[Archived] Other Pl Happenings 2009/10

[den]

I'll give you a choice majiball...

1. The threat of terrorism.

2. They don't know where it is.

Let me know which you think it might be when you've had enough time to consider.

Good job they set foot in 1940 though.

[thenodrog]

F.A.O Theno. (didn't know where best to put this).

See what you've started

Are you blueheeler1 in disguise.

It's not rocket science it really is the only way forward for clubs in this area.

2 good responses. A sensible one from longridgeclaret and one from honest based on supreme logic that made me laugh.

longridgeclaret

#11 10 Jan 2010 09:31 Complain |

Signed: May 2005 re: A super Lancs club for the Prem? ...

I was thinking about this myself. Small clubs cannot compete on their own; it's possible to see our current situation as a reality check. With limited funds we cannot compete without risking the whole ranch, something our directors are rightly not prepared to do. I have friends who support Blackburn and Bolton - they are bored with the turgid football, the overpaid foreign players and the focus on mere survival; entertainment for them is a rarely seen commodity. As a result their resolve is going and many are considering stopping watching. Throw in the merecenary nature of the modern English game and the complete lack of loyalty then you can see that these are troubled times.

I do not think it would happen, but I for one wouldn't completely disregard the idea of seeing a competitive local team with a majority of regional players who the fans could relate to. An East Lancashire Barcelona if you like. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

honest

#13 10 Jan 2010 09:54 Complain |

Signed: June 2008 re: re: A super Lancs club for the Prem? ...

Jesus.

We'd need a big stadium when we play London at home!

[CrazyIvan]

Give it up Gordon...

[thenodrog]

Good job they set foot in 1940 though.

Let me see..... You live in Leyland and Yanks were stationed in Bamber Bridge? errr not a war baby are you Den?

Give it up Gordon...

I'd love to just as soon as I can come up with a viable alternative.

Trouble is no one appears to be able to offer said alternative. Most are just content to emulated ostriches who simply stick their head in the sand when lions approach. You have just become the latest in a long line Ivan.

[CrazyIvan]

I will just as soon as I can come up with a viable alternative.

Trouble is no one appears to be able to offer a viable alternative. Most are just content to emulated ostriches who simply stick their head in the sand when lions approach. You have just become the latest in a long line Ivan.

Let me see, I say 'give it up' because your argument is going nowhere and you've repeated it ad infinitum. I've never actually expressed my opinion one way or the other (as far as I can recall anyway...) so I don't have my head buried anywhere. Let's just say that football, at the highest level, is going to have to change how it operates as the current levels of debt cannot be sustained. As for Rovers, if we stay as we are and maintain a relatively healthy balance sheet we could be well placed in the future. Big if.

Oh, and my name really isn't Ivan.

[RevidgeBlue]

NOTW Story

From the link:

"Horner, a London-based Kop fan of 20 years, was stunned by the response to what he believed was a perfectly polite correspondence. He said: "I'm genuinely shaken. I can't believe a member of Liverpool's board would write to a fan in this way. It sums up how the club is being run at the moment. "

Doesn't sound like a scouser to me, given he started 'supporting' them, aged 9, in around 1989. If he'd been born a few years later and he'd have been writing to the Glazers.

My initial reaction with the story having been originated by a "fan" in London and with it having been copied to two other Liverpool Directors was that it must be a set up. No -one could possibly be that stupid. But if subsequent reports that Hicks Jr. has apologised are correct then it must be right. Unbelievable.

Enjoyed this from the comments below:

Match ticket... 42 bloody quid.

New Anfield... 420 million pounds.

Rafa Benitez... Priceless.

For everything else, there's George & Tom.

(With thanks to Bill S from Preston.)

[Majiball]

I'll give you a choice majiball...

1. The threat of terrorism.

2. They don't know where it is.

Let me know which you think it might be when you've had enough time to consider.

I'd like to choose option number two please.

Good job they set foot in 1940 though.

We must have sent them a map.

[PAFELL]

This window is very slow

Thought the likes of City, Chelsea, Man U and Spurs would have start spending by now.

Need some of them to spend so their squad players come available

Noticed on sky that man U are planning to run a bond scheme to try to raise £500mill - anybody know how things like this work/ also could rovers do a simular thing?

[RevidgeBlue]

SSN have just run a big piece on United's finances.

They made 48m profit last financial year but that included the 80m Ronaldo sale so without that they'd have lost 32m.

Roughly speaking they are paying c42m p.a. interest on c500m of their loans and are looking to convert that 500m into lower interest bonds by 2017.

The presenter managed to turn it into a ManUre PR exercise by asking a financial analyst "So if I'm an ordinary investor how do I get hold of these bonds etc"

He also asked in all seriousness: "How does this differ from what Chelsea have done" trying to make it sound like the two were similar.

Doh!

[RevidgeBlue]

Noticed on sky that man U are planning to run a bond scheme to try to raise £500mill - anybody know how things like this work/ also could rovers do a simular thing?

No, there wouldn't be the demand on Rovers case.

The presenter on SSN seemed to be under the impression that this would simply wipe out United's debt. Not the case. They would be simply replacing their existing debt at a high rate of interest with a cheaper debt by selling bonds to supporters and financial institutions then paying them a lower ROI.

[den]

Let me see..... You live in Leyland and Yanks were stationed in Bamber Bridge? errr not a war baby are you Den?

No, my Dad was a P.O.W. on the Burma death railway for three and a half years and if it wasn't for the intervention of the American's, he probably wouldn't have lived, and I wouldn't be here now.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just been on SSN Hicks Jr. has resigned.

The pressure of the whinging scousers must be really getting to them.

[Kelbo]

Just been on SSN Hicks Jr. has resigned.

The pressure of the whinging scousers must be really getting to them.

I dont know what proviso's Jack Walker left with regards future ownership of our club, but when I look around at some clubs now with foreign owners etc, it seems Uncle Jack was a very wise man with foresight!!

[47er]

Cant see it - Daft if they do.

Not played over there - and not good enough to be a premiership 1st teamer.

He didn't have a great all-round game but he knew where the net was.

[Bobby G]

Rev, you said they made the profit but it didnt include the Ronaldo sale? In that case, theyd be making more profit then right?

[RevidgeBlue]

I dont know what proviso's Jack Walker left with regards future ownership of our club, but when I look around at some clubs now with foreign owners etc, it seems Uncle Jack was a very wise man with foresight!!

No-one has come up with the asking price yet.

As I keep saying there are no artificially imposed barriers to any potential new owners coming in.

Rev, you said they made the profit but it didnt include the Ronaldo sale? In that case, theyd be making more profit then right?

Apologies, typo, it DID include the Ronaldo sale.

[Hughesy]

Rev, you said they made the profit but it didnt include the Ronaldo sale? In that case, theyd be making more profit then right?

Yep included the Ronaldo sale. Without that they would of made a £32m loss!!

United will sell that £500m of bonds easy - Arabs will probably buy the lot!!

[RevidgeBlue]

United will sell that £500m of bonds easy - Arabs will probably buy the lot!!

They might well sell all the bonds but there's no advantage to be gained for "big hitters" by steaming in unless they confer a better rate of interest than you can get elsewhere. They don't transfer ownership.

[Hughesy]

They might well sell all the bonds but there's no advantage to be gained for "big hitters" by steaming in unless they confer a better rate of interest than you can get elsewhere. They don't transfer ownership.

Why dont the Yanks just offer out say 30% of the club in shares.....that would raise them alot of cash and get them out of this problem they have now!

[RevidgeBlue]

Why dont the Yanks just offer out say 30% of the club in shares.....that would raise them alot of cash and get them out of this problem they have now!

It would have to be a lot less than 30%, Company Law dictates that when you get up to a certain figure you are obliged to launch a takeover bid. Can't remember the exact figure but I think it's something like 29.7%.

Also you can't pass certain (special) resolutions without having a 75% majority shareholding.

So hypothetically even if the Company valued at 1 billion pounds, selling 20% of that would only raise 200m.

On a practical level shared ownership also gives the potential for a lot of conflict as we've seen from the Yanks at Liverpool.

[Hughesy]

Couldnt they put say 30% up for sale - but split it into two lots of 15% and therefore the new share-holders would only get 15% each - and it would raise £300m+ for them........

[RevidgeBlue]

Couldnt they put say 30% up for sale - but split it into two lots of 15% and therefore the new share-holders would only get 15% each - and it would raise £300m+ for them........

They could I suppose, but the Glazers might be conceding complete control on certain issues if the two fifteen per centers ganged up on them. And if one sold their shareholding to the other it would again trigger a hostile takeover bid.

[Hughesy]

They could I suppose, but the Glazers might be conceding complete control on certain issues if the two fifteen per centers ganged up on them. And if one sold their shareholding to the other it would again trigger a hostile takeover bid.

Just put a clause in that if 1 is selling - the glazers get 1st option.....abit like Arsenal did to try and stop a takeover

[mickbrown]

West Ham's takeover should be completed by the end of the week.

There are still 3 interested parties battling for control.

Just hope we don't get another bankrupt banker......

[RevidgeBlue]

Just put a clause in that if 1 is selling - the glazers get 1st option.....abit like Arsenal did to try and stop a takeover

Then they'd just have to give any money raised back!.

The shareholdings are or were a lot more evenly spread out at Arsenal. From what i recall hearing recently there was a lot of tactical manouevering with some of the old guard selling shares to the Canadian bloke Stan Kronke (or however its spelt)to prevent the major Russian shareholder from being in a position to mount a hostile takeover. Don't recall hearing about anyone having first options but I might be completely wrong.

West Ham's takeover should be completed by the end of the week.

There are still 3 interested parties battling for control.

Just hope we don't get another bankrupt banker......

Way to go Rothschilds!

Perhaps if you're not then too busy helping West Ham out you could point the two unsuccessful parties in our direction?