Adver News: Town release Ritchie statement

[Paolo69]

The point being that the misleading reporting had other people that were unaware of the situation thinking the club has a huge sum of external debt. This was never true. Not only did it happen once but they continued with it afterward as well. It was sensationalist, misleading crap that was not necessary.

If it was claimed the club was selling to avoid administration because Black was no longer willing to fund it, that would have been fine. Instead, they jazz it up as much as possible to get hearts fluttering and have other clubs and their supporters thinking we owe lots of money to business & HMRC etc. 

I agree with every word.

[DiV]

Clearly and worringly the new consortium dont have money to put in....the old lot wasnt putting anymore in.

That means no money in the coffers for day to day running.......the reason i suspect Muff got him cheap was that they were probalby prepared to pay it up front......most transfer fees are paid in instalments these days at our level.

My worry.....the consortium havn't bought the club....they have been given it on a platter.

So why even bother buying the club then...

[thedarkprince]

Clearly and worringly the new consortium dont have money to put in....the old lot wasnt putting anymore in.

Sorry, is it that clear?  Nothing at all about the sale of the club has been clear so don't know how you've arrived at that.

[kerry red]

So - we are all agreed then.

We've been taken over by asset strippers, chancers and n'er-do-wells.

Shady fuckers nobody knows anything about and whose intentions for the club are anything but clear.

This whole episode stinks and the only cash they have has probably been found down the back of a sofa.

Half-arsed, half-baked fucking piss takers who will right royally butt-fuck each and every one of us

[Abrahammer]

You seem to know a lot about these "Shady fuckers nobody knows anything about"

[Benzel]

Are we all agreed on that then?

[Bogus Dave]

So - we are all agreed then.

We've been taken over by asset strippers, chancers and n'er-do-wells.

Shady fuckers nobody knows anything about and whose intentions for the club are anything but clear.

This whole episode stinks and the only cash they have has probably been found down the back of a sofa.

Half-arsed, half-baked fucking piss takers who will right royally butt-fuck each and every one of us

Laughoutloud

[Ticker45]

We will never know all the ins and outs of this I doubt.

Just speculating - is this the last day that HMRC has to be informed of all personal tax matters and that is why Mr Black wanted it moved on so quickly? As I say, just supposition and could be miles away from the real reason.


 

[sonicyouth]

Incidentally, I trust FlashHeart, sonic et al will be sending off their apologies to Chris Wise at their earliest convenience

i'm glad you've got the perspective to understand the real issue at hand

[ghanimah]

I call bullshit.

Two consortiums of wealth business men couldn't find a way to fund 400k so sold their best asset at about a third of what it's worth. Bollocks.

Or another way of looking at it...is entering the murky world of boardroom politics. Black clearly wants out, and is prepared and rich enough to take a hit on his investment - as a long stop. Other not so rich chaps part of the original consortium are not prepared to take that hit. It's not unreasonable to assume that the original consortium had a legal arrangement drawn up between themselves which in the advent of a member unilaterally leaving could subject themselves to a legal challenge.

So Black issues a challenge - take a hit on my terms or I'll take the company into administration which will mean a bigger hit on your investment.

Of course with bluffing you have follow through if it's called upon. Selling the best player for a knockdown price - to prevent administration - is a good way to demonstrate the seriousness of your challenge.

(I could of course be talking bollocks)

[pauld]

i'm glad you've got the perspective to understand the real issue at hand

No just a snidey side-swipe. There's always time to take time out for that. Given that all the perspective and bullshit we spout on here doesn't amount to shit anyway

[BruceChatwin]

Sorry, is it that clear?  Nothing at all about the sale of the club has been clear so don't know how you've arrived at that.

It's not clear, no, but if the consortium's intentions were long-term and their finances were good (meaning no fear of snags with the takeover), and they'd been willing to invest the short-term wages it would cost to keep the team going while they awaited FL approval for the change of ownership, they could potentially have got a much bigger deal for Ritchie down the line.

In the long term, the club's probably lost about £400,000 in transfer fees. That's THEIR CLUB that's just lost that money. That's a substantial loss for anyone SERIOUS coming in and looking to be here as long term owners of the club to accept on the verge of their takeover if it was against their wishes. Especially added to the damage it potentially does for the chances of that team getting to the Championship and the payday there.

We have to remain open-minded, but we are within our rights to be suspicious. Something doesn't sit right about that decision.

[iffy]

Or another way of looking at it...is entering the murky world of boardroom politics. Black clearly wants out, and is prepared and rich enough to take a hit on his investment - as a long stop. Other not so rich chaps part of the original consortium are not prepared to take that hit. It's not unreasonable to assume that the original consortium had a legal arrangement drawn up between themselves which in the advent of a member unilaterally leaving could subject themselves to a legal challenge.

So Black issues a challenge - take a hit on my terms or I'll take the company into administration which will mean a bigger hit on your investment.

Of course with bluffing you have follow through if it's called upon. Selling the best player for a knockdown price - to prevent administration - is a good way to demonstrate the seriousness of your challenge.

(I could of course be talking bollocks)

This feels like it could be close to the truth. From the outside it's always felt like it was the consortium falling out with each other over the balance sheet. Don't forget Black was a professional gambler and he knows you can't beat the big stack.

[DiV]

Or another way of looking at it...is entering the murky world of boardroom politics. Black clearly wants out, and is prepared and rich enough to take a hit on his investment - as a long stop. Other not so rich chaps part of the original consortium are not prepared to take that hit. It's not unreasonable to assume that the original consortium had a legal arrangement drawn up between themselves which in the advent of a member unilaterally leaving could subject themselves to a legal challenge.

So Black issues a challenge - take a hit on my terms or I'll take the company into administration which will mean a bigger hit on your investment.

Of course with bluffing you have follow through if it's called upon. Selling the best player for a knockdown price - to prevent administration - is a good way to demonstrate the seriousness of your challenge.

(I could of course be talking bollocks)

If this new consortium don't have a spare 400k and couldn't get it any other way (ie even a short term loan from Black) then they sound pretty shit to me...

[jonny72]

If this new consortium don't have a spare 400k and couldn't get it any other way (ie even a short term loan from Black) then they sound pretty shit to me...

Using the house analogy, you wouldn't pay money out on repairs on a house you were buying until the sale had completed. If you did and the sale fell through you'd have lost that money. Think the Le Tissier consortium lost a large sum in similar circumstances when their purchase of Southampton collapsed.