|
Flashheart
|
 |
« Reply #600 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:19:32 » |
|
It was a joint decision wasn't it?
Black sanctioned the sale because it prevented him from having to chuck in another £500,000 in January.
It as a joint decisions yeah. I just....... never mind. I think I've sort of forgotten the point I was trying to make now anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #601 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:23:07 » |
|
Also, when was it said that Jed has loaned anything to the club? I must have missed this.
Q: How has the reported £1.2 million shortfall following the withdrawal of Andrew Black’s funding been covered for this season? A: Investment. --------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Is the investment in equity or by way of a loan? A: An interest-free loan. http://www.truststfc.com/2013/05/trust-stfc-reaction-re-jed-mccrory-answers-to-fans-questions/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
 Offline
Posts: 27137
|
|
« Reply #602 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:27:05 » |
|
It as a joint decisions yeah.
I just....... never mind. I think I've sort of forgotten the point I was trying to make now anyway.
You mean why would Black sell for £1 but leave £500k in the bank? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #603 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:29:05 » |
|
You mean why would Black sell for £1 but leave £500k in the bank?
Something like that yeah. Why leave that behind for other people that are nothing to do with him. But then both parties may have agreed to it at the time and I may be talking out of my arse, wouldn't be the first time  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #604 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:34:09 » |
|
But hopefully the last. We deal with facts around here and not speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #605 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:36:14 » |
|
We deal with facts around here and not speculation.
Well that's a new development. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #606 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:51:13 » |
|
Why can't you be more like Dr Pierre Chang?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #607 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 17:53:17 » |
|
I don't have the sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dalumpimunki
Offline
Posts: 1075
|
|
« Reply #608 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 18:21:19 » |
|
Why are people assuming that the Ritchie deal left the club with £500k in the bank at the end of January.
How many football transfers are done cash up-front? Not many.
Anyone know if there was a sell-on clause when we bought him from Pompey?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
..never go back.
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55469
|
|
« Reply #609 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 18:29:45 » |
|
Why are people assuming that the Ritchie deal left the club with £500k in the bank at the end of January.
How many football transfers are done cash up-front? Not many.
Watkins (I think) said something about this deal being the best in terms of cash up front compared to the higher offers that came in. Doesn't invalidate your point, but the club were desperate for cash rather than IOUs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
cheltred69
Offline
Posts: 1028
|
|
« Reply #610 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 19:09:07 » |
|
I recall that the reason given for the apparently low fee was that it was cash up-front.
Also think it was reported that Pompey had sell-on clause that took up some of the fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
iffy
|
|
« Reply #611 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 22:09:19 » |
|
Watkins (I think) said something about this deal being the best in terms of cash up front compared to the higher offers that came in. Doesn't invalidate your point, but the club were desperate for cash rather than IOUs.
Bournemouth do seem like a 'cash-rich' club these days. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChalkyWhiteIsGod
TOLD YOU SO
Offline
Posts: 6504
|
|
« Reply #612 on: Sunday, June 2, 2013, 23:24:45 » |
|
Do you think the FL would approve the takeover?
I think so. Despite the trust having no money the FL approval seems to be mainly down to ensuring a bunch of crooks aren't going to take over. You'd be hard pressed to not sanction a fan takeover. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3847
|
|
« Reply #613 on: Monday, June 3, 2013, 07:43:55 » |
|
Wonga.com then. Interest free for a month, then.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PetsWinPrizes
Offline
Posts: 865
|
|
« Reply #614 on: Monday, June 3, 2013, 08:43:47 » |
|
Something like that yeah. Why leave that behind for other people that are nothing to do with him. But then both parties may have agreed to it at the time and I may be talking out of my arse, wouldn't be the first time My reading of it is this. The Club had a shortfall of income to it's expenditure, which Black was under writing each month. From the end of January (the end of the financial year) he was no longer to prepared to do this. So, with the Takeover (or even Takeovers at that stage) not looking like they would be completed by Jan 31st, he sanctioned sale of Ritchie for cut price deal, on condition that the cash was paid up front. This money (minus presumably what Pompey got) was to to cover the monthly short fall until the new lot took over, and avoid administration. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
