Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Backtracking eh? That's not what you said in earlier posts. (Highlighted) Once again you don't know that!
When is a takeover, not a takeover (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Danceswithhorses
- Start date
Backtracking eh? That's not what you said in earlier posts. (Highlighted) Once again you don't know that!
Yes = from the Council with an initial loan from them!
Not disagreeing with you. Of course she will sell... just a question of how much. She says I don't want to sell. Someone has to come and say I'll give you, say, 10 million and then she says not enough, but come and look at books showing how well we are progressing....
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The sale has been completed so you can only assume yes.
Higgs started negotiations with SISU with no proof of funds, they shook on a deal, SISU reneged on it, came back with a "charitable donation" and then couldn't provide proof of funds. To suggest that talks wouldn't happen without proof of funds is bollocks and we've all witnessed the court case that proves it. The proof of funds happens after talks have begun and a figure has been agreed on. Unless you're SISU it seems.
Nick
Administrator
That's what I meant earlier, with the trust rocking up with the Telegraph waiting round the corner to get an exclusive it is a bit different from a rich arab rocking up throwing cold cash her way.
Why am I back tracking?
I have just run a search on the Company that is the SBT
No Accounts or Annual Return filed in 3 years in breach of the appropriate Acts - very professional
No wonder the members are in the dark
https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=29630&Suffix=R
The purchaser makes a bid and the vendor says have you proof of funds?
No point agreeing something to find the puchaser is broke!
Comes under the category 'worth a try'... plus the publicity and the discussion may just reach the ears of someone mad enough to join in with English football and take a punt...
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Depends on who's in with the fan led takeover. I don't think that there's a suggestion the fans will do this all on there own.
Nick
Administrator
What publicity and discussion though?
I agree that giving them a way out is worth a try and probably one of the only ways, but a fishing exercise to run back to the Telegraph to whip up some anger and get 4 or 5 articles out of and then a "buy my book" tweet or 2 inbetween can be seen a mile off.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Wtf you on about. they took on the loan for ACL and paid it off 20 years early. The loan wasn't Wasps in the first place.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Clearly that was Higgs mistake in trying to agree a price with SISU then. Thanks for clearing that up.
If what you say is true no company would bid for anything ever. Sometimes you have to speculate some time to generate some income.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
yep, but you can't blame them for trying!
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You might like your men to have ladies names but my names Pete sorry
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
SBT quiet rightly won't be conducting their business to suit individuals on here. Are they backed financially I would think definitely. Is it significant this has come out the day after big Steve moved aside from the chairman role.
Nick
Administrator
Conducting their business to suit their members. You would think that was a given surely?
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Yes but not to suit you. As said this is obviously the opening shot and a way to go but significantly has been made public.
Nick
Administrator
The members don't know do they about anything?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Why should they ?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Why wouldnt/shouldnt they be? I thought they were supposed to be transparent and work on behalf of its members. Offering to buy the club is a pretty big move strategically, I would have thought it would have at least have consulted with its members first.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
Yes like sisu, that's exactly what I mean, any businessman who is waiting for sisu to go tits up hasn't got the where withall to take this club forwards, my point is that 20,000 turning up week in week out might attract the right kind of owners, not the kind that want to sit back watching the football club being distressed so they can get it for naff all. Oh and I don't mean to work with sisu I mean to replace them.
thekidfromstrettoncamp
Well-Known Member
I think it would have been nice for her to meet them after all they said they were going to communicate more with the fans .She could still have said no sale but could have told us her plans going forward but there again why talk to your customers.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Maybe you should read their constitution http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/about-the-trust which has been the same since inception.
The Trust’s Aims are to:
- To build and maintain membership of the Trust;
- To secure supporter involvement in the ownership and management of the club;
- To advocate financial stability for CCFC, with a business model based on avoiding unsustainable debt, and profits being reinvested directly in the Club;
- To have City fans recognised as the lifeblood of the Club and at the heart of everything CCFC does.
- seek to work in partnership with the Club and all other stakeholders in CCFC;
- represent and give voice to the views of Trust members;
- pursue any viable opportunity to gain an ownership stake in CCFC;
- campaign for improvements to the match day experience.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I've already read them thanks. Regardless of their constitution, they should have consulted with their members on this IMO.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
thekidfromstrettoncamp
Well-Known Member
We vote people into office to act on our behalf why do they have to consult all the time.
What is there to consult about? They have not spoken to JS ( she knocked them back ). Should the members vote on whether they ask if the club is for sale? I thought the idea of a trust is for the fans to have some form of representation or even some share of ownership. They seem to be doing their job. When they are at a point to obtain ownership or fan representation, then I can see the point of consultation as to whether to go forward with the deal or not.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Do you think Martcov that joy is looking to sell? You seemed to suggest she is looking for a way out?
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
I knew it was in their plans to try and takeover, I hope it still is.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Making a formal approach for talks about fan ownership, given that it was always going to be made public.
That's my opinion, fair play you have a different opinion.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I think her staff got her company involved in a loss making image damaging project in an area she/ her company knew nothing about. They didn't do proper due diligence and she is stuck with it.
Under those circumstances, I can only speculate that she would love to either be bought out for a - for her - decent price, or someone joins her in the CCFC project with lots of capital and expertise or a passion to make CCFC viable.
I don't think she is enjoying having CCFC and I don't think she has the emotional attachment of a fan.
They would have had to show their hand before the talks ( if there were to be any granted ) were under way. Not the best starting point in negotiations. We both differ on this, but fair enough.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
It will never happen on a million years. No make that 248 years.
Would you if you read the CT campaign and had protesters on your door step?
Pehaps they might have had a better reception if the approach had been before these so why time it in the middle of a protest?
