Matt Richie

[sonicyouth]

what happens if the deal collapses, which is still possible at this late stage? what happens if the FL refuse to ratify it?

What happens is a player was sold to cover us now and if this happens would be my guess, part cash flow, part Insurance.

my point was what happens beyond that - if we have a wage bill of 250k per month, the Ritchie sale will surely only cover us for a month

[@MacPhlea]

If I were a 'silent partner' I wouldn't throw any cash at the club until the deal was ratified and completed - it would be a bit like paying money for substantial repairs on a house on which you have just exchanged contracts - if the deal falls through you have lost your money.  Doing it this way means neither party loses out...

As someone alluded to a number of days ago, buying a football club is just like buying a house...

[pauld]

If I were a 'silent partner' I wouldn't throw any cash at the club until the deal was ratified and completed - it would be a bit like paying money for substantial repairs on a house on which you have just exchanged contracts - if the deal falls through you have lost your money.  Doing it this way means neither party loses out...

Except for the club who lose a good player well under value. There's plenty of ways of doing this that protects both parties, so long as both parties are serious - put the money in an escrow account as an insurance against the FL blocking the deal for example. Unless you haven't got it, of course

[LittleRed]

Sounds like the new owners were unwilling to put in money (silent investors) until the deal is ratified. It's like paying for repairs on a house that you are waiting to have the mortgage approved for. Black drew a line in the sand and said no more beyond January. The only way the club could operate and pay wages was to sell Matt Ritchie. Im gonna be positive and think that these new owners are confident once the deal is ratified that they can make amends for this loss. The other scenario is that this consortium doesn't have a pot to p*ss in and they will keep the club just alive (with it being self funding) and gradually sell the good players off and cream a little off for themselves each time. This way they have not lost anything and financially gained themselves. They declare us insolvent and administrators walk in and sell the club or wind it up. I'm hoping for the former.

[pauld]

Sounds like the new owners were unwilling to put in money (silent investors) until the deal is ratified.

That's not what silent partner (I assume that's what you meant) means

[BenTheRed]

The other scenario is that this consortium doesn't have a pot to p*ss in and they will keep the club just alive (with it being self funding) and gradually sell the good players off and cream a little off for themselves each time. This way they have not lost anything and financially gained themselves. They declare us insolvent and administrators walk in and sell the club or wind it up. I'm hoping for the former.

At this level there is nothing to 'cream off' - only a couple of clubs turn a profit in the FL. They would be pretty foolish if they thought so.
I will await judgement until we here from them or their spokesperson

[Paolo69]

If you want to descend into semantics then you are possibly correct. However if you were a player with a mortgage to pay would you delay payment on the off chance that you get paid, equally Black who has essentially given the club £10m understandably didnt want to bung them another half mill for luck.

You need cash to pay people, simple as that.

Ummm sorry but i was only responding to you descending into semantics.

Fuck me i know you need money to pay people. My question is why so desperately? If the takeover is actually likely to be ratified in the next few days then i'm sure most players/people would understand. If not tough in the short term anyway. We wouldn't be the first club to defer payment of wages for a week.

Obviously players have mortgages and outgoings but you make it sound like the club had to give them a choice. It might piss them off a little but just tell them they're being paid this time next week. Most (if not all) would go along with it i'm sure.

[jonny72]

Except for the club who lose a good player well under value. There's plenty of ways of doing this that protects both parties, so long as both parties are serious - put the money in an escrow account as an insurance against the FL blocking the deal for example. Unless you haven't got it, of course

Not sure why they couldn't have guaranteed any advance against future player sales, or ticket sales.

But on the other hand, after Black got the club on the straight and narrow maybe he didn't want to do anything that could risk the club going bad again. So the only option was to sell quickly before the window closes. Having said that, why not wait until today on the off chance Austin goes or Birmingham get the cash to buy Caddis?

[Paolo69]

Not that simple. You might owe someone £100k now and be owed £200k that you're not being paid until next week. Technically (and according to the books) you're worth £100k, but in the short term your cash flow is fucked and you're broke.

Thanks but i know how cash flow works.

[pauld]

my point was what happens beyond that - if we have a wage bill of 250k per month, the Ritchie sale will surely only cover us for a month

Been worrying me too sonic. Bizarrely, I'm taking that as a positive sign that they must have at least some sort of cash behind them and/or a decent plan or they won't reach the end of the season. And that would be just too ridiculous even for us, wouldn't it?

[jonny72]

Wonder if they went to Burnley to see if they would buy out the sell on clause? Say he's valued (likely to be sold) at £8m and they paid us £2m with a sell on clause of 15%, it's worth £900k. Could have said give us £400k now to buy it out.

Southampton did the same thing with Arsenal for Walcott when they were in the shit.

[Paolo69]

Wonder if they went to Burnley to see if they would buy out the sell on clause? Say he's valued (likely to be sold) at £8m and they paid us £2m with a sell on clause of 15%, it's worth £900k. Could have said give us £400k now to buy it out.

Southampton did the same thing with Arsenal for Walcott when they were in the shit.

Might have been worth a shot. Although Arsenal do have a little more money than Burnley to throw around, despite Arsene's apparent reluctance to spend it.

[LittleRed]

That's not what silent partner (I assume that's what you meant) means

No that's not what I meant. Part of the consortium ( investor ) but not on the board. As I understand it it is these men that have the cash. These were the individuals that were not willing to put in the money until it the deal was ratified which is understandable. That's what I meant.

[london_red]

No that's not what I meant. Part of the consortium ( investor ) but not on the board. As I understand it it is these men that have the cash. These were the individuals that were not willing to put in the money until it the deal was ratified which is understandable. That's what I meant.

Huh? Did I miss that?

[pauld]

Huh? Did I miss that?

Think we've all missed that. It's yet to be demonstrated that anyone has the cash