Sale of the Club

[STFCforeigner]

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Paul-Baker-Cheltenham-Town-turned-Jed-McCrory/story-18125137-detail/story.html#axzz2KWyRwU72?8815916357&redirected=true

Just spotted this. Probably old news but hey

[Ardiles]

So Andrew Black retains a 25% shareholding?  That's still very significant.

[Bob's Orange]

"We did have an approach from the consortium who are now at Swindon, but we weren't convinced and you have to be very careful," Baker said.

"You have to be very thorough with your due diligence and the fact they want to become the controlling stake holders was a problem."

Sounds like the Cheltenham chairman wanted to keep the controlling stake, whereas Black doesn't. Little in this article really.

[Bob's Orange]

So Andrew Black retains a 25% shareholding?  That's still very significant.

I thought I read that it was 15%. Can't remember where though.

[Peter Venkman]

So Andrew Black retains a 25% shareholding?  That's still very significant.

I heard it was spread between Black, Wray and Fitton with Black holding the main part of it, something like 15%, 5% and 5%.

Could be wrong on that though.

[horlock07]

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Paul-Baker-Cheltenham-Town-turned-Jed-McCrory/story-18125137-detail/story.html#axzz2KWyRwU72?8815916357&redirected=true

Just spotted this. Probably old news but hey

To be honest doesn't actuslly say a great deal does it, they wanted majority ownership he didn't want to sell that, thats his perogative and good luck to him.

I think until we see photo's on pitch with scarves over heads we are piddling in the wind with regards to the new owners means, abilities and intentions.

It is fundamentally clear that no club can be sustainable on match day revenue alone and as has been said for probably 20 years until the CG is turning a return 365 days a year our level is probably at best where we are now if not a little lower, with inflated player wages etc we just won't have the income, its as simple as that.

I don't really understand the negativity regarding the developer ability of those incoming as we don't as yet know the power behind the throne (hopefully there is someone!), lets be honest after 4? years the present lot haven't made sparking progess, as I have mentioned earlier the tenure situation is tricky but neither rare nor unsurmountable. My one concern in all this is that unless there is some continuity at boardroom/management level the Council (quite rightly in some ways) will be very cautious to be dealing with artound the 5th? group of owners in 15 years, so that may be a delaying factor.

From the Twitter exchanges last night Mr McCrory seems a nice enough fella, but who knows if he has the ability to take us forward, a love of the game is a good start but there is always the fear of the Knighton situation in the back of my mind.

One interesting thing I wasn't aware of if the need for new owners to present a financed and deliverable 3 year business plan as part of the fit and persons test, this seems to be the stumbling block in our case as the Adver seems to suggest that all Directors have passed the review, is this normal as I cannot see how some of the shysters who have ownered other clubs have managed to pull this off?

Finally once this is done I will look forward to hearing some of the background/fall out from the previous owners. I do wonder whether the Ritchie sale was part of some last minute brinksmanship between the existing board, possibly to do with a final illustration to Fitton/Wray that if they didn't agree to reduce their liability the club would fold, i.e. Black saying well if you don't play ball I am not funding so we will have to sell best player which would also explain the mysterious fire sale email? Fitton and Wray have been very quiet (I suppose depends if media have spoken to them for quotes), but whilst I accept the NDA is in place they were happy to say stuff in media prior to all this?

Interesting times away, could be dreadful, could be wonderful, could be stable, to be honest as long as we avoid the former I would be happy!

[jimmy_onions]

I think until we see photo's on pitch with scarves over heads we are piddling in the wind with regards to the new owners means, abilities and intentions.

We have managed 119 pages of piddling in the wind so far. And what do we know for certain? Absolutely Jack.

[horlock07]

So Andrew Black retains a 25% shareholding?  That's still very significant.

I thought this was fairly common knowledge although I think the percentage depends on whether its 25% of post takeover, 25% of what he had or whatever. You can't blame him for wanting a bite of the cherry (if there ever is one) considering he is already in for £8m.

It comforts me that he wants to retain some shares as suggests he has got some confidence in them (and lets be honest he knows a damn site more about their backing and ability that we do!) I do suspect there is already links between him and possibly the money man, as you don't essentially give someone £8m unless you know a bit about them.

[Bob's Orange]

We have managed 119 pages of piddling in the wind so far. And what do we know for certain? Absolutely Jack.

Its Jed, not Jack.

[Reg Smeeton]

"We did have an approach from the consortium who are now at Swindon, but we weren't convinced and you have to be very careful," Baker said.

"You have to be very thorough with your due diligence and the fact they want to become the controlling stake holders was a problem."

Sounds like the Cheltenham chairman wanted to keep the controlling stake, whereas Black doesn't. Little in this article really.

Other than the new owners want to buy a lower league FC...I'd imagine Cheltnum are reasonably self sustaining, and could maybe establish themselves as a Div 3 side...but that's about it. So it rather begs the question why them?

[ahounsell]

To be fair with our average attendances compared to other clubs in this division, we should be creating enough revenue to stay competitive on the pitch and be sustainable.

The key in this scenario being the manager and board getting the most out of what they can afford, while also getting key decisions right. I think under Wilson/Fitton we saw the good and bad of a manager and board running a sustainable club.

In theory this should be the case as long as the wage cap is implemented effectively which it doesnt appear to be as yet.

Under Fitton / Wilson the club was still making big losses which were only sustainable as long as the owners were prepared to put cash in to cover the shortfall.

[horlock07]

In theory this should be the case as long as the wage cap is implemented effectively which it doesnt appear to be as yet.

Under Fitton / Wilson the club was still making big losses which were only sustainable as long as the owners were prepared to put cash in to cover the shortfall.

I am sure I have read somewhere what a small percentage of total revenue match day receipts make up for in clubs that are self sustaining, what with staffing, policing in addition to player wages it really is a drop in the ocean.

Say we get 8000 as an average of around £20 a ticket, with two games a month thats £320k, what do our players earn something like I don't know £3k a week (obviously some would be higer and some lower), but with a squad of around 20 thats already £240k on just the playing staff, leaving to £80k to staff both management, admin and matchday, pay the police, maintain the pitch and ground etc etc etc.

[RobertT]

Isn't 25% an important number of shares to hold.  If my memory serves me correct, this is a level at which some sort of blocking can occur to certain decisions regarding a company.  If that is the case, it is an important snippet of info, because it suggests Black, while wanting out from financing the club, still has an interest in the long term so believes something may still be in the offing to recoup some of the gifted capital.

[Arriba]

If we are going self sustaining which I doubt very much, then let the trust run the club, not people with no ties to the club. Fans won't like self sustainability though as our cloth will be cut alot more than flogging Richie.
I'd take it and think it will happen eventually but others wont.

[Batch]

25% holding is the amount required to block  a special resolution.  

http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1563&Itemid=514

Such resolutions are required, for example, to amend a company's articles of association.

What these powers do is give minority shareholders some real leverage.  Sometimes they are sufficient in themselves to enable the resolution of a dispute with a majority shareholder who may, for example, not relish the auditing of the company's accounts or being held to account at a general meeting.