|
Post by newmarketgas on Oct 5, 2015 7:52:45 GMT
Good luck with that. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Oct 5, 2015 9:07:42 GMT
So how will you feel about NH, if in a few weeks time the consortium issues a statement confirming that they HAVE been speaking to BRFC.
Remember NH has categorically denied there is any consortium, he could have refused to give an answer, so he will have to live or die by that denial.
Definition of the word Consortium:- noun 1. a combination of financial institutions, capitalists, etc., for carrying into effect some financial operation requiring large resources of capital. 2. any association, partnership, or union.
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Oct 5, 2015 10:14:52 GMT
Looks like Nick does not want to do business with them, so they either come forward or we move on, they can't be that keen otherwise they would have showed their hand by now, instead of using fans on here who are only allowed to part with very little substance.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Oct 5, 2015 11:50:43 GMT
So how will you feel about NH, if in a few weeks time the consortium issues a statement confirming that they HAVE been speaking to BRFC.
Remember NH has categorically denied there is any consortium, he could have refused to give an answer, so he will have to live or die by that denial.
Definition of the word Consortium:- noun 1. a combination of financial institutions, capitalists, etc., for carrying into effect some financial operation requiring large resources of capital. 2. any association, partnership, or union.
He is still a Gashead, I thought that was my point, how he chooses to do his business is up to him.
|
|
|
Post by dcr on Oct 5, 2015 12:00:39 GMT
I just find the timing of this strange, as the outcome of the court case against Sanesburys could make a huge difference to the value of the club
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Oct 5, 2015 15:12:28 GMT
So how will you feel about NH, if in a few weeks time the consortium issues a statement confirming that they HAVE been speaking to BRFC.
Remember NH has categorically denied there is any consortium, he could have refused to give an answer, so he will have to live or die by that denial.
Definition of the word Consortium:- noun 1. a combination of financial institutions, capitalists, etc., for carrying into effect some financial operation requiring large resources of capital. 2. any association, partnership, or union.
He is still a Gashead, I thought that was my point, how he chooses to do his business is up to him. Agreed, but my problem is that he has denied something that I believe to be true.
If that is proved in the near future, his standing in my opinion would have taken a nosedive.
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Oct 5, 2015 15:32:06 GMT
He is still a Gashead, I thought that was my point, how he chooses to do his business is up to him. Agreed, but my problem is that he has denied something that I believe to be true.
If that is proved in the near future, his standing in my opinion would have taken a nosedive.
Well he has a history of not telling us everything, kept saying the sainsburys deal was pushing along, knowing full well it had stalled and we never reached second base, when 20 pence did that interview he mislead us, he will retort that it was for confidentiality and the rules of the contract!
|
|
|
Post by nailseagashead on Oct 5, 2015 17:15:56 GMT
Lie or do business in the correct way ? Should all deals be open to forum debate ? Yes. I demand to know everything! Ok just so you're aware Tbone is a massive fan of Matty T and joebananas is Chris Lines' missus.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 5, 2015 17:35:48 GMT
Yes. I demand to know everything! Ok just so you're aware Tbone is a massive fan of Matty T and joebananas is Chris Lines' missus. I believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 18:36:42 GMT
I just find the timing of this strange, as the outcome of the court case against Sanesburys could make a huge difference to the value of the club It's possible that the consortium are attempting to buy out nick now with a reasonable offer gambling well get the right outcome - the value will be far higher if we get it and they may be trying to buy him off now.
|
|
|
Post by dinsdale on Oct 5, 2015 19:17:18 GMT
Personally i think some people had a chat about buying, found out what it would cost in loan repayments and wanted the board to take a big hit and they didn't want to so it went nowhere.
I dont think we are anywhere near a situation where someone will take over. This is a big reason i have always advocated a sustainable club that doesn't take these huge hits financially year on year as it makes it so hard to sell the club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 19:37:49 GMT
He is still a Gashead, I thought that was my point, how he chooses to do his business is up to him. Agreed, but my problem is that he has denied something that I believe to be true.
If that is proved in the near future, his standing in my opinion would have taken a nosedive.
Is this your first experience of Higgs not telling the truth? If so, where have you been since he became chairman.
|
|
|
Post by Gastroenteritis on Oct 5, 2015 21:33:14 GMT
Personally i think some people had a chat about buying, found out what it would cost in loan repayments and wanted the board to take a big hit and they didn't want to so it went nowhere. I dont think we are anywhere near a situation where someone will take over. This is a big reason i have always advocated a sustainable club that doesn't take these huge hits financially year on year as it makes it so hard to sell the club. And if we're honest if the boots were on our feet we wouldn't want to take a hair cut if we had pumped a lot of money into the club. As for a sustainable club, is that even possible in modern football? Genuine question?
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Oct 5, 2015 22:22:35 GMT
Mix dem metaphors.
|
|
|
Post by inee on Oct 6, 2015 9:35:07 GMT
Personally i think some people had a chat about buying, found out what it would cost in loan repayments and wanted the board to take a big hit and they didn't want to so it went nowhere. I dont think we are anywhere near a situation where someone will take over. This is a big reason i have always advocated a sustainable club that doesn't take these huge hits financially year on year as it makes it so hard to sell the club. Ah might even have been the loan company wanting to buy, buy looked at the repayments and though ,damn i we buy we will go bust with those repayments to ourselves ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Oct 6, 2015 9:57:48 GMT
Personally i think some people had a chat about buying, found out what it would cost in loan repayments and wanted the board to take a big hit and they didn't want to so it went nowhere. I dont think we are anywhere near a situation where someone will take over. This is a big reason i have always advocated a sustainable club that doesn't take these huge hits financially year on year as it makes it so hard to sell the club. And if we're honest if the boots were on our feet we wouldn't want to take a hair cut if we had pumped a lot of money into the club. As for a sustainable club, is that even possible in modern football? Genuine question? But this is what I find odd. I simply don't believe that Nick (or anyone on the board) got involved with the club thinking they would be anywhere near breaking even when they left. They must have known that a lower league football club is a loss-making venture and that they would come out on the other side of it a touch lighter in the pocket. Now I can see, given the Shamesburys debacle, that Nick might be coming out of it a LOT lighter in the pocket than he'd planned - but it's a position largely of his own making. So to privately hold the club to ransom now (and that is totally unproven to date I might add) would be a pretty low act. I really hope that - if a consortium were to take over - we don't subsequently discover that he tried to wangle the club out of a deal that was in the club's best interests on the quiet. Because I think if Nick was to talk to an interested party, assess them as competent and in the club's interests, and then hand over the reins and walk away now, he could keep his head held high and say he gave it his best shot but that events beyond his control conspired against him. By contrast, if he chose the former route then he's going to be on the end of quite the sh**-storm for trying to screw the club. Easy for me to say of course, it's not my money after all.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 6, 2015 10:01:27 GMT
Personally i think some people had a chat about buying, found out what it would cost in loan repayments and wanted the board to take a big hit and they didn't want to so it went nowhere. I dont think we are anywhere near a situation where someone will take over. This is a big reason i have always advocated a sustainable club that doesn't take these huge hits financially year on year as it makes it so hard to sell the club. Problem with that is if the consortium are trying to buy out NH on the cheap are they really then going to invest the £40m+ needed to build the UWE and a decent football team?? There's always the danager NH will sell off the Mem to pay off his debts he's built up himself under Plan B but certain posters will still suggest he's a true gashead so will do what's right for the club!
|
|
|
Post by dinsdale on Oct 6, 2015 10:28:03 GMT
And if we're honest if the boots were on our feet we wouldn't want to take a hair cut if we had pumped a lot of money into the club. As for a sustainable club, is that even possible in modern football? Genuine question? But this is what I find odd. I simply don't believe that Nick (or anyone on the board) got involved with the club thinking they would be anywhere near breaking even when they left. They must have known that a lower league football club is a loss-making venture and that they would come out on the other side of it a touch lighter in the pocket. Now I can see, given the Shamesburys debacle, that Nick might be coming out of it a LOT lighter in the pocket than he'd planned - but it's a position largely of his own making. So to privately hold the club to ransom now (and that is totally unproven to date I might add) would be a pretty low act. I really hope that - if a consortium were to take over - we don't subsequently discover that he tried to wangle the club out of a deal that was in the club's best interests on the quiet. Because I think if Nick was to talk to an interested party, assess them as competent and in the club's interests, and then hand over the reins and walk away now, he could keep his head held high and say he gave it his best shot but that events beyond his control conspired against him. By contrast, if he chose the former route then he's going to be on the end of quite the sh**-storm for trying to screw the club. Easy for me to say of course, it's not my money after all. h Dunford deacribed the mem as his pension so they must have hoped for something. A league club with a tidy stadium would have at least increased the share value i guess if it had worked out
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 6, 2015 12:47:28 GMT
It would be interested to know how many lower league clubs owners have walked away with thier loans fully repaid? I would imagine they are few and far between if any? Although I suppose until the Sainsbury's appeal is heard NH can still hold on to the hope of a return.
|
|
|
Post by Gastroenteritis on Oct 6, 2015 21:02:29 GMT
And if we're honest if the boots were on our feet we wouldn't want to take a hair cut if we had pumped a lot of money into the club. As for a sustainable club, is that even possible in modern football? Genuine question? But this is what I find odd. I simply don't believe that Nick (or anyone on the board) got involved with the club thinking they would be anywhere near breaking even when they left. They must have known that a lower league football club is a loss-making venture and that they would come out on the other side of it a touch lighter in the pocket. Now I can see, given the Shamesburys debacle, that Nick might be coming out of it a LOT lighter in the pocket than he'd planned - but it's a position largely of his own making. So to privately hold the club to ransom now (and that is totally unproven to date I might add) would be a pretty low act. I really hope that - if a consortium were to take over - we don't subsequently discover that he tried to wangle the club out of a deal that was in the club's best interests on the quiet. Because I think if Nick was to talk to an interested party, assess them as competent and in the club's interests, and then hand over the reins and walk away now, he could keep his head held high and say he gave it his best shot but that events beyond his control conspired against him. By contrast, if he chose the former route then he's going to be on the end of quite the sh**-storm for trying to screw the club. Easy for me to say of course, it's not my money after all. Yeah this is a good point. Maybe though when he took over, he planned a long term investment through success and promotion. That to to me seems the only way you can get a return on investment. With the club doing so poorly during his tenure, maybe he is now looking for an exit strategy where by he is able to limit his losses, purely my own speculation of course. I've said this before Money will always come before loyalty. I think I may have answere my own question, clubs can be sustainable so long as there is success maybe.
|
|