At what point do you think fans should put pressure on the owners through public opposition', I'm thinking about Derby for eg. Some are saying serves the fans right, they took the gains of selling the ground to the owner etc etc. Where would your bottom line be?
Depends on the situation but if we just take our club, what would the bottom line be or are you just prepared to say its all down to the owners what happens? For eg. If we end up in admin like Derby? As I said , it's hypothetical.
When you apply pressure it's with the intention of steering something in a certain direction and I have no idea what direction you are suggesting we steer the owners in this hypothetical scenario. I'm not against protest but it has to have purpose, surely? What are we pressuring them to do?
So Hull fans wanting their previous owner out wasn't worth doing? Blackpool avoided any EFL sanctions because the fans had been boycotting the games. So hypothetically in your opinion its not worth fans protesting ?
My bottom line? My bottom line was them using 750,000 of the club's money to help fund the purchase. I haven't stepped foot inside Oakwell since and won't while this ownership is in charge.
I think we're reacting to the league position rather than anything else. The club has been lower in my life time under three different sets of owners. The time to pass judgement on these owners will be this summer after we've been relegated. If they stump up the cash to cover costs this will have all been hoohah. If they don't we've been right to raise concerns.
In my honest view they own the club it's theirs to do as they see fit. I'd be o.k with a cash loan and them taking their bit out through player trading and gate receipts. It might be frowned upon by some. My only gripe comes when it isn't working out on the pitch. That's what I pay to see. Granted the boardroom stuff is a concern. However, until the summer we just won't know. Anything else is conjecture and we're all going round in circles. The issues raised by @Archerfield and @DannyWilsonLovechild have concerned me about the club coffers being empty. Like I've said though we won't know until the summer.
If the club ends up in Administration, then the owners are no longer the owners. Can I explain what the process of Administration is, because I have read a lot of misunderstanding about the process across the BBS over recent weeks. The Administrator is a court appointment following an application by the Company owners. The Administrator takes over the running of the company on behalf of the Creditors. The Shareholders no longer have an interest in the company. They have lost everything that they have invested in Share Capital and they no longer have any rights or duties. The company will cease to exist in its present form at the end of the Administration process. The job of the Administrator is to recover as much money as he can in order to pay Creditors. His first and best option is to try to sell the company as a going concern, and he will try to find a new owner who will take over all of the company assets and retain the majority of its employees. In this case, the new owner will set up a new company by investing enough Share Capital to buy the assets of the old company from the Administrator. However, the company is in Administration in most cases because it was losing money, and this may indicate that there is no practical plan to pick up what remains and continue to run it as an ongoing business. In that case, the Administrator will sell off the assets of the old company, take his Administrators fee, and pay the balance to Creditors as a small fraction of what they are owed. The Administration process is full of uncertainty, and it is not one to be entered into without a full understanding of possible outcomes. It is certainly not an easy way out for owners, because they automatically lose ownership of the company and everything they have invested.
I'm glad you posted that and outlined the process a little. I can't see them doing nothing if it puts their (whoevers) investment capital at risk. They are here to try and make some speculative money. They can't make any money by failing to act and pushing us involuntarily into administration. They might be able to agree some form of phoenix prepack with the administrators, but that serves no ends. Thats generally a way of expunging debt, and given we don't currently have any (that we're aware of), that would make little sense. The much more likely scenario given a significant drop in revenue are forced player sales and budget cuts to generate cash to see us through the first league 1 campaign.
A few seasons cov fans wanted there owners gone after 2 relegations now they seem to be happy again. Blackburn wanted venkys out charlton protested. Last night someone on here who was very critical of cryne for cashing in on conor and winnall. Was having a dig at the owners for spending bringing dyke in on loan who nearly gained us 140 million. So i think sometimes no matter what the owners do it will be critisised and dont get me wrong im not a fan of these owners i just think to some no matter what they do it will be wrong.
it was agreed bonus for the directors for achieving promotion ,surely they can spend a bonus on what they want, we was 6 million better off getting back into the championship
Given our dialogue yesterday, you seem to be roping me in on this, and what you say certainly goes against what my recollection is of the said sales of Hourihane and Winnall. We didn't get proper value because we didn't get them signed on longer contracts when we should have. That was a mistake, a pretty evident one as we look back with what we know now. Frankly, I couldn't tell you what any of the posters on this board said a week ago, let ago around 5 years ago, so I'm surprised you're so confidently depicting me as saying this so long ago. So can I just ask you to go back and check I said that many years ago, because I think you've confused me with someone else. In terms of Dike. First, we don't know how much we paid, in a loan fee, wages, or the extra amount to allow him to play in the play offs. If it was circa £500k, that's a very considerable amount for a short term loan of a completely unproven player. He did pretty well for us as it turned out despite being unbelievably raw. But he could have been a Patrick Schmidt. Or Oulare. Or Thomas... or anyone else where the significant fees are looking bad investments. And we didn't own him. The difference now is we have owners who say they won't put money in at all. Thats a much more significant risk to our club than someone who will take a punt and back it with their own money and agreeing to write it off. I'm not calling for them to put money in. I'd just like them not to take it out and affect our liquidity and ability to compete. But I will highlight instances that are good or bad at any given time based on the information available, insight and instinct.
The deal was reduced in value because of the risk to championship status. If we'd been mid table or higher, the cost to PMG would have been an extra £6m. They bargained a reduction and agreed to the contingency of additional monies if we stayed up, or got promoted immediately. That was latterly negotiated to £3.5m that was due in instalments without conditions of division attached. It is not a bonus, it is reinstating the deal value based on BFC being a championship club, not a League 1 club.