Phil is our resident commentator & long time fan, Phil Blunt. Phil does other media work outside of WWFc, BBC 3 Counties being one. A pleasure to be in his company discussing footie and I understand loves visiting Mexico and extending his knowledge of the Mexican leagues. Just hope he likes tortillas & chilli con carne!
@MBS said:
Well all this has me scratching my head. The Americans I remember them saying were in it for a bit of fun after they are quizzed on why on earth would they want to invest in a club that is losing money significantly. Then, to add to their fun, they loan us £500,000 as I understand, but ensure that they can never really be miserable when a charge is placed on Adams Park. Not so funny now. Thinking further ahead, when we need another £500,000 next year, they loan us that amount all for a bit of fun. Am I being daft or could we end up with the Americans, if elected,
not seeing the funny side, pulling out of WWFC, and demanding the return of their fun money and us having to sell the stadium to service this debt. Or am I being a little paranoid....
And there in a nutshell would be my issue with Harman and his acolytes. A couple of weeks ago @DefactoFan claimed to have many years experience of corporate finance in the City. If that was true, he would know that his statement above is simply not true. One way or another he is barefaced lying.
And there is my problem with Harman. His mates on here have done little else than very unpleasant personal smears and at best half truths often barefaced lies. It's hard to believe they have not acted on his behalf and to his agreed plan. Which is an extraordinary way to behave.
A few weeks ago I would have had no strong view as to whether Harman was a suitable owner for the club and whether any proposal from him was the best option. personally I would need a lot of persuading now. No doubt the personal abuse will start shortly from his circle.
@DevC you're getting very excised. Will you be at the Holiday Inn to hear 'Harman' ? 'No strong view?' Hardly. You've resembled a long distance Piers Morgan about the bid...in the same way he covers Trump pretending to be impartial and open to debate...when actually jumping on any sort of criticism of those lovely men from the colonies who mean us no harm. As you have no vote it's up to those of us who have to perhaps take on board both what 'Harman' and his horrible local mates have to say as well as the perfectly formed rich, white-toothed financiers from across the sea.
And there in a nutshell would be my issue with Harman and his acolytes. A couple of weeks ago @DefactoFan claimed to have many years experience of corporate finance in the City. If that was true, he would know that his statement above is simply not true. One way or another he is barefaced lying.
And there is my problem with Harman. His mates on here have done little else than very unpleasant personal smears and at best half truths often barefaced lies. It's hard to believe they have not acted on his behalf and to his agreed plan. Which is an extraordinary way to behave.
A few weeks ago I would have had no strong view as to whether Harman was a suitable owner for the club and whether any proposal from him was the best option. personally I would need a lot of persuading now. No doubt the personal abuse will start shortly from his circle.
Sorry DevC, I am not lying and I will not make any defamatory remarks about anyone on this forum - it is not in my nature to do so. As I have stated before I am merely pointing out the potential risks. Clearly there are other people like me myself, DevC being one of them, who have reached very similar conclusions about the potential hazards of going with the American investors. This is not rocket science.
But you are lying @DefactoFan. its a lie designed to stoke up fears of someone who perhaps doesn't have much understanding of corporate finance. You claim to have that knowledge from many years of working in the City. Either that statement is a lie or your post at 3.16pm is a lie.
Misunderstandings and lack of knowledge happen and are understandable.
Different opinions based on the same information happen and are understandable.
Lying to scare people isn't understandable in my honest opinion.
the fact that a series of people promoting Harman's bid have behaved in the same way casts serious doubt over Harman's credibility to me at least., especially as it is hard not to suspect strongly that they are following a plan agreed with Harman himself.
@TrueBlu said:
Ask your self the question, and it’s been the same with Tes May. Is this really the right time for a call of no confidence and change of chairman. Who would you have lead instead. In fact we are at such a pivotal moment in the clubs future, it really isn’t a good idea at this time. To be honest a new owner may want to change things but that will be there decision but until the vote. ?
One of the most fundamental principles of Internal Audit and Financial Regulation is that you should never have too much power vested in the hands of a single individual. It is effectively like giving all the keys to the safe to one person and is a practice not to be recommended.
"A few weeks ago I would have had no strong view as to whether Harman was a suitable owner for the club and whether any proposal from him was the best option. personally I would need a lot of persuading now"
possible American bid...so a few misunderstandings, omissions and slight mistakes might have occurred. We're all human. If you knew anything about business you'd know these little things happen.Nothing to worry about.
Possible Andy Harman bid....lying bastards!!!!!!!!!
@DevC said:
But you are lying @DefactoFan. its a lie designed to stoke up fears of someone who perhaps doesn't have much understanding of corporate finance. You claim to have that knowledge from many years of working in the City. Either that statement is a lie or your post at 3.16pm is a lie.
Misunderstandings and lack of knowledge happen and are understandable.
Different opinions based on the same information happen and are understandable.
Lying to scare people isn't understandable in my honest opinion.
the fact that a series of people promoting Harman's bid have behaved in the same way casts serious doubt over Harman's credibility to me at least., especially as it is hard not to suspect strongly that they are following a plan agreed with Harman himself.
It's hard not to think you would have come up with a reason to doubt Harman regardless.
@DevC said:
But you are lying @DefactoFan. its a lie designed to stoke up fears of someone who perhaps doesn't have much understanding of corporate finance. You claim to have that knowledge from many years of working in the City. Either that statement is a lie or your post at 3.16pm is a lie.
Misunderstandings and lack of knowledge happen and are understandable.
Different opinions based on the same information happen and are understandable.
Lying to scare people isn't understandable in my honest opinion.
the fact that a series of people promoting Harman's bid have behaved in the same way casts serious doubt over Harman's credibility to me at least., especially as it is hard not to suspect strongly that they are following a plan agreed with Harman himself.
I stand by my earlier statement - I am not telling any lies and I have spent 38 years working in the banking & finance sector in the City. That is a fact and I am not aiming to scare anyone, but merely highlighting the potential risks. Neither am I a Harman supporter - I have never met the man, however I am prepared to go along and listen objectively to what he has to say in the same way as I am prepared to go along and listen objectively to what the American investors have to say. In my opinion the more options we have on the table the better it will be for both the club and it's supporters and the easier it should be to make the best decision for everyone concerned.
It's hard not to think you would have come up with a reason to doubt Harman regardless.
Really @peterparrotface ? Why would I? As you know I have for many years doubted whether fan ownership would prove sustainable. I do believe we (sadly) need outside investment. I have never met Harman nor until a few weeks ago know much about him just as I have never met nor until a few weeks ago know much about Luby. While I don't think it is vaguely relevant whether Harman once played football for the club, I had no reason not to see him as a potential positive investor into the club. Until the avalanche of personal abuse and lies and half truths from his mates designed to spread fear amongst those whose work lives have been in different areas to corporate finance. That concerns me. if I had a vote and he was the preferred bidder, he would now have a credibility hurdle to overcome.
So you have spent 38 years in Corporate finance in the city @DefactoFan. I have no reason to doubt your word.
And yet you feel that a statement
Thinking further ahead, when we need another £500,000 next year, they loan us that amount all for a bit of fun. Am I being daft or could we end up with the Americans, if elected,
not seeing the funny side, pulling out of WWFC, and demanding the return of their fun money and us having to sell the stadium to service this debt. Or am I being a little paranoid.... is accurate. Indeed you "stand by it"
But surely as you know, if the American bid is accepted, they have already stated that the existing debt to them (however much it is) will under the deal be converted to equity. And as surely you know, nobody can demand equity to be "repaid". And as surely you know, any loan requirement next and in future years would not have a charge against the stadium unless the stadium owners FALL (run by representatives we choose) decided to give them one AT THAT TIME.
So if as you say and I have no reason to doubt, you understand these things, you would know that a correct response would have been "no, that's not true at all" rather than "yes -got it in one". So given your knowledge in tis area, be honest that was simply another lie.
It's hard not to think you would have come up with a reason to doubt Harman regardless.
Really @peterparrotface ? Why would I? As you know I have for many years doubted whether fan ownership would prove sustainable. I do believe we (sadly) need outside investment. I have never met Harman nor until a few weeks ago know much about him just as I have never met nor until a few weeks ago know much about Luby. While I don't think it is vaguely relevant whether Harman once played football for the club, I had no reason not to see him as a potential positive investor into the club. Until the avalanche of personal abuse and lies and half truths from his mates designed to spread fear amongst those whose work lives have been in different areas to corporate finance. That concerns me. if I had a vote and he was the preferred bidder, he would now have a credibility hurdle to overcome.
What actual concrete evidence do you have that Harman has put up his "mates" to spread abuse, lies and half truths?
As I understand it from what I heard during the meeting with the Americans they wouldn't be loaning us the monies though.
The deal they outlined would see them convert the debt into equity so they would own the football club. As such they wouldn't be able to demand we repay the loan because there wouldn't be a loan.
I admit I don't know what are the implications of the charge over Adams Park but, I guess, I'm concerned by it. Maybe, it's just there to protect the initial £500k investment in case they don't get the vote they need. Hopefully we'll get clarity on that at the next meeting.
@Twizz- You should be worried about the £500k loan if they don't win the vote. The money has to be repaid in about 10 months, failing which, they have the right to take possession of Adams Park.
When did the Americans state that any current loan will be transferred to equity? Also the statement regarding the current "debt" to WWFC will no longer be covered if the Loan agreement is cancelled. This alone will be enough to put FALL into administration if WWFC is not owned by the Trust. Where does the Trust find funds, except by selling their interest in WWFC at a price to clear all debts other than the internal subsidiary debt.
The current plan to raise 2million has falling well short of its target.
@Twizz giving it to us until they take over is sort of a loan. And if they don't take over...it's definitely a loan. Unless they are just in it for the fun and just write it off with a wave and a cheery yippee-kay-yay!
@mooneyman Is that how the charge works?
I had assumed that it just gave them security that they would get their money back IF we had to sell Adams Park rather than actually giving them the right to take Adams Park.
A subtle distinction but I'm interested to know what it (the charge) actually means?
I'm no apologist for the American bid, but I'm trying to be accurate in what I thought I heard them say.
The charge will almost certainly disappear when the loan is eliminated when it is converted into equity (assuming the proposal is accepted). But all that should be confirmed when the proposal is announced.
There is a bigger potential problem if the deal is not accepted. Even then I suspect the real world outcome would not be quite as dramatic as you fear.
@DevC said:
So you have spent 38 years in Corporate finance in the city @DefactoFan. I have no reason to doubt your word.
And yet you feel that a statement
Thinking further ahead, when we need another £500,000 next year, they loan us that amount all for a bit of fun. Am I being daft or could we end up with the Americans, if elected,
not seeing the funny side, pulling out of WWFC, and demanding the return of their fun money and us having to sell the stadium to service this debt. Or am I being a little paranoid.... is accurate. Indeed you "stand by it"
But surely as you know, if the American bid is accepted, they have already stated that the existing debt to them (however much it is) will under the deal be converted to equity. And as surely you know, nobody can demand equity to be "repaid". And as surely you know, any loan requirement next and in future years would not have a charge against the stadium unless the stadium owners FALL (run by representatives we choose) decided to give them one AT THAT TIME.
So if as you say and I have no reason to doubt, you understand these things, you would know that a correct response would have been "no, that's not true at all" rather than "yes -got it in one". So given your knowledge in tis area, be honest that was simply another lie.
I stand by my earlier statements and not necessarily by statements made by other people. I was just commenting that @MBS and I had reached similar conclusions about potential risks. However I must admit that I was not aware of the statement you say that the American Investors have made about converting the loan into equity and if that is substantiated, then that certainly goes some way to alleviating my concerns. Nevertheless there are still a lot of other risk factors in the equation that need to discussed and considered.
I'll leave others to judge the credibility of that backtrack @DefactoFan.
Harman may turn out to be the best option for WWFC investment, especially if the Luby bid dies. Lets resolve to establish that with honesty and not lies and half-truths designed to scare as much as we are all able.
Comments
Excuse my ignorance but who is Phil?
And I assume 3cr is BBC Three Counties?
What was the status/objective of the interview/discussion?
Phil is our resident commentator & long time fan, Phil Blunt. Phil does other media work outside of WWFc, BBC 3 Counties being one. A pleasure to be in his company discussing footie and I understand loves visiting Mexico and extending his knowledge of the Mexican leagues. Just hope he likes tortillas & chilli con carne!
Phil Catchpole, not Phil Blunt!
I always thought it was Phil Collins!
Apologies, brain fart moment, thinking of his twitter account & typing at the same time, not good this late on a Saturday night!
Yes - exactly. You got it in one!
Except that simply isn't true is it @DefactoFan?
And there in a nutshell would be my issue with Harman and his acolytes. A couple of weeks ago @DefactoFan claimed to have many years experience of corporate finance in the City. If that was true, he would know that his statement above is simply not true. One way or another he is barefaced lying.
And there is my problem with Harman. His mates on here have done little else than very unpleasant personal smears and at best half truths often barefaced lies. It's hard to believe they have not acted on his behalf and to his agreed plan. Which is an extraordinary way to behave.
A few weeks ago I would have had no strong view as to whether Harman was a suitable owner for the club and whether any proposal from him was the best option. personally I would need a lot of persuading now. No doubt the personal abuse will start shortly from his circle.
@DevC you're getting very excised. Will you be at the Holiday Inn to hear 'Harman' ? 'No strong view?' Hardly. You've resembled a long distance Piers Morgan about the bid...in the same way he covers Trump pretending to be impartial and open to debate...when actually jumping on any sort of criticism of those lovely men from the colonies who mean us no harm. As you have no vote it's up to those of us who have to perhaps take on board both what 'Harman' and his horrible local mates have to say as well as the perfectly formed rich, white-toothed financiers from across the sea.
In advance of the Trust Legacy Members meeting with the American investors plannd > @DevC said:
Sorry DevC, I am not lying and I will not make any defamatory remarks about anyone on this forum - it is not in my nature to do so. As I have stated before I am merely pointing out the potential risks. Clearly there are other people like me myself, DevC being one of them, who have reached very similar conclusions about the potential hazards of going with the American investors. This is not rocket science.
Sorry, I'm confused. Exactly what part of the statement by @DefactoFan is untrue & why?
But you are lying @DefactoFan. its a lie designed to stoke up fears of someone who perhaps doesn't have much understanding of corporate finance. You claim to have that knowledge from many years of working in the City. Either that statement is a lie or your post at 3.16pm is a lie.
Misunderstandings and lack of knowledge happen and are understandable.
Different opinions based on the same information happen and are understandable.
Lying to scare people isn't understandable in my honest opinion.
the fact that a series of people promoting Harman's bid have behaved in the same way casts serious doubt over Harman's credibility to me at least., especially as it is hard not to suspect strongly that they are following a plan agreed with Harman himself.
One of the most fundamental principles of Internal Audit and Financial Regulation is that you should never have too much power vested in the hands of a single individual. It is effectively like giving all the keys to the safe to one person and is a practice not to be recommended.
"A few weeks ago I would have had no strong view as to whether Harman was a suitable owner for the club and whether any proposal from him was the best option. personally I would need a lot of persuading now"
Completely irrelevant Dev
possible American bid...so a few misunderstandings, omissions and slight mistakes might have occurred. We're all human. If you knew anything about business you'd know these little things happen.Nothing to worry about.
Possible Andy Harman bid....lying bastards!!!!!!!!!
It's hard not to think you would have come up with a reason to doubt Harman regardless.
I stand by my earlier statement - I am not telling any lies and I have spent 38 years working in the banking & finance sector in the City. That is a fact and I am not aiming to scare anyone, but merely highlighting the potential risks. Neither am I a Harman supporter - I have never met the man, however I am prepared to go along and listen objectively to what he has to say in the same way as I am prepared to go along and listen objectively to what the American investors have to say. In my opinion the more options we have on the table the better it will be for both the club and it's supporters and the easier it should be to make the best decision for everyone concerned.
Really @peterparrotface ? Why would I? As you know I have for many years doubted whether fan ownership would prove sustainable. I do believe we (sadly) need outside investment. I have never met Harman nor until a few weeks ago know much about him just as I have never met nor until a few weeks ago know much about Luby. While I don't think it is vaguely relevant whether Harman once played football for the club, I had no reason not to see him as a potential positive investor into the club. Until the avalanche of personal abuse and lies and half truths from his mates designed to spread fear amongst those whose work lives have been in different areas to corporate finance. That concerns me. if I had a vote and he was the preferred bidder, he would now have a credibility hurdle to overcome.
You must be very relieved it's out of your hands @DevC .
@DevC ok
So you have spent 38 years in Corporate finance in the city @DefactoFan. I have no reason to doubt your word.
And yet you feel that a statement
Thinking further ahead, when we need another £500,000 next year, they loan us that amount all for a bit of fun. Am I being daft or could we end up with the Americans, if elected,
not seeing the funny side, pulling out of WWFC, and demanding the return of their fun money and us having to sell the stadium to service this debt. Or am I being a little paranoid.... is accurate. Indeed you "stand by it"
But surely as you know, if the American bid is accepted, they have already stated that the existing debt to them (however much it is) will under the deal be converted to equity. And as surely you know, nobody can demand equity to be "repaid". And as surely you know, any loan requirement next and in future years would not have a charge against the stadium unless the stadium owners FALL (run by representatives we choose) decided to give them one AT THAT TIME.
So if as you say and I have no reason to doubt, you understand these things, you would know that a correct response would have been "no, that's not true at all" rather than "yes -got it in one". So given your knowledge in tis area, be honest that was simply another lie.
What actual concrete evidence do you have that Harman has put up his "mates" to spread abuse, lies and half truths?
As I understand it from what I heard during the meeting with the Americans they wouldn't be loaning us the monies though.
The deal they outlined would see them convert the debt into equity so they would own the football club. As such they wouldn't be able to demand we repay the loan because there wouldn't be a loan.
I admit I don't know what are the implications of the charge over Adams Park but, I guess, I'm concerned by it. Maybe, it's just there to protect the initial £500k investment in case they don't get the vote they need. Hopefully we'll get clarity on that at the next meeting.
@Twizz- You should be worried about the £500k loan if they don't win the vote. The money has to be repaid in about 10 months, failing which, they have the right to take possession of Adams Park.
When did the Americans state that any current loan will be transferred to equity? Also the statement regarding the current "debt" to WWFC will no longer be covered if the Loan agreement is cancelled. This alone will be enough to put FALL into administration if WWFC is not owned by the Trust. Where does the Trust find funds, except by selling their interest in WWFC at a price to clear all debts other than the internal subsidiary debt.
The current plan to raise 2million has falling well short of its target.
@Twizz giving it to us until they take over is sort of a loan. And if they don't take over...it's definitely a loan. Unless they are just in it for the fun and just write it off with a wave and a cheery yippee-kay-yay!
@mooneyman Is that how the charge works?
I had assumed that it just gave them security that they would get their money back IF we had to sell Adams Park rather than actually giving them the right to take Adams Park.
A subtle distinction but I'm interested to know what it (the charge) actually means?
I'm no apologist for the American bid, but I'm trying to be accurate in what I thought I heard them say.
The charge will almost certainly disappear when the loan is eliminated when it is converted into equity (assuming the proposal is accepted). But all that should be confirmed when the proposal is announced.
There is a bigger potential problem if the deal is not accepted. Even then I suspect the real world outcome would not be quite as dramatic as you fear.
@Twizz I hate maths and have no idea of business but I think it's similar to...if you can't pay your mortgage, your house is repossessed.
I stand by my earlier statements and not necessarily by statements made by other people. I was just commenting that @MBS and I had reached similar conclusions about potential risks. However I must admit that I was not aware of the statement you say that the American Investors have made about converting the loan into equity and if that is substantiated, then that certainly goes some way to alleviating my concerns. Nevertheless there are still a lot of other risk factors in the equation that need to discussed and considered.
I'll leave others to judge the credibility of that backtrack @DefactoFan.
Harman may turn out to be the best option for WWFC investment, especially if the Luby bid dies. Lets resolve to establish that with honesty and not lies and half-truths designed to scare as much as we are all able.