Big E Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 ED clearly wants his legacy / stranglehold (however you want to view it) to live on in my eyes It’s ok saying if we go up a £15m success payment is peanuts. On the flip side of that why be so insistent you want that money considering you’ve already written off circa £180m? It’s peanuts what he’s asking for in relation to that. Just seems unnecessary When he give up ownership he should’ve let go of the whole lot. It’s easy for me to say that as I’m not owed £15m and written off over 10 times that but it does beg the question why he’s holding the club to the final 1% of his link to it when he’s cut ties with the other 99%... It’s like breaking up with a bird dropping all her gear off at her mums but keeping one of her shoes Just makes the progress and stability of the club more difficult moving forward Because he never had / lost £180million it’s one big fuck off tax fiddle.£15 million would be cold hard cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sluffy Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) ED clearly wants his legacy / stranglehold (however you want to view it) to live on in my eyes It’s ok saying if we go up a £15m success payment is peanuts. On the flip side of that why be so insistent you want that money considering you’ve already written off circa £180m? It’s peanuts what he’s asking for in relation to that. Just seems unnecessary When he give up ownership he should’ve let go of the whole lot. It’s easy for me to say that as I’m not owed £15m and written off over 10 times that but it does beg the question why he’s holding the club to the final 1% of his link to it when he’s cut ties with the other 99%... Just makes the progress and stability of the club more difficult moving forward As far as I recollect things (and I've not checked back to confirm them like I usually do) I remember things going something like this - When Davies wrote off a big chunk of his debt (over £150 million I think) he left something like £25 debt still in the club when it was sold to Holdsworth/Anderson. My understanding was that it laid on the books to prevent anyone attempting to asset strip - ie with the debt in place there were very few assets left to strip! I understood that this was a preventative measure on not intended to be called in. A little while later the debt was reduced down again but this time the debt was payable if we met certain targets, such as getting promoted to the Premier within about 5 years. It was said at the time no one expected us to meet such targets as we were now in the old third division, with no money for players and under embargo - which did suggest that no one really did think we would be paying Davies back on them. At the last submission of accounts I again recall Anderson praising Davies help and advice since he took on the club. Also as an aside didn't Anderson state that he was looking for £25 million to sell the club debt free, which included clearing all the outstanding loans - which I assumed included Davies performance related loan as well. I can't really see from what we've been told in the past (as long as I've remembered it all correctly that is) that Davies target related loan is an issue at all. That's how I understand the position anyway if it helps? Edited July 1, 2018 by Sluffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfc87 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Can this stuff not be discussed in another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrycowdrill Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) As far as I recollect things (and I've not checked back to confirm them like I usually do) I remember things going something like this - When Davies wrote off a big chunk of his debt (over £150 million I think) he left something like £25 debt still in the club when it was sold to Holdsworth/Anderson. My understanding was that it laid on the books to prevent anyone attempting to asset strip - ie with the debt in place there were very few assets left to strip! I understood that this was a preventative measure on not intended to be called in. A little while later the debt was reduced down again but this time the debt was payable if we met certain targets, such as getting promoted to the Premier within about 5 years. It was said at the time no one expected us to meet such targets as we were now in the old third division, with no money for players and under embargo - which did suggest that no one really did think we would be paying Davies back on them. At the last submission of accounts I again recall Anderson praising Davies help and advice since he took on the club. Also as an aside didn't Anderson state that he was looking for £25 million to sell the club debt free, which included clearing all the outstanding loans - which I assumed included Davies performance related loan as well. I can't really see from what we've been told in the past (as long as I've remembered it all correctly that is) that Davies target related loan is an issue at all. That's how I understand the position anyway if it helps? Well if it was there as a preventative mechanism then so be it. Some could view it as a clever safeguard others as something else. Either way it’s there Now that could be viewed as a major obstacle to some potential buyers dependant on whether they want to chuck money at the club immediately and ‘do a wolves’ or not Quick success and promotion means heavy investment but fast return on their money to then be told they need to give not even the last owner but the last owner but one £25m of it Slow rebuilding and promotion targeted in 3-5 years means avoiding that repayment but seeing no return on their immediate investment with absolutely no guarantees that we get promoted anyway Edited July 1, 2018 by barrycowdrill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sluffy Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Well if it was there as a preventative mechanism then so be it. Some could view it as a clever safeguard others as something else. Either way it’s there Now that could be viewed as a major obstacle to some potential buyers dependant on whether they want to chuck money at the club immediately and ‘do a wolves’ or not Quick success and promotion means heavy investment but fast return on their money to then be told they need to give not even the last owner but the last owner but one £25m of it Slow rebuilding and promotion targeted in 3-5 years means avoiding that repayment but seeing no return on their immediate investment with absolutely no guarantees that we get promoted anyway Not sure where you think Davies is holding a £25 million loan over the club, I thought it was only the 'performance' related one and that was notionally around about £10 million I think, with it being flagged up as a 'soft' loan and one not expecting to be paid back? Nobody can buy a club in less than around three months at the quickest anyway, whilst all party's including the EFL do all the checks and balances and receive/give all the guarantees they are looking for or are required from them. I half suspect with not hearing from Ken virtually from the end of last season (to remind us to buy our season tickets, and our shirts and don't forget your concert tickets, etc) that something is going on in the background now, already. As for doing a Wolves, if anyone is going to do it this season I believe Forest are the club that seems to have suddenly come into money from somewhere or other, it's much to late for it to be us this season, so gradual improvement with the squad together with having to settle the £4.3 million BluMarble loan (thanks Dean) before September would seem to be our only obvious plan this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 But they were only worth a quid as that’s all someone was willing to pay at the time. Lots of debts made them assets worth what they were To answer your question birch who would take the club on not owning the assets at 1m loss each month? On the flip side, you’d have had a million scumbags lining up if it was just £1 and do what you want with the assets, they would have come in, sold them, wound the club up and taken a decent profit out at that price The deal was, you get it all for £1, if you strike it rich within X number of years you kick some back. As you say that was the deal that was agreed so that’s what the club was worth Does KA strike you as somebody who would have signed up to a really bad deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrycowdrill Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Not sure where you think Davies is holding a £25 million loan over the club, I thought it was only the 'performance' related one and that was notionally around about £10 million I think, with it being flagged up as a 'soft' loan and one not expecting to be paid back? Nobody can buy a club in less than around three months at the quickest anyway, whilst all party's including the EFL do all the checks and balances and receive/give all the guarantees they are looking for or are required from them. I half suspect with not hearing from Ken virtually from the end of last season (to remind us to buy our season tickets, and our shirts and don't forget your concert tickets, etc) that something is going on in the background now, already. As for doing a Wolves, if anyone is going to do it this season I believe Forest are the club that seems to have suddenly come into money from somewhere or other, it's much to late for it to be us this season, so gradual improvement with the squad together with having to settle the £4.3 million BluMarble loan (thanks Dean) before September would seem to be our only obvious plan this season. My mistake I wasn’t a hundred percent on the figures but I thought the performance related was around £25 rather than the £10m you’ve mentioned. Either way the principle /issues are the same I’m not saying we will do a wolves this season I’m just highlighting the 2 clear options that are available to investors / buyers. Again, either way however they want to approach it the money owed is a factor and may dictate which route they go down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomski Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 On the flip side, you’d have had a million scumbags lining up if it was just £1 and do what you want with the assets, they would have come in, sold them, wound the club up and taken a decent profit out at that price The deal was, you get it all for £1, if you strike it rich within X number of years you kick some back. As you say that was the deal that was agreed so that’s what the club was worth Does KA strike you as somebody who would have signed up to a really bad deal? KA was on a no lose imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 KA was on a no lose imo If it was a bad deal then that’s surely a ‘lose’ As you say, it was worth what it was worth Which was £1 + a kicker if either PL money comes in or assets like the ground are sold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomski Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) If it was a bad deal then that’s surely a ‘lose’ As you say, it was worth what it was worth Which was £1 + a kicker if either PL money comes in or assets like the ground are sold Its a bad deal to an investor. Throwing money at it and turning it round yourself then to cut the other fella in again. Where as Ken took it for a quid, not put any or much in (not a knock) if it works he makes money. If he can't save it, he walks away unscathed. Edited July 1, 2018 by tomski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
embankment Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 WHAT a load of waffle. I make more sense after 7 pints on Market Street. No one on here including me , has a scooby do on the goings on behind closed doors at the Macron. Can we please return to speculation on future signings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DazBob Posted July 1, 2018 Members Share Posted July 1, 2018 WHAT a load of waffle. I make more sense after 7 pints on Market Street. No one on here including me , has a scooby do on the goings on behind closed doors at the Macron. Can we please return to speculation on future signings. Amen. This thread is for made up transfer rumours, not serious shit like speculating on the club's ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane57 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Ruud Gullit walking round Jumbles tonight ITK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sluffy Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 WHAT a load of waffle. I make more sense after 7 pints on Market Street. No one on here including me , has a scooby do on the goings on behind closed doors at the Macron. Can we please return to speculation on future signings. No we don't know what is going on behind closed doors true, but much of what I've been recollecting is based on what Mr Anderson has publicly said in his Chairman's updates and/or from the clubs last accounts. To be honest I can't understand why people want to keep the clubs finances and potential future direction separate from potential signings as one directly influences the other. They aren't independent of each other. Anyway I'll say no more and let you get back to your seven pints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woofy66 Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 ED,got more out of club than he put in,the money he was owed was interest as he was getting 10% interest on his investment in the club,the money he put in he got back and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjayoghani Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Fuck me, let's not do this again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 ED,got more out of club than he put in,the money he was owed was interest as he was getting 10% interest on his investment in the club,the money he put in he got back and more. Shit, we’ve got an insider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morizio Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 eight players then, any ideas who they are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radcliffe white Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Fuck me, let's not do this again. prime time you have the ones who think they know the insides of the club and the twitter geeks who look too much into tweets. Same on Facebook got friends who added lee Anderson and asking questions on the club???????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rizlar Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 I am hoping now we are in July the signings will start happening. The 8 players I think are a striker winger 2 central mid and 4 defenders if Amos is staying posibly 4 on loan. Maybe Burke and Robinson being 2 of the loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulhanley Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 I am hoping now we are in July the signings will start happening. The 8 players I think are a striker winger 2 central mid and 4 defenders if Amos is staying posibly 4 on loan. Maybe Burke and Robinson being 2 of the loans. I think the eight are: Complete back four to supplement the four defenders we currently have (Little, Wheater, Beevers, Taylor). I'm not including Darby. 3 central midfielders 1 striker If Amos goes we need another goalkeeper. I hope the defensive signings are of the "better than we've got" variety rather than reserves for the 4 mentioned above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannyroad58 Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Madine hasn't been mentioned for a while so while we're at it lets rake up all that shit again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 I think the eight are: Complete back four to supplement the four defenders we currently have (Little, Wheater, Beevers, Taylor). I'm not including Darby. 3 central midfielders 1 striker If Amos goes we need another goalkeeper. I hope the defensive signings are of the "better than we've got" variety rather than reserves for the 4 mentioned above. Imagine some will be utility types who cover a couple of positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulhanley Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Imagine some will be utility types who cover a couple of positions. Purely in terms of central defence I'd want at least one of them to be a specialist. We need to begin to move on from Wheater and Beevers. Keeping them on is fine for now - but I'd prefer us to be signing better rather than people we plan to have in reserve when either are injured or suspended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Purely in terms of central defence I'd want at least one of them to be a specialist. We need to begin to move on from Wheater and Beevers. Keeping them on is fine for now - but I'd prefer us to be signing better rather than people we plan to have in reserve when either are injured or suspended. Need pace back there, that is for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.