Tomo Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2011/10/19/st-johnstone-boss-derek-mcinnes-wins-race-for-bristol-city-job-86908-23498984/ A bit critical of our selection process !
TRL Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2011/10/19/st-johnstone-boss-derek-mcinnes-wins-race-for-bristol-city-job-86908-23498984/ A bit critical of our selection process ! , not anyway to run a football club really is it. And when you have to make a decison about the future of the football club because the major investor buggers off on holiday. If I was St Johnstone and was messed around like that I would refuse permission to speak to him again. It's plain wrong
RedZepperin Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 In previous selection processes, when SL was chairman, it was a case of "Ready, Fire, Aim". Now that he is the owner, it's a case of "Ready, Aim, Aim....".
SimonL Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 I think SL needs to be bought a copy of Football Manager for XMAS and leave the real thing to someone else.
Donald Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 backs up what I've said for a while. ALL big decisions go through Lansdown and rightly so.
Guest Bored Dilemma Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Absolutely vital if true that McInnes becomes the most important person at the club with full executive power to hire, fire etc etc...., Tough position for all at Ashton Gate if he calls all the big decisions - in my experience you tend to get a medieval court type situation with fuzzy lines of power and cronyism. Sort it out Del boy and don't be afraid to challenge the accepted norm!!!! I'm glad he's got the job as I hope he'll say stuff people don't want to hear!!
Sargent Pepper Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 I'd rather he does stuff people want to see!
formerly known as ivan Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 The whole process, everything about it, has been a shambles! If its true it has taken so long cus SL was on holiday it makes the whole thing even more of a joke. Could end up getting out man two games too late!
Guest Bored Dilemma Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 I posted before that contenders may have found the process bewildering - now seems likely. Fairly sure BCFC could be streamlined and organisation more fathomable - just who is everyone and what do they do? Extends to the squad as well. Tough smart Scot could be just what we need.
Red_Jim Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 What a total shambles. It's no wonder we're bottom of the league with all this mismanagement - the board couldn't run a bath. I hope McInnes is given licence to run the club as he wants and is given autonomy on the running of the entire playing side, including all levels of coaching. At the moment the club is embarassing - things need to change and the new man has a big job on his hands - let's hope he can galvanise us all like Gary Johnson did, because that's what we need right now.
oldstandrobin Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Go into the City shop and treat yourselves to ' BRISTOL CITY -The Modern Era' by David Woods, and see how history repeats itself at the Gate with succesive boards. By the way I'mnot related to David Woods
Kid in the Riot Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 This sits well with what I was told about the board last night. Apparently Sexstone is merely a puppet and doesn't have the confidence to make any decisions without going through SL. He paniced over the Millen situation and called up SL who came over for the Blackpool game and made the final call. You have to ask, if SL has such an influence - what is the point in having Sexstone acting as 'Chairman' and then having Guy Price beneath him?
BrizzleRed Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 http://www.dailyreco...86908-23498984/ A bit critical of our selection process ! So if this is true, there was us all thinking the delay was due to contract negotiations going on prior to the announcement, when in fact our board still hadn't even decided who they wanted! Now that is pretty ridiculous and doesn't bode well for when big decisions are needed in the future.
Guest handsofclayOLD Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 The David Woods series of books is a great idea. I helped him with some of the record compiling. He is a bit narked because Bristol City are the only club in the country that has such a comprehensive published record of every match since the club were formed (including the line-ups and scorers of City and their opponents + short match reports and positions of both teams in the table) but the club don't publicize this fact. Even Manchester United does not have such a comprehensive published account of its history.
Guest henryhallsdanceband Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 tomo - just because you've got a St Andrews and a St Pauls (and loads of other Saints in the city including ) we're not usually referred to as St John's. Mind you you've stumbled upon why we're called St Johnstone
Murraysrightplum Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 This sits well with what I was told about the board last night. Apparently Sexstone is merely a puppet and doesn't have the confidence to make any decisions without going through SL. He paniced over the Millen situation and called up SL who came over for the Blackpool game and made the final call. You have to ask, if SL has such an influence - what is the point in having Sexstone acting as 'Chairman' and then having Guy Price beneath him? So SL can live in guernsey...
Ron Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Their chairman knows as much about the selection process as the evening post. The only people who know the inside story as such are those on the panel; say SL does make the final call (certainly if he had the casting vote, that would go with selection panels across the modern world), McInnes would not be made aware that the board were waiting to hear back from him if it is so unprofessional as is made out. I don't need to remind you these people, SteveL especially, have all been successful businessmen before their time at City.
Kingswood Village Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Their chairman knows as much about the selection process as the evening post. The only people who know the inside story as such are those on the panel; say SL does make the final call (certainly if he had the casting vote, that would go with selection panels across the modern world), McInnes would not be made aware that the board were waiting to hear back from him if it is so unprofessional as is made out. I don't need to remind you these people, SteveL especially, have all been successful businessmen before their time at City. Exactly. That piece is just a cobbled together article based largely on the opinion/asumption of the St Johnstone chairman, who does not know anything about the selection process at Bristol city. COYR
Pezo Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Steve left the board and shouldn't be involved in any decisions. He left a new board in place to run the club - let them run the club! If he is unhappy then he should bring it up at the AGM as majority shareholder I assume he could reappoint himself as chairman if he wanted to be involved as much as it sometimes appears he has been. Sextoy needs to have a quite word and politely ask him to stop overstepping his mandate.
Riaz Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Steve left the board and shouldn't be involved in any decisions. He left a new board in place to run the club - let them run the club! If he is unhappy then he should bring it up at the AGM as majority shareholder I assume he could reappoint himself as chairman if he wanted to be involved as much as it sometimes appears he has been. Sextoy needs to have a quite word and politely ask him to stop overstepping his mandate. Disagree. Sexstone was always going to be responsible for the day to day running and SL for the major decisions - afterall its SL who puts his money where his mouth is. This decision is major and I cant blame SL for wanting to have a input - Its clear that Sexstone has been in charge for the process and has been involved in the decision.
Fiale Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 This sits well with what I was told about the board last night. Apparently Sexstone is merely a puppet and doesn't have the confidence to make any decisions without going through SL. He paniced over the Millen situation and called up SL who came over for the Blackpool game and made the final call. You have to ask, if SL has such an influence - what is the point in having Sexstone acting as 'Chairman' and then having Guy Price beneath him? Steve Lansdown is still the owner, the major investor and person to turn to swallow up club losses. He is obviously going to have the call on the biggest decisions. Sexstone is in charge of the day to day business and operation of the club. Not all executives and chairman have complete authority, many act as in our case with investors/shareholders or owners being consulted for the biggest decisions.
Murraysrightplum Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 SL would have to ok the 500K or whatever compensation for DMc (+assistent?). The club cannot afford to pay this itself so again we have to go to SL, cap in hand. Quite right that he has to OK those sort of financial decisions otherwise how the **** would we pay for it? Don't forget paying off Millen and Wigley(?) as well...
Kid in the Riot Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Steve Lansdown is still the owner, the major investor and person to turn to swallow up club losses. He is obviously going to have the call on the biggest decisions. Sexstone is in charge of the day to day business and operation of the club. Not all executives and chairman have complete authority, many act as in our case with investors/shareholders or owners being consulted for the biggest decisions. Just sounds like we effectively have 2 chief execs, Sexy and Price?
Guest Bored Dilemma Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 We have a medieval court! Not sure who the jester is??
Donald Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Disagree. Sexstone was always going to be responsible for the day to day running and SL for the major decisions - afterall its SL who puts his money where his mouth is. This decision is major and I cant blame SL for wanting to have a input - Its clear that Sexstone has been in charge for the process and has been involved in the decision. Exactly. Sexstone despite some people's view, is VERY good at the busy side of running the club, anyone whose been to any of the Stadium hearings/meetings will know that he is a very clever man, however on football matters he's still learning his way and for major decisions rightly has gone to Lansdown. There is a number of very good BUSINESSMEN on the board, however not enough football minded people, Lansdown I've said it before but we needed to get an old head on board, not so much a director of football, but someone to over see things as a link between the board, management and the youth setup, Bobby Gould has been working with the club recently, he's a wise old head and lives local, someone with his epxerience in football would be great to help the board learn from.
Guest Bored Dilemma Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 I like the previous poster about a football head on the board but not a director of football. I was at Old Trafford in 89?? - they lost at home to Palace who had Wright and Bright up front - Fergie recalls it as his low point. Fans with banners chanting Fergie out etc etc. His greatest ally on the board?? Bobby Charlton So it can work that idea - my suggestion would be (and I'm serious) Gerry Gow
Keepers Ball Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 What a surprise Why is it our board always manage to piss someone off ? With their business background youd think they would be more professional about things
Guest weejohn Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 What a surprise Why is it our board always manage to piss someone off ? With their business background youd think they would be more professional about things to be fair, our Chairman has not said he is peed off, he understands that is the way. He will soon say if he is peed off, he holds nothing back.
Guest Saintee Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 i think why our chairman is annoyed is we are going well in the league and have a derby match on saturday. he granted you permission to talk to del last week but he obviously can't make an appointment or even seek permission to talk to other managers until it's 100% confirmed del is gone. we're going to be going into a big game on saturday now with no manager or assistant and we're a small club, we don't have any other coaches. he probably hoped to have our new manager in place by now.
Guest weejohn Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 i think why our chairman is annoyed is we are going well in the league and have a derby match on saturday. he granted you permission to talk to del last week but he obviously can't make an appointment or even seek permission to talk to other managers until it's 100% confirmed del is gone. we're going to be going into a big game on saturday now with no manager or assistant and we're a small club, we don't have any other coaches. he probably hoped to have our new manager in place by now. Geoff will know our next manager already but it will take time to sort out. i fully expect the Doc (he will join Del next week, while Geoff gets our manager sorted) to be in charge for Saturday. much the same as Sandy Stewart before he went to join Coyle at Burnley. if the Doc goes right away then it will be Jody in charge.
RedZepperin Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Bobby Gould has been working with the club recently. Really!?
Guest The Ghost of Jim Morton Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Their chairman knows as much about the selection process as the evening post. The only people who know the inside story as such are those on the panel; say SL does make the final call (certainly if he had the casting vote, that would go with selection panels across the modern world), McInnes would not be made aware that the board were waiting to hear back from him if it is so unprofessional as is made out. I don't need to remind you these people, SteveL especially, have all been successful businessmen before their time at City And since when has being succesful in business ever had anything to do with being succesful in running a football club. Some of the most succesful businessmen there have ever been have gone into football and quickly learned ( and please excuse the pun) it's a whole new ball game.. It reminds me of the old gag.." How do you make a small fortune with a football club" Answer. " Start with a large one" As for GB , I fully understand his irritation. Funnily enough, it pretty much the same irritation nearly everyone on this board and the WAP board have been moaning about. All everyone wants is the bloody deal to be done one way or another as both clubs have a football season to concentrate on.. NOW HURRY THE **** UP...
Pezo Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Disagree. Sexstone was always going to be responsible for the day to day running and SL for the major decisions - afterall its SL who puts his money where his mouth is. This decision is major and I cant blame SL for wanting to have a input - Its clear that Sexstone has been in charge for the process and has been involved in the decision. But that's what shareholders do - put there money where there mouth is. Steve isn't the owner he is the majority shareholder, does this mean anyone that's a shareholder is entitled to a % of grilling the new manager - No, that's the boards job and as a shareholder you have the choice to keep your money invested or remove it depending on if you like\trust the current management structure. I agree that the decision is a major one and that I cant blame SL for wanting to have an input but what im saying is that he shouldn't if he trusts the board that he put in place.
havanatopia Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 And since when has being succesful in business ever had anything to do with being succesful in running a football club. Some of the most succesful businessmen there have ever been have gone into football and quickly learned ( and please excuse the pun) it's a whole new ball game.. It reminds me of the old gag.." How do you make a small fortune with a football club" Answer. " Start with a large one" As for GB , I fully understand his irritation. Funnily enough, it pretty much the same irritation nearly everyone on this board and the WAP board have been moaning about. All everyone wants is the bloody deal to be done one way or another as both clubs have a football season to concentrate on.. NOW HURRY THE **** UP... According to your forum he has signed.
Guest The Ghost of Jim Morton Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 According to your forum he has signed. Aye, but until your club /or mines announces it officially, there is always a tiny chance that it could go tits up.
boadle Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 we're a small club, we don't have any other coaches. I hear Alan Walsh is available?
Guest newyear'sday97 Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Just to say, I have enjoyed hearing from the BCFC fans who have come onto our forum - much more reasoned than the Brentford fans (bunch of delusional idiots who reckoned they were far too big a lub for Del ). I'm confident this will be a great appointment for you and you will move up the league table now. However.........your board really needs to take a look at themselves over this. It has been allowed to drag on for far too long. Apart from the fact that we need to move on and get another manager, this can hardly fill Del with confidence that he was a unanimous choice. Also remember that while we may be a small club in comparison to you, we are run by one of the most experienced chairmen in British football. Geoff has every right to voice his displeasure over this. And a final note to the OP - at least take the time to get our name right mate, how would you feel if we called you Bristol Rovers? Really hope the rest of the season goes well for you guys - see you in August for a pre-season friendly.
havanatopia Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Aye, but until your club /or mines announces it officially, there is always a tiny chance that it could go tits up. I quite agree; i was waiting for someone on your forum to verify but such things rarely happen. Probably taking a good hour to do the facial make ups, photo shoots, interviews and editing.
SC_Red Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Just to say, I have enjoyed hearing from the BCFC fans who have come onto our forum - much more reasoned than the Brentford fans (bunch of delusional idiots who reckoned they were far too big a lub for Del ). I'm confident this will be a great appointment for you and you will move up the league table now. However.........your board really needs to take a look at themselves over this. It has been allowed to drag on for far too long. Apart from the fact that we need to move on and get another manager, this can hardly fill Del with confidence that he was a unanimous choice. Also remember that while we may be a small club in comparison to you, we are run by one of the most experienced chairmen in British football. Geoff has every right to voice his displeasure over this. And a final note to the OP - at least take the time to get our name right mate, how would you feel if we called you Bristol Rovers? Really hope the rest of the season goes well for you guys - see you in August for a pre-season friendly. we interviewed 5 or 6 last week. we then called 2 back for second interviews at the start of this week when our majority shareholder was back from holiday, as you had a game over the weekend. he was offered it the day after interview and yesterday terms were finally agreed with him and his agent and your board. presumably there were negotiation for his assistant too. he's back in Scotland now and will presumably fly down to be unveiled tomorrow. I dont see that as having dragged on for a long time. the only hold up really was waiting for Steve Lansdown to be back in the country but that was only a day or so more than it would of been anyway.
havanatopia Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Just to say, I have enjoyed hearing from the BCFC fans who have come onto our forum - much more reasoned than the Brentford fans (bunch of delusional idiots who reckoned they were far too big a lub for Del ). I'm confident this will be a great appointment for you and you will move up the league table now. However.........your board really needs to take a look at themselves over this. It has been allowed to drag on for far too long. Apart from the fact that we need to move on and get another manager, this can hardly fill Del with confidence that he was a unanimous choice. Also remember that while we may be a small club in comparison to you, we are run by one of the most experienced chairmen in British football. Geoff has every right to voice his displeasure over this. And a final note to the OP - at least take the time to get our name right mate, how would you feel if we called you Bristol Rovers? Really hope the rest of the season goes well for you guys - see you in August for a pre-season friendly. I think I can echo those sentiments on behalf of the City fans. Regarding our board; reading Geoff Brown's comments i would not necessarily jump to the verdict ours have been anything but thorough. While it is frustrating for all concerned our club has to put its mind fully at rest first, it has to liaise with agents and hammer out all the nitty gritty of one, perhaps two, contracts and lets not forget some of the dictat will have come from McInnes & Docherty (if he comes) as well. Your Chairman may also be airing his sentiments in public for the benefit of your supporters anyway. Let us wait and see the final outcome and hopefully both sides will compliment the other on the way the process has been conducted and if not I would still stand by our Board needing to negotiate all aspects as reason for any perceived delay. This is, after all, a very big decision.
Guest newyear'sday97 Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 we interviewed 5 or 6 last week. we then called 2 back for second interviews at the start of this week when our majority shareholder was back from holiday, as you had a game over the weekend. he was offered it the day after interview and yesterday terms were finally agreed with him and his agent and your board. presumably there were negotiation for his assistant too. he's back in Scotland now and will presumably fly down to be unveiled tomorrow. I dont see that as having dragged on for a long time. the only hold up really was waiting for Steve Lansdown to be back in the country but that was only a day or so more than it would of been anyway. Fair enough - I'm not sure of the exact timescales. The point of my post is that if our chairman feels it has taken too long then he is well within his rights to say so. As I said, I have enjoyed the interaction with you guys and sincerely wish you all the best for the future.
SC_Red Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Fair enough - I'm not sure of the exact timescales. The point of my post is that if our chairman feels it has taken too long then he is well within his rights to say so. As I said, I have enjoyed the interaction with you guys and sincerely wish you all the best for the future. Yep. I have no argument with him saying it. If I was in his shoes I'd want it concluded quickly so I could set about getting in a replacement. I just think we have done things as quickly as we could in the circumstances and I hope theres no bad blood between the 2 clubs over it. All the best to you too
the1stknowle Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Steve left the board and shouldn't be involved in any decisions. He left a new board in place to run the club - let them run the club! If he is unhappy then he should bring it up at the AGM as majority shareholder I assume he could reappoint himself as chairman if he wanted to be involved as much as it sometimes appears he has been. Sextoy needs to have a quite word and politely ask him to stop overstepping his mandate. Firstly, this is all total speculation based on a rubbish article where the only quote said that they had to wait for the owner, the man funding the compensation by the way, to rubber stamp the decision. Rubber stamp. As in the decision was made by the board and then approved. This is how things work in any business. Major shareholders have a strong influence on major decisions. Majority shareholders will normally sit on the board but may recuse themselves if they wish. They are still the owners of the company and owners have a say in such massive decisions. I dont understand what we're criticising SL for? He let the board get on with it and come to a decision. OF COURSE he has to rubber stamp that decision. UNLESS he is a silent investor and the board are never going to come to him to ask for money for the manager to spend or to cover debts. "We've made our decision, we know you wanted robins because that is just public knowledge and by the way can we have some money to pay for our decision that you have no right to be involved in..." If what the people on here are saying is SL stood down and should not have any say at all in such a huge decision, then the concomitant argument is that the club must run self-sufficiently without asking the major shareholder to invest more. Which no one seems happy with and at the moment would be impossible. Whenever anyone is being asked to invest, they have to have a say in that investment. Who really thinks that sounds wrong? I read on a similar thread "Do you honestly think Man Utd will need to asks the glazers to confirm their next managerial appointment". The answer to that question is yes. Of course they will. And can we not bury this SL loves Mark Robins thing now? If that were the case, and what with SL sticking his beak into every process like the St Johnston chairman said (and he would definitely know), why is Robins not the new manager? You can't have both arguments. SL makes all the calls. SL loves robins. It doesnt make sense. Good decision by the board, good process, rightly rubber stamped by the man who will be expected to pay for it. Happy days.
Pezo Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Firstly, this is all total speculation based on a rubbish article where the only quote said that they had to wait for the owner, the man funding the compensation by the way, to rubber stamp the decision. Rubber stamp. As in the decision was made by the board and then approved. This is how things work in any business. Major shareholders have a strong influence on major decisions. Majority shareholders will normally sit on the board but may recuse themselves if they wish. They are still the owners of the company and owners have a say in such massive decisions. I dont understand what we're criticising SL for? He let the board get on with it and come to a decision. OF COURSE he has to rubber stamp that decision. UNLESS he is a silent investor and the board are never going to come to him to ask for money for the manager to spend or to cover debts. "We've made our decision, we know you wanted robins because that is just public knowledge and by the way can we have some money to pay for our decision that you have no right to be involved in..." If what the people on here are saying is SL stood down and should not have any say at all in such a huge decision, then the concomitant argument is that the club must run self-sufficiently without asking the major shareholder to invest more. Which no one seems happy with and at the moment would be impossible. Whenever anyone is being asked to invest, they have to have a say in that investment. Who really thinks that sounds wrong? I read on a similar thread "Do you honestly think Man Utd will need to asks the glazers to confirm their next managerial appointment". The answer to that question is yes. Of course they will. And can we not bury this SL loves Mark Robins thing now? If that were the case, and what with SL sticking his beak into every process like the St Johnston chairman said (and he would definitely know), why is Robins not the new manager? You can't have both arguments. SL makes all the calls. SL loves robins. It doesnt make sense. Good decision by the board, good process, rightly rubber stamped by the man who will be expected to pay for it. Happy days. Thanks for your reply. You are of course right that this is total speculation except for the comments from the other side that seem to have been interpreted quite heavily. I haven't said that SL loves Robins so I will assume that was aimed at someone else and I responded to the Glazier question in that thread saying that of course they would have a say - the difference is that the Glaziers are owners and SL is a shareholder. I think you have a misconception that SL gives the club money but that is simply not the case, he swaps his money for shares that he can later swap for money if he wants. So its not like the board go bowl in hand to him, but they should be presenting a good business case to him if they would like to swap some shares for money but there should also be a budget set aside for how much a manager costs afterall its not like Millen was doing to job for free.
Guest ateyomike Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 well after all these doubts and seeming messing about i for one am glad we got our man or 2 (his assistant)
Ron Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 And since when has being succesful in business ever had anything to do with being succesful in running a football club. Some of the most succesful businessmen there have ever been have gone into football and quickly learned ( and please excuse the pun) it's a whole new ball game.. It reminds me of the old gag.." How do you make a small fortune with a football club" Answer. " Start with a large one" As for GB , I fully understand his irritation. Funnily enough, it pretty much the same irritation nearly everyone on this board and the WAP board have been moaning about. All everyone wants is the bloody deal to be done one way or another as both clubs have a football season to concentrate on.. NOW HURRY THE **** UP... Funnily enough, the management selection through application - or headhunting - and subsequent interview process is one of the few parallels that carries across from business into football, my friend.
exAtyeoMax Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 So if this is true, there was us all thinking the delay was due to contract negotiations going on prior to the announcement, when in fact our board still hadn't even decided who they wanted! Now that is pretty ridiculous and doesn't bode well for when big decisions are needed in the future. I don't think that is the case. I think they had decided from day one. If you listen to Derek's interview and possibly the other two on player, they seem to say that negotiations had been going on for a fortnight.
Guest Bored Dilemma Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Sorry not sure about the swap money for shares argument!! I think you'll find he is the majority shareholder and in accordance with Company law loans the limited company money through a directors loan acct. These may well accrue interest but he has little or no realistic hope of these ever being repaid unless either the company starts to show a profit or the company is sold hence realising a cash value for his shareholding. He could only swap money for shares if there was a rights issue every time he injected cash or a private placement. Either way the other shareholders would see their shares devalued so unlikely. Hence Steve lends the company money, acts as a guarantor on loans etc with little realistic chance of getting put what he put in unless, IMO, he can get the new stadium built, create a Premier League side and sell his shares at a Premium whilst getting his Directors loan acct repaid with interest.
the1stknowle Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Thanks for your reply. You are of course right that this is total speculation except for the comments from the other side that seem to have been interpreted quite heavily. I haven't said that SL loves Robins so I will assume that was aimed at someone else and I responded to the Glazier question in that thread saying that of course they would have a say - the difference is that the Glaziers are owners and SL is a shareholder. I think you have a misconception that SL gives the club money but that is simply not the case, he swaps his money for shares that he can later swap for money if he wants. So its not like the board go bowl in hand to him, but they should be presenting a good business case to him if they would like to swap some shares for money but there should also be a budget set aside for how much a manager costs afterall its not like Millen was doing to job for free. I agree with a lot of this and none was aimed at anyone in particular. More at the general tone of the thread that in places was finding angles to criticise SL and the board that simply arent based on any fact yet the speculation soon gets adopted as fact. This is very frustrating when I think in general we are better run than we have been in my lifetime. The only thing I take issue with you on is the idea that the Glazers as owners and SL as majority shareholder have any substantive difference. By the time Fergie leaves man utd, the glazers seem likely to have floated a 25% stake in the company. They will still have just as big a say in the successor and just as pervasive and influence on the board of directors and the running of the company. However, it's worth saying this because I've seen a few different versions on how SL funds this club on here. I have no misconceptions about how the club is funded. It isn't entirely true to say that SL swaps money for shares. That is an oversimplification of the process. Not all debt is swapped for equity. In fact, that becomes very tricky legally as every time that happens that dilutes other holdings. It is highly likely what will happen in the end is that personal debt owed to steve might be written down or written off. This, de facto, will result in SL effectively giving us money. And even in a world where you could swap all debt for equity without problems and issue new equity at the drop of a hat, in the football business model where such a huge percentage of revenue goes on wages, you arent actually increasing the value of the asset by the amount you put in so you are still losing money therefore donating money to the club. This topic is closely related to my job so apologies for getting bogged down in it. It's not especially interesting when you get down to the details, but no matter what way you look at it, Steve Lansdown GIVES this club money. I don't want to put him beyond criticism because he should be called on his mistakes. But when he has been so good for this club, I hate seeing valid criticism multiplied by rumour and speculation about coppell leaving, him demanding robins and worst of all this completely inaccurate idea that once he has recused himself from the board he has no say as majority shareholder and should just sit back and collect his non-existent dividend. As Ive written elsewhere, it's wrong in fact, in law and in common sense.
the1stknowle Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Sorry not sure about the swap money for shares argument!! I think you'll find he is the majority shareholder and in accordance with Company law loans the limited company money through a directors loan acct. These may well accrue interest but he has little or no realistic hope of these ever being repaid unless either the company starts to show a profit or the company is sold hence realising a cash value for his shareholding. He could only swap money for shares if there was a rights issue every time he injected cash or a private placement. Either way the other shareholders would see their shares devalued so unlikely. Hence Steve lends the company money, acts as a guarantor on loans etc with little realistic chance of getting put what he put in unless, IMO, he can get the new stadium built, create a Premier League side and sell his shares at a Premium whilst getting his Directors loan acct repaid with interest. Apologies, didn't read this before having my ramble but this is correct.
Guest Bored Dilemma Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Yep - we're v lucky to have him - and he's got a good reputation of sticking by Managers - frustrating as it is when apparently not right. I'd like to see a ruthless streak from him as well. Fairly sure BCFC split into 2 limited companies - one a holding company. One deals with playing side the other with pop concerts etc etc .... As a shareholder you have a right to a say in your investment obviously - but as a fan and as dull as it is worth keeping an eye on the machinations of those in charge. Look at Argyle - a dozen or so limited companies all lending each other money etc etc ..... Hiding the true picture - they were skint with no benefactor. One further point here is that despite being a non domicile now I suspect SL still has a huge tax liability in the UK after HL float and disposing of his holding so he may be able to partially offset his losses at BCFC.
Nibor Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Sorry not sure about the swap money for shares argument!! I think you'll find he is the majority shareholder and in accordance with Company law loans the limited company money through a directors loan acct. These may well accrue interest but he has little or no realistic hope of these ever being repaid unless either the company starts to show a profit or the company is sold hence realising a cash value for his shareholding. He could only swap money for shares if there was a rights issue every time he injected cash or a private placement. Either way the other shareholders would see their shares devalued so unlikely. Hence Steve lends the company money, acts as a guarantor on loans etc with little realistic chance of getting put what he put in unless, IMO, he can get the new stadium built, create a Premier League side and sell his shares at a Premium whilst getting his Directors loan acct repaid with interest. SL has in the past mostly invested by buying loan stock which converts to ordinary shares when not repaid by a certain time period, devaluing other shareholdings. This has happened more than once. To determine what requirements must be met to do this (i.e. board resolution, special resolution) you would have to look at the articles of association. He will only see a return on his investment if the club value increases beyond it and he then sells up, but this would require both a successful stadium build and promotion because that is the only way we can realistically turn a profit.
Guest Bored Dilemma Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Ok thanks I think that for all his wealth and investment we underachieve. To look at our historic league position is less useful as it is clear that football is increasingly about finance and the more financially successful clubs fill, by and large, the higher positions. The days of any provincial club winning this league, then the Prem then Champions league are gone with players occasionally picked from non league outfits. So it's my view we should be top half championship building for promotion with our set up. That said we should become a better business along the way. I knew a lower league Assistant Chairman a few years ago who in explaining his clubs football finances explained how they required a net 1m annual income from transfers. This was widely accepted by the fans and not taken as a lack of ambition. That's also I'm adamant what we lack - a clear communicated plan. I think a lot of fans would have accepted say Maynard going for 6m if it fitted into a plan. Dalglish got what 45m for Torres and Liverpool have improved. Perhaps McInnes will provide us with one as I think Gary partially did - but for the life of me can't understand why someone else can't do this. McInnes stated no targets set by board i think? Targets are exactly what's required - perhaps not yet - but very soon and we need to know what they are.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.