|
|
Post by blue83 on May 13, 2017 21:28:58 GMT
Heard today that in the last month a takeover bid for the club was rejected by the board so a simple question to anyone involved on the board on this forum, where is the honesty and clarity that we as fans were told about back when the club was reformed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 21:52:52 GMT
Just to play devil's advocate, maybe there is nothing for the board to clarify and be honest about because maybe there hasn't been a takeover bid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Duff on May 13, 2017 22:11:23 GMT
Heard today that in the last month a takeover bid for the club was rejected by the board so a simple question to anyone involved on the board on this forum, where is the honesty and clarity that we as fans were told about back when the club was reformed? Welcome to the forum, although I suspect a WUM. Just so you know, a regulated industrial provident society (which is what our mutual model of CFU ownership is) can't be 'taken over', but thanks for your concern. |
|
|
|
Post by gone4eva on May 14, 2017 17:43:51 GMT
Heard today that in the last month a takeover bid for the club was rejected by the board so a simple question to anyone involved on the board on this forum, where is the honesty and clarity that we as fans were told about back when the club was reformed? Welcome to the forum, although I suspect a WUM. Just so you know, a regulated industrial provident society (which is what our mutual model of CFU ownership is) can't be 'taken over', but thanks for your concern. Technically it can't but in terms of transferring ownership of the club to another entity it can effectively authorise that. For example, assets and interests could be sold for £1 to Newco Ltd with agreement of members. I would presume part of that agreement would be the investment by owners of Newco Ltd into the club. To imply it is not possible is disingenuous and could be seen as a tactic to lock off ideas. Be more open and straightforward with people. The OP has a good point, it is a simply question has there been an approach? If so who evaluated it, against what criteria, who did the findings get reported to and who made the decision? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 18:48:29 GMT
Heard today that in the last month a takeover bid for the club was rejected by the board so a simple question to anyone involved on the board on this forum, where is the honesty and clarity that we as fans were told about back when the club was reformed? How can there be a take over bid for a fans owned club ? wouldn't the owners ( the fans) need to approve this ? and who on earth would buy a club with no assets ? |
|
|
|
Post by soulseal on May 14, 2017 20:37:35 GMT
I suspect any enquiry to buy the club would be turned away without any discussion as it would be against the articles of our club.
An enquiry, had one been made, is not the same as a takeover bid, which is not possible without a vote of members.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Duff on May 14, 2017 20:45:21 GMT
Welcome to the forum, although I suspect a WUM. Just so you know, a regulated industrial provident society (which is what our mutual model of CFU ownership is) can't be 'taken over', but thanks for your concern. Technically it can't but in terms of transferring ownership of the club to another entity it can effectively authorise that. For example, assets and interests could be sold for £1 to Newco Ltd with agreement of members. I would presume part of that agreement would be the investment by owners of Newco Ltd into the club. To imply it is not possible is disingenuous and could be seen as a tactic to lock off ideas. Be more open and straightforward with people. The OP has a good point, it is a simply question has there been an approach? If so who evaluated it, against what criteria, who did the findings get reported to and who made the decision? Lock off ideas? What ideas are those then? Losing our club again when someone flashes some cash in exchange for control, is that an idea or an insult in light of the last three owners who did that, each worse than the last? But back to the legal position, an industrial provident society can't be sold, end off, so our mutual status is secure from a takeover attempt. Yes, a mutual can always decide to dissolve itself after a vote by its members, after all that is what a number of building societies did in the 1980s and 1990s when they demutualised because they wanted to play with the big boys in the higher league. Not a single one of them still survives, from Abbey National and Halifax to Northern Rock and the rest, all went belly up, but not before some sucked in huge amounts of taxpayers cash in the process to protect the huge losses of account holders who paid the price for their failed greed. So yes, we should block off all such ideas thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Rio Doherty on May 14, 2017 21:51:28 GMT
If anyone did want to takeover the club they should just sign up to CFU and pump as much money as they want into our club, nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by hbomb on May 14, 2017 22:12:52 GMT
If anyone did want to takeover the club they should just sign up to CFU and pump as much money as they want into our club, nothing wrong with that. But if someone wants to buy the club they'll want a return and control of club/assets. They're not going to be fans who will do it out of love for the club. They are business people. As captain duff says not possible with Way club is currently and that is not likely to change. Although I believe this rumour to be bs anyway. One of several I have heard this weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by gone4eva on May 14, 2017 23:16:08 GMT
Technically it can't but in terms of transferring ownership of the club to another entity it can effectively authorise that. For example, assets and interests could be sold for £1 to Newco Ltd with agreement of members. I would presume part of that agreement would be the investment by owners of Newco Ltd into the club. To imply it is not possible is disingenuous and could be seen as a tactic to lock off ideas. Be more open and straightforward with people. The OP has a good point, it is a simply question has there been an approach? If so who evaluated it, against what criteria, who did the findings get reported to and who made the decision? Lock off ideas? What ideas are those then? Losing our club again when someone flashes some cash in exchange for control, is that an idea or an insult in light of the last three owners who did that, each worse than the last? But back to the legal position, an industrial provident society can't be sold, end off, so our mutual status is secure from a takeover attempt. Yes, a mutual can always decide to dissolve itself after a vote by its members, after all that is what a number of building societies did in the 1980s and 1990s when they demutualised because they wanted to play with the big boys in the higher league. Not a single one of them still survives, from Abbey National and Halifax to Northern Rock and the rest, all went belly up, but not before some sucked in huge amounts of taxpayers cash in the process to protect the huge losses of account holders who paid the price for their failed greed. So yes, we should block off all such ideas thanks. Lots of text but miss off the bit about accountability and process. Odd that. As for insults, it probably insults tens if not hundreds of other clubs run in that manner. Some better than others - on that point, fancy dipping into the kit deal thread if you have any info? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 8:09:25 GMT
If the members agree to a takeover then it can happen, with CFU membership at an all time low, it wouldn't take much to sweeten the deal
|
|
|
|
Post by sqzl on May 15, 2017 8:20:10 GMT
If anyone did want to takeover the club they should just sign up to CFU and pump as much money as they want into our club, nothing wrong with that. But if someone wants to buy the club they'll want a return and control of club/assets. They're not going to be fans who will do it out of love for the club. They are business people. As captain duff says not possible with Way club is currently and that is not likely to change. Although I believe this rumour to be bs anyway. One of several I have heard this weekend. My business advice for anyone that want's to buy a football club in expectation of making money would be, don't buy one. I doubt the bid to be true anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by eyeswideopen on May 15, 2017 8:20:49 GMT
I am guessing if there was any substance to the " heard today from...." I would be emailing the club to clarify the position, rather than making it my first post on a football forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charfield Blue on May 15, 2017 11:30:42 GMT
Technically it can't but in terms of transferring ownership of the club to another entity it can effectively authorise that. For example, assets and interests could be sold for £1 to Newco Ltd with agreement of members. I would presume part of that agreement would be the investment by owners of Newco Ltd into the club. To imply it is not possible is disingenuous and could be seen as a tactic to lock off ideas. Be more open and straightforward with people. The OP has a good point, it is a simply question has there been an approach? If so who evaluated it, against what criteria, who did the findings get reported to and who made the decision? Lock off ideas? What ideas are those then? Losing our club again when someone flashes some cash in exchange for control, is that an idea or an insult in light of the last three owners who did that, each worse than the last? But back to the legal position, an industrial provident society can't be sold, end off, so our mutual status is secure from a takeover attempt. Yes, a mutual can always decide to dissolve itself after a vote by its members, after all that is what a number of building societies did in the 1980s and 1990s when they demutualised because they wanted to play with the big boys in the higher league. Not a single one of them still survives, from Abbey National and Halifax to Northern Rock and the rest, all went belly up, but not before some sucked in huge amounts of taxpayers cash in the process to protect the huge losses of account holders who paid the price for their failed greed. So yes, we should block off all such ideas thanks. You wade through some shite on here, but every now and then a post makes it worthwhile - this is one. Well said Captain. |
|
|
|
Post by Deva Chanter on May 15, 2017 13:40:00 GMT
If the members agree to a takeover then it can happen, with CFU membership at an all time low, it wouldn't take much to sweeten the deal How many CFU members are there, currently? |
|
|
|
Post by Rio Doherty on May 16, 2017 16:28:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lachelane on May 16, 2017 21:32:59 GMT
Fake news, time to put this thread to bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by everhopeful on May 17, 2017 0:51:49 GMT
Heard today that in the last month a takeover bid for the club was rejected by the board so a simple question to anyone involved on the board on this forum, where is the honesty and clarity that we as fans were told about back when the club was reformed? May be an idea never to repeat on here what that liar told you!! Assuming that someone really did say that to you? |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on May 17, 2017 5:49:50 GMT
Why do people make up and instantly believe this sort of crap?
That's an outright lie somebody has come up with to ruffle feathers and undermine the club's supporter ownership model. And we wonder why nobody wants to be club chairman when they have to waste their time with nonsense like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by blue4life on May 17, 2017 8:26:27 GMT
I'm amazed people believe what the club say, these are the same people who Believe McCarthy is the right man.
|
|
|
|
Post by livinginhope on May 17, 2017 8:29:05 GMT
I'm amazed people believe what the club say, these are the same people who Believe McCarthy is the right man. Oh you don't like McCarthy? You should have said. |
|
|
|
Post by blue4life on May 17, 2017 8:29:42 GMT
I'm amazed people believe what the club say, these are the same people who Believe McCarthy is the right man. Oh you don't like McCarthy? You should have said. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by bing on May 17, 2017 8:37:12 GMT
I'm amazed people believe what the club say, these are the same people who Believe McCarthy is the right man. I'm amazed people believe stories on internet forums and take 'what-me-mate-said-down-the-pub' as gospel. |
|
|
|
Post by Al on May 17, 2017 9:30:05 GMT
It does however raise a few interesting points.
Should we flat refuse any potential investment and dilution of our 100% fan owned model if the 'right man/team' came along? Say for instance there was some substance to the Manor House rumour.
What if (as part of any potential investment deal) it came in with the CFU having first option of re-purchasing the majority shareholding should there come a time when the investor/s wanted to get out? Thus safeguarding the club in the future from any unsavoury characters getting their grubby hands on the club (ala Vaughan).
Don't get me wrong, I will champion our supporter owned model all day long, and I'm not saying we should jump into bed with the first person that came along. I'm just wondering whether we should flat refuse someone/a team of investors if it allowed us to make the leap to the next level.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on May 17, 2017 9:43:49 GMT
Technically it can't but in terms of transferring ownership of the club to another entity it can effectively authorise that. For example, assets and interests could be sold for £1 to Newco Ltd with agreement of members. I would presume part of that agreement would be the investment by owners of Newco Ltd into the club. To imply it is not possible is disingenuous and could be seen as a tactic to lock off ideas. Be more open and straightforward with people. The OP has a good point, it is a simply question has there been an approach? If so who evaluated it, against what criteria, who did the findings get reported to and who made the decision? Lock off ideas? What ideas are those then? Losing our club again when someone flashes some cash in exchange for control, is that an idea or an insult in light of the last three owners who did that, each worse than the last?But back to the legal position, an industrial provident society can't be sold, end off, so our mutual status is secure from a takeover attempt. Yes, a mutual can always decide to dissolve itself after a vote by its members, after all that is what a number of building societies did in the 1980s and 1990s when they demutualised because they wanted to play with the big boys in the higher league. Not a single one of them still survives, from Abbey National and Halifax to Northern Rock and the rest, all went belly up, but not before some sucked in huge amounts of taxpayers cash in the process to protect the huge losses of account holders who paid the price for their failed greed. So yes, we should block off all such RTe Mad Terry the was the worst. We won our only ever major honour under SV. |
|
|
|
Post by sqzl on May 17, 2017 10:30:03 GMT
Lock off ideas? What ideas are those then? Losing our club again when someone flashes some cash in exchange for control, is that an idea or an insult in light of the last three owners who did that, each worse than the last?But back to the legal position, an industrial provident society can't be sold, end off, so our mutual status is secure from a takeover attempt. Yes, a mutual can always decide to dissolve itself after a vote by its members, after all that is what a number of building societies did in the 1980s and 1990s when they demutualised because they wanted to play with the big boys in the higher league. Not a single one of them still survives, from Abbey National and Halifax to Northern Rock and the rest, all went belly up, but not before some sucked in huge amounts of taxpayers cash in the process to protect the huge losses of account holders who paid the price for their failed greed. So yes, we should block off all such RTe Mad Terry the was the worst. We won our only ever major honour under SV. I'd have taken Mad Terry at the time over SV. Even that ''major honour'' means nothing under the circumstances. We should look for investment, but int terms of investors owning the club then there are too many bad apples out there and chances are it'll end in tears. |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on May 17, 2017 11:23:19 GMT
I'm amazed people believe what the club say, these are the same people who Believe McCarthy is the right man. Well, it would be pretty ridiculous to lie about this, and I think the other party involved might have something to say about it if they did. |
|
|
|
Post by Si on May 17, 2017 11:24:47 GMT
Mad Terry the was the worst. We won our only ever major honour under SV. I'd have taken Mad Terry at the time over SV. Even that ''major honour'' means nothing under the circumstances. We should look for investment, but int terms of investors owning the club then there are too many bad apples out there and chances are it'll end in tears. Smith was just bonkers. I think he genuinely thought he was doing the right things but he was a nutter with no clue of how football works. Whereas Vaughan was a full on criminal who deliberately let this club die. |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on May 17, 2017 11:25:39 GMT
Mad Terry the was the worst. We won our only ever major honour under SV. We should look for investment, but int terms of investors owning the club then there are too many bad apples out there and chances are it'll end in tears. Agree about Terry. It was interesting to read in Wayne Brown's interview with the Chronicle a while ago that although Terry was clearly completely misguided on many things, Brown thought he was a basically a good bloke. The same can't be said of Vaughan. |
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on May 18, 2017 5:26:56 GMT
I don't think Mad Terry was a "good bloke". He used Chester FC as his credit card. I met him in Safeway (Morrison's) just before the season started and he told me that Ratcliffe would be gone in 2 weeks (and he was). His madness came from his father Gerald, who came over at one point and if anything was madder. Vaughan also allegedly paid him £250k to cover his non-existent investment in Chester FC.
|
|
