's either proved or disproved?

My point was about people making a drama out of it.

As an aside, the name Simon Arber has been bandied about on thisis.........

(Just thought I'd add my own drama Cheesy )
Logged

It's All Good..............
RobertT

Offline Offline

Posts: 7664




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:38:18 »

That was my fault.  I intend to make it happen by virtue of repeating it often enough.  It is based on a little more than just a hunch though, like finding out he's been approached before and that he may be closely linked with the gang at SN1 via locality, kids etc.
Logged
OOH! SHAUN TAYLOR
- FACT!

Offline Offline

Posts: 13041



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:43:26 »

Here's Bob Holt with our potential 'investor' earlier today:

http://www.simpsonspark.com/images/references/cartoons/pierrafeu/lecerveau2.jpg
Logged
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker

Offline Offline

Posts: 36215




« Reply #8 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 17:45:24 »

I've mot goit a problem with the idea of an investor, just that there's lack of information. I want to know if the investor looks sound then I can either put 100% backing behind it now or if it looks dodgy I will make my feelings known. The Terry Brady debacle springs to mind. I would prefer if the info was released before the event happened.

What does matter is getting the people who run the club out. As I've said on another forum, were the Consortium simply to invest whilst somebody else launched a bid to fully take over the club, I'd probably support the takeover bid.

Incidentally we don't even know if SSW will retain ultimate control.
Logged
Lumps

« Reply #9 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 18:23:09 »

If it's Arber it would seem like he does have a few quid!

Founders pick up 40m as IT firm floats
Evening Standard
11 November 2005
RECRUITMENT tycoons Simon Arber and Bill Bottriell put a 140m value on their joint fortunes today after floating their SThree IT staff consultancy in a full listing on the Stock Exchange for 275m.

Although Arber, 47, and Bottriell, 48, have given up running the firm they founded nearly 20 years ago, they cashed in shares today worth 20m each and retained stakes in the business of about 18%.
There are other big winners in the float of SThree, which trades as Computer Futures, Progressive and Huxley. About 160 staff in the senior management and employee benefit schemes share a 170,000 average cash windfall, as well as retaining shares worth nearly 25m, or another 150,000 per person.

The current bosses, two former advertising salesmen, have also cashed in. Chief operating officer Sunil Wickremeratne took out 1m but retains a stake worth 21.5m. Chief executive Russell Clements made 3m from selling shares, keeping a stake worth 9.5m.

SThree's 200p-a-share offer price came in at the bottom end of a book run by UBS. In the first half of this year SThree made pre-tax profits of 8.8m on a turnover of 143m.
Logged
Iffy's Onion Bhaji
petulant

Offline Offline

Posts: 15863




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 18:40:11 »

well until we know who it is ill put the issue under the carpet. and as far as i am concerned at this current point in time there is no other investor and my full backing is with the consortium
Logged
reeves4england

Offline Offline

Posts: 15554


We'll never die!




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 19:00:34 »

I think Herthab made a good point about people going a bit OTT without knowing too much. I am quite frankly just desperate to get somebody in charge who will tell us what is going on. Nobody has a clue what's happening with the ownership of the club, the CVA payment and the takeover bids and the way the fans and shareholders are being treated is a joke.

I would be glad to see somebody new come in, but would prefer it to be the consortium as it would guarantee new faces in charge and the kind of changes we as fans want to see.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34692





Ignore
« Reply #12 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 19:26:30 »

Quote from: "herthab"
Yes Reg. It's quite possibly bullshit.....

So what?

Why not just ignore it until it's either proved or disproved?

My point was about people making a drama out of it.

As an aside, the name Simon Arber has been bandied about on thisis.........

(Just thought I'd add my own drama Cheesy )


 The "so what" is the pathetic little snipe from Andronikou at those of us who chose to criticise the Board and would  like to see them out.

 Could you imagine Bill P this time last year, floating out into the public domain, that he might withhold his investment because some fans had been horrid to the Board?
Logged
millom red

Offline Offline

Posts: 1588




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 21:38:18 »

Can understand where you are coming from Herthab, but a few things about this announcement re: a new investor just dont add up to me.
The first being that at least 2-3 people from sn1(including Bob "shake a stick" Holt) have thrown differing timescales into the frame as to when AND if this new investment will follow.
Also, surely anyone entering into negotiation re:buying or investing in the club would also have to get involved in NDA's and possibly some form of access to the books. (An investor would not have to enter into due-dilligence if i remember rightly)
This begs the question why the consortium have not been afforded the same!!!
And just what the fuck is an administrator doing making statements anyway?
Just my opinion, but i think this NEW INVESTOR is more likely to be a muse in order to shut the majority of us lot up....and i for one wont fall for it again.

Millom
Logged

f it dont need fixing....dont fuckin break it

Await The Day
yeo

Offline Offline

Posts: 3643





Ignore
« Reply #14 on: Thursday, May 17, 2007, 22:12:01 »

Its quite amusing really they have backed themselves into a corner such that they cant pull the "SSW will take his ball home if you dont shut up" line anymore so they have had to dangle a new investor to try and shut us up.
Logged

/
W56196272
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to: