Mr Hayes rants seems to have been removed from Facebook. He seems very bitter, as he continually questions how the Couhigs plan to foot million pound losses each season.
@ChasHarps said:
Mr Hayes rants seems to have been removed from Facebook. He seems very bitter, as he continually questions how the Couhigs plan to foot million pound losses each season.
Maybe they'll just fk off and leave others to clear up after them like he did when he was trying to flog Wasps.
@ChasHarps said:
Mr Hayes rants seems to have been removed from Facebook. He seems very bitter, as he continually questions how the Couhigs plan to foot million pound losses each season.
To be fair to Hayes, for all his weaknesses and mistakes, he never did ask for his loans back. It is only debt incurred before he took ownership that was repaid to him largely from the Ibe deal.
Looking at his interview, there are clear parallels between his aspirations at that stage and those of the Couhigs. We’ll see what happens but probably the most likely trajectory in the latest case is probably initial optimism followed by frustration and disillusionment when the p&l fails to improve.
And eventually then on to the next guy.
It would be an odd strategy if a new booker was planned to sign a 15 year lease on the existing stadium.
I dont remember Sharkey doing anything to improve the "match experience". All he was interested in was making a quick buck on the new stadium and supporting the parasites.
He reduced his ask a bit as it was obvious there was only a certain amount that could be got but he didn't wipe debts to other people so how much was owed before isn't really relevant. There aren't those asterisks near his statements about spending at the time. There are certainly parallels when you look at talk of investment plans and bums on seats and all the same stuff Hayes was selling, just think it's a bit rich for him to be concerned about it all now.
From Phil's interview with Keith Allen and these comments here's an apparent rat's nest of competing people who have been involved at some point financially or with other interests, some of them will have been paid up recently, some negotiated with (training ground owners) and presumably some told they , or their views at least aren't particularly welcome. Could be interesting.
As far as I can see so far Rob is taking control and splashing some of the £ we were told we badly needed. Of course there will be concern over how that turns out and how the trust keep up 25% and keep them honest so we'll need the trust to be strong but as far as I remember we had close to 0% and didn't own the ground under Hayes.
Steve Hayes might have started with good intentions, but he was soon distracted by the idea of driving down Steve Hayes Lane, past the Steve Hayes Hotel to watch his team play at the Steve Hayes Stadium.
It's a shame we can't read Steve Hayes' views on the current situation. Like him or not (and I appreciate there are not many in the former camp) he probably has an interesting and valid perspective on the finances of the club.
I've never thought the Couhigs will be here long - hence why I was in a vanishingly small group of people who would have liked more scrutiny of them before giving the club away last year. I just don't think they've got the finances to sustain it, nor a feasible business model (50% of customers arriving hours early and staying hours late is, at best, naive, in my view).
I think they'll give it a go for the next 18 months (just long enough to erode the enshrined rights of the Trust), cut costs and increase prices where they can, make incremental improvements to the 'matchday experience', put in new marketing measures and professionalise the backroom operation. Then Pete Couhig will return to his family in the States and the club will be put on the market - but this time properly, with agents scouting the world for a buyer.
A crucial element of the offer will be, I imagine, outline planning permission for a new stadium, which will be a big selling point to egotistical investors who will be told that all the elements are now in place for a drive to the Premier League (Pete Couhig said he was already talking to the council in that sport business magazine article recently linked, I bet it was about a site for a new stadium). And then the Couhigs will walk away with a massive - and I mean massive - profit from their two years here.
And one last prediction... Trevor Stroud will keep his place on the board to oversee the transition to the new owners. Again. In fact, when they build the new stadium, he'll probably get a stand named after him.
It’s impressive to see how some people are able to read the minds and interpret the thoughts of others then to look into the future and predict a series of events. Personally, I have no idea what the future holds, my priority is the present and so far the Couhigs have hardly puta foot wrong.
As long as any new stadium has decent internet & WiFi and they can allocate a room somewhere - preferably a dark unlit room, with limited daylight - and feed those inside next to no real information. Then I think the gasroom could at least survive there and continue to speculate on what was happening outside.
@ReadingMarginalista said:
The total discount will be this figure multiplied by the seven years the discount is to run for, therefore the club will have been sold for the approx. £2m less this figure.
A little birdy who was at the meeting tells me that the rent discount was approx £130k. This means the purchase price less rent discount not being converted into share capital equals approx. £1m. Would anyone who voted to accept the original terms have voted for it on these new terms?
As for guessing the Couhigs' intentions, it is right and proper that it is asked what their intentions are if they propose a deal then submit it to a vote before then subsequently altering the deal to the detriment of the supporter's trust.
1) the discount was already known at the time of the vote. All that has changed in respect of the discount is that it has been extended to also apply in year six and seven in addition to years one to five.
2) your calculation of £1m only works if you think a fair commercial rent for a ground that needs substantial repairs to bring it up to scratch is £130k per year. That seems a substantial stretch to me - indeed it is not clear what the payment of cash out of the football club to the trust in year 8-15 is supposed to fund.
The concern is about how future losses should be funded and how much is for the trust to pay if it wishes to retain its 25 per cent share. @peterparrotface asks an interesting question above whether it is worth trying to protect that share. Not sure on that one.
Comments
Mr Hayes rants seems to have been removed from Facebook. He seems very bitter, as he continually questions how the Couhigs plan to foot million pound losses each season.
Maybe they'll just fk off and leave others to clear up after them like he did when he was trying to flog Wasps.
That’s a fair question!
http://www.chairboys.co.uk/onthenet/news0405/budget-17june2005.htm
This article has been mentioned a lot but I don't think I could find it until recently, few key bits in there about not worrying about the budget
Bit more detail here about not wanting his loans back....
http://www.chairboys.co.uk/onthenet/news0405/hayes-june2005.htm
To be fair to Hayes, for all his weaknesses and mistakes, he never did ask for his loans back. It is only debt incurred before he took ownership that was repaid to him largely from the Ibe deal.
Looking at his interview, there are clear parallels between his aspirations at that stage and those of the Couhigs. We’ll see what happens but probably the most likely trajectory in the latest case is probably initial optimism followed by frustration and disillusionment when the p&l fails to improve.
And eventually then on to the next guy.
It would be an odd strategy if a new booker was planned to sign a 15 year lease on the existing stadium.
I dont remember Sharkey doing anything to improve the "match experience". All he was interested in was making a quick buck on the new stadium and supporting the parasites.
He reduced his ask a bit as it was obvious there was only a certain amount that could be got but he didn't wipe debts to other people so how much was owed before isn't really relevant. There aren't those asterisks near his statements about spending at the time. There are certainly parallels when you look at talk of investment plans and bums on seats and all the same stuff Hayes was selling, just think it's a bit rich for him to be concerned about it all now.
From Phil's interview with Keith Allen and these comments here's an apparent rat's nest of competing people who have been involved at some point financially or with other interests, some of them will have been paid up recently, some negotiated with (training ground owners) and presumably some told they , or their views at least aren't particularly welcome. Could be interesting.
As far as I can see so far Rob is taking control and splashing some of the £ we were told we badly needed. Of course there will be concern over how that turns out and how the trust keep up 25% and keep them honest so we'll need the trust to be strong but as far as I remember we had close to 0% and didn't own the ground under Hayes.
Steve Hayes might have started with good intentions, but he was soon distracted by the idea of driving down Steve Hayes Lane, past the Steve Hayes Hotel to watch his team play at the Steve Hayes Stadium.
It's a shame we can't read Steve Hayes' views on the current situation. Like him or not (and I appreciate there are not many in the former camp) he probably has an interesting and valid perspective on the finances of the club.
I've never thought the Couhigs will be here long - hence why I was in a vanishingly small group of people who would have liked more scrutiny of them before giving the club away last year. I just don't think they've got the finances to sustain it, nor a feasible business model (50% of customers arriving hours early and staying hours late is, at best, naive, in my view).
I think they'll give it a go for the next 18 months (just long enough to erode the enshrined rights of the Trust), cut costs and increase prices where they can, make incremental improvements to the 'matchday experience', put in new marketing measures and professionalise the backroom operation. Then Pete Couhig will return to his family in the States and the club will be put on the market - but this time properly, with agents scouting the world for a buyer.
A crucial element of the offer will be, I imagine, outline planning permission for a new stadium, which will be a big selling point to egotistical investors who will be told that all the elements are now in place for a drive to the Premier League (Pete Couhig said he was already talking to the council in that sport business magazine article recently linked, I bet it was about a site for a new stadium). And then the Couhigs will walk away with a massive - and I mean massive - profit from their two years here.
And one last prediction... Trevor Stroud will keep his place on the board to oversee the transition to the new owners. Again. In fact, when they build the new stadium, he'll probably get a stand named after him.
No one knows, but I get the impression they're in this for the long run - and I'd like them to be.
It’s impressive to see how some people are able to read the minds and interpret the thoughts of others then to look into the future and predict a series of events. Personally, I have no idea what the future holds, my priority is the present and so far the Couhigs have hardly puta foot wrong.
As long as any new stadium has decent internet & WiFi and they can allocate a room somewhere - preferably a dark unlit room, with limited daylight - and feed those inside next to no real information. Then I think the gasroom could at least survive there and continue to speculate on what was happening outside.
A little birdy who was at the meeting tells me that the rent discount was approx £130k. This means the purchase price less rent discount not being converted into share capital equals approx. £1m. Would anyone who voted to accept the original terms have voted for it on these new terms?
As for guessing the Couhigs' intentions, it is right and proper that it is asked what their intentions are if they propose a deal then submit it to a vote before then subsequently altering the deal to the detriment of the supporter's trust.
Seems like Rob Couhig might be a hardened businessman not an avuncular philanthropist.
Your analysis is flawed @ReadingMarginalista
1) the discount was already known at the time of the vote. All that has changed in respect of the discount is that it has been extended to also apply in year six and seven in addition to years one to five.
2) your calculation of £1m only works if you think a fair commercial rent for a ground that needs substantial repairs to bring it up to scratch is £130k per year. That seems a substantial stretch to me - indeed it is not clear what the payment of cash out of the football club to the trust in year 8-15 is supposed to fund.
The concern is about how future losses should be funded and how much is for the trust to pay if it wishes to retain its 25 per cent share. @peterparrotface asks an interesting question above whether it is worth trying to protect that share. Not sure on that one.