New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

Genuine question: did the Trust know about “Zav’s” background when they jumped into bed with him?

I watched back the OSC interview with him. Don’t worry, laundering drugs money is a “paper crime” and “no one got hurt.”

The Trust are not 'in bed' with Zav. The Trust is legally connected to the Club via the CGJV as 50/50 owner of the assets it owns (The CG).

I have to admit, I did find it intriguing that the club didn't have to shell out any cash to assume an asset of some worth.  I presume the end game is the Management company set-up to run/own the freehold will be a 50/50 split with legal entity that owns the Football Club.  As such, they'd get to add 50% of the value of said asset to their books.  Any idea what the value of the Asset is post sale?  I presume more than the sale price, or at least that amount?  Also, the club will have a long term leasehold, which is also of value, just like someone "owning" a flat.  Both of these items offset the Directors Loans (which themselves are soft debt, if there is such a thing), making a future purchase by someone more palatable.  Clem does come out of this sitting much prettier than he would have done on Day One, even allowing for the smaller purchase price.  In reality, the club was nearly worthless.

The Club holds 50% ownership of the asset on its balance sheet meaning if the Club was to be sold, the ground has to be sold with it. If the club wants to move said asset into a different company, there is a lengthy process that the CGJV board has to vote in favour of but a majority. Clem might not have paid for the ground directly and the funds have come from Nigel Eaady Trust but on the balance of things, Clem has 'paid' in other ways when you look at the bigger picture.

[Bogus Dave]

My recollection was that The trust always claimed they had done all their due diligence on Zav Austin and posted a loving article about him and how they ‘owed him a pint’ for introducing clem to the club

[Steak supper]

 I suppose clem actually pays when the writes off the debt owed to him

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

My recollection was that The trust always claimed they had done all their due diligence on Zav Austin and posted a loving article about him and how they ‘owed him a pint’ for introducing clem to the club

The 'loving article' you are referring to was written by an opinion columnist on the Trust website. Not written by the Trust.

[Posh Red]

posted a loving article about him and how they ‘owed him a pint’ for introducing clem to the club

I think this is part of the problem, both Clem & the Trust feel like they owe Zav a favour so are finding it difficult to bin him off.

The problem is the longer it’s allowed to carry on the more toxic it’s likely to become

[Steak supper]

 Hopefully super marine will still be around when it all goes sour

[RobertT]

I'm not so sure you can claim Clem paid anything when it comes to the stadium deal.

He is the sole owner of a business that now has a 50% stake in a Holding Co that owns a single Asset - the stadium, and will presumably be the main vehicle for development.  He paid no consideration for that.

He is also the owner of a football club that now has a 90+ year lease on a football ground for 50% of the amount they were previously paying.  That is an immediate reduction in operating expenses and an immediate re-valuation upwards of an existing asset (the current lease deal was not a long term one, was it? - certainly all but depreciated on the books).

The Balance sheet is transformed over night.

The P&L has a positive impact through no financial risk.

I'm not saying the future doesn't come without costs - the partnership has to finance development somehow.  Just that I'd be a very happy football club owner if that were the end result.

Sure, he has had to pay people their debt back, and now has that all tied up as interest free loans to the football club.  However, he's been given a much easier sell in the future than any predecessor will have had for many a year.

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

I think this is part of the problem, both Clem & the Trust feel like they owe Zav a favour so are finding it difficult to bin him off.

The problem is the longer it’s allowed to carry on the more toxic it’s likely to become

To be frank, the Trust has no feeling of owing anyone favours. If there is any sentiment within the Trust as such, it's the sentiment of individual views as everyone is free to their own opinions and sentiment towards individuals.

[RobertT]

The 'loving article' you are referring to was written by an opinion columnist on the Trust website. Not written by the Trust.

Really - you are going down that road?  I am a fan of the Trust, remain so, but that's stretching it a bit.  Everything posted on the website comes with association.  I don't even know what we are talking about, but that response is a tad weak.

[Steak supper]

 the trust communications on here are very defensive and that worries me

[Formerly Drummer Boy]

Really - you are going down that road?  I am a fan of the Trust, remain so, but that's stretching it a bit.  Everything posted on the website comes with association.  I don't even know what we are talking about, but that response is a tad weak.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that whatever is posted on the Trust website comes with an association regardless of what is said. However, the sentiments that are remembered is skewed, skewed IMO by our own doing admittedly.
 
There is a conversation about where would be had it not been for Zav's actions, but that's another debate completely that I have zero knowledge of. However, as a serving board member, I cannot say I agree with the sentiment that I 'owe Zav a pint'.

[Nemo]

the trust communications on here are very defensive and that worries me

(Not a Trust board member, never have been)

I'm honestly surprised they aren't more defensive (bitey). They're unpaid volunteers who give up often a lot of their time to try and help the club - whether they get everything right or not (they don't), they don't deserve to have their motives called into question. They're not club employees who get paid with the expectation of taking the abuse, and they're rightly proud of the deal to get the ground. If I was them, I'd be fucking furious that the absolute shambles we're seeing on the pitch is not so much taking the shine off their crowning achievement as it is smearing it with huge volumes of shit.

If some anonymous shitstirrer started telling the world that every trust board member (12 of them I think - I'm sure there are disagreements between groups within that) are blind to the potential risks of some of the characters around the club, I'd probably bite as well. Not saying it's helpful for them to do so - I'm sure it's not - but it must be frustrating as hell to read this sort of thing, especially knowing that this basically all goes away if we aren't shit on the pitch.

Once again, the Trust is very cheap to join and anyone can stand to be a board member. Think the current incumbents are doing a bad job and want the Trust to go back to "sack the board" mode? Stand as a candidate for the board and you can make that change if enough members agree with you.

[Laddy in Red]

Some anonymous dickhead calls me a naive clown after hours of voluntary work to sort the CG purchase, I'd be defensive too.

[Posh Red]

To be frank, the Trust has no feeling of owing anyone favours. If there is any sentiment within the Trust as such, it's the sentiment of individual views as everyone is free to their own opinions and sentiment towards individuals.

Ok, do you (the Trust) think that a convicted criminal should be involved with the club at board level.

Hopefully you would say a definitive No, if that is the case you should be telling Clem & Rob in no uncertain terms that he should be nowhere near the club.

The fact that you (the Trust) haven’t done that publicly would suggest you are either happy with it, or are trying not to rock the boat.

[RobertT]

Agreed - tough job.

My questions here were more posed at the club side - I have nothing but respect for the Trust gaining traction in the Ground purchase.  Even if it leaves 50% somewhere else, i'd "Trust" them way more than the Council to have the best interests of the club at heart.

My musings are more on the club operations side/ownership model.  Clem comes out of this a "lucky" man - or maybe he saw the potential here to seize the club and push towards this.

Certainly everything else the club is doing is looking like it is riddled with incompetence OR a business stifled of the funding for the right staff/infrastructure, with less than stellar people involved.  Put the two together, and the flip model for selling a business looks much more compelling that someone may have though when looking at the place two years ago.