The scale of the mess

I think a lot of this is hoohah. The chief exec and Chien and Co don't seem too fussed. I view that as a good sign. In all his interviews Khaled has reiterated he wasn't concerned about relegation. Baring in mind he's a mouth piece for the owners who have left the day to day running to him. If he was more laid back he'd fall over. It's either an act on his part of we've nowt to worry about.

 

I'd have to go back and look at the debtors position but you may be right. I honestly don't think we 'let' Mowatt's contract run down. Unless the club was telling big porkies regarding how great an offer had been made (and not just the one either). Not ruling it out for obvious reasons!

 

Having no money in a self sustaining model is a worry no matter how the CEO apoears.

 

I am no legal expert, so please do not take this post as gospel. I discussed this with Archerfield at the time via the private message system, and he tried and failed to obtain a judgement on it.

A company is a separate legal entity to the people who own the shares in it. If those people (the owners) want to take money out of a company, for example, in order to pay a debt to a former owner of the same company, then there are a number of ways of doing so. They could declare a dividend on their shares. In that case, the Cryne shares would also attract that dividend. What is more, that dividend is taxable at source, and also as income in the hands of those who receive the dividend, before they pay it on the the final recipient. They could pay themselves a wage in proportion to their shareholding, but that wage would suffer the same problems as a dividend. They could get the company to loan them the money, but that loan would appear as a debtor on the company Balance Sheet, so we know they did not do that.

Why do I think it is illegal to declare the debt a company expense, and pay it to the Cryne family from the company. Well, the individuals who owed the money represent only 80% of the shareholders. The other 20% of the shareholders are the Cryne family. The payment of £750k reduces the value of the company by £750k and therefore the value of all shares by that amount. That means that the value of the Cryne's 20% shareholding went down by 20% of £750k (£150k). That effectively means that the Crynes paid £150k of their debt of £750k themselves. Now, I believe the transaction is illegal for all of those reasons, but as I say, I am no expert.

 

Apart from the usual poor transfer windows, the problems stem from the owners' decision to change the style of play from the "vertical football" of VI to ticka tacka. A continuation of last season's style with maybe a gradual move towards "passing" football would have at least kept us competitive and ensured Championship survival.

Edit; maybe...

 

I always think that us ordinary people ( that is not footballers) if we didn't do our jobs properly ie Benson Oulare etc. We would have been sacked without having contracts paid up. Why can't that happen in football then we might get more effort if nothing else

 

I think it’s because it’s such a specialised job with limited candidates football clubs can’t afford the bad publicity of sacking someone based on a very subjective measure. Unless it says in the contract you must score 20 goals, or average 12 passes with a success rate of 85% or higher then there’s no real way to measure if you’ve broken your terms of employment. So if you sack someone “for being a bit carp” then no serious agent is going to tout his player to you and no player is going to accept such working terms where they could get sacked.

 

As decisions go, it was sheer lunacy. Spend 4 years bringing in players and coaches based on a high pressing game. Then try to reverse it all in one summer.

We ended up with Schopp, who clearly couldn't come up with a plan to press teams without being carved open on the counter. Whereas, Struber and Ismael particularly, had plans for what to do if teams got behind us.

 

But isn't that the effect of doing a deal whereby your stake reduces to 20%? The decision to pay the money the way they have will be the decision of the whole Board. The 20% stakeholders may disagree with that, but they have agreed to a deal that places them in the minority. It doesn't affect the position that the decision is that of the whole Board. So hard to see that it is illegal. Whether it is ethical is another matter - and not for me to judge!

 

The company Share Capital is the subject of the transaction, therefore the company cannot be required to stump up the cash. Companies can not own their own shares. There may have been a board meeting, and the Cryne family may have been outvoted at that meeting, but nevertheless, that does not automatically make the transaction legal. There are also rules under the Companies Act that ban the exploitation of minority share holders by the majority.

 

But the Crynes themselves haven't challenged this though, have they? I think their legal case relates to the separate payment of instalments? And I can't see why the Board can't make the decision mentioned in your first sentence, so longer as the Board meeting is properly conducted and the M/A of association are complied with? But maybe you have a statutory provision in mind? (I'm not well-versed in company law).

 

As I said in my opening remarks to Gally, I am no expert either. I do know that the payment cost the Cryne family £150k, but to continue with this discussion automatically means that I am claiming expertise in the matter, which I do not have. It is my opinion, and that is all it is.

 

On the playing side we have strived, and exceeded the 66% losing goal, but I'm not content.

 

Did they actually pay the £8m? What exactly is it that the Court case involves? As regards assets, probably the greatest asset the club has is its share in the football league, which i know the league will not assist anybody in valuing

 

I believe they paid £7.1m, but my memory is letting me down, so I cannot confirm it. I believe the court case relates to additional payments which were dependent upon certain events taking place, but once again, my memory is failing me. Perhaps someone with an actual working memory can take over.

 

I think your point about FGR is valid especially on the back of a successful season personally and the club.
That said the rest about being out on loan really boils down to the communication and vision given to him by the club.
In other words if they have convinced him his long term future is better with his loans he would be happy. Equally if he felt like an unwanted spare part he wouldn’t.

 

If they can explain why the transaction involved a loan from the club to the parent company, which it appears was paid to the Cryne’s then subsequently written off by the club, rather than a direct payment from the club (if it was the club’s debt) I’d be very interested in hearing it. If it was a convincing explanation I might even consider renewing. Although probably not.

 

You presumably realise that if this transaction was ‘legal’ there’s another £2.75m that should follow the same route.