King Crownest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, gmca said: I assume you mean that the club would take out a loan against the assets? If so, the decision to take out that loan would presumably be one for the Trust Board to sanction as the continuing majority shareholder. Without going through all the terms of the bid document again, the consortium can't leave with the club being valued at less than they are now (or something similar) after the principal plus interest have been repaid. Can't remember now how the valuation is calculated, but would the value of all these hypothetical assets we're going to buy be included? They would be owned by the club, and would presumably be offset against any debts, making it less likely we would go bust. Not sure what you mean by him removing cash using the golden shares, but that's down to my ignorance. Would appreciate your explanation on that point if you have the time. Do take your point that the consortium's plans do include looking at expending a fair amount of cash, so borrowing would appear to be a likely option. Yes, with assets on board, they could be used as security for a loan. But, no, under the agreement, the consortium alone has the power to decide about borrowing. If the club's value dips below the initial valuation, the consortium would have to leave. But, as you say, the valuation wouldn't dip below that figure with assets on board. The problem would be if the consortium walked out with its cash and left the club with loans worth more than the assets. The golden shares allow the consortium to 'uplift' money out of the club - 50 per cent of any value that they add. So if there's an extra 100K in the club's coffers, they can cash in one golden share and take out 50K. But what's to stop the consortium borrowing the 100K, taking half of it and leaving the club liable for all of it? Maybe there is something in the bid documents that guards against this - would be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction. You're right - the consortium's plans would need more money from somewhere - the stadium won't come cheap for example. Edited July 2, 2018 by King Crownest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmca Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 24 minutes ago, King Crownest said: Yes, with assets on board, they could be used as security for a loan. But, no, under the agreement, the consortium alone has the power to decide about borrowing. If the club's value dips below the initial valuation, the consortium would have to leave. But, as you say, the valuation wouldn't dip below that figure with assets on board. The problem would be if the consortium walked out with its cash and left the club with loans worth more than the assets. The golden shares allow the consortium to 'uplift' money out of the club - 50 per cent of any value that they add. So if there's an extra 100K in the club's coffers, they can cash in one golden share and take out 50K. But what's to stop the consortium borrowing the 100K, taking half of it and leaving the club liable for all of it? Maybe there is something in the bid documents that guards against this - would be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction. You're right - the consortium's plans would need more money from somewhere - the stadium won't come cheap for example. Cheers - understand where you're coming from now. The obvious danger is against the long term security of the club continuing to operate. There's no reason to believe the consortium would act in the hypothetical way you set out, but they are an unknown quantity to most fans, so any risk to the club in the bid is worth considering. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Crownest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 20 minutes ago, gmca said: Cheers - understand where you're coming from now. The obvious danger is against the long term security of the club continuing to operate. There's no reason to believe the consortium would act in the hypothetical way you set out, but they are an unknown quantity to most fans, so any risk to the club in the bid is worth considering. I’m not saying that’s what John Neill is going to do – but nobody can say he’s not. The whole point of a contract is to guard against the worst case scenario. You only have to look at Rangers to see what can happen when deals are done on trust rather than watertight guarantees. I think it would be crazy to sign away control of the club on these terms when there is a foreseeable train of events that could end in disaster for Stirling Albion. Especially when the club doesn’t even need to borrow as it’s now debt-free with 200K in the bank. As I say though I’m no Perry Mason so more than happy for someone to put me right and show how this can’t happen under the proposals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB_Bino Posted July 2, 2018 Author Share Posted July 2, 2018 Especially when the club doesn’t even need to borrow as it’s now debt-free with 200K in the bank BUT going nowhere on the pitch and playing in front of more red seats than bums on seats. This isn’t a dig at anyone and I totally get the concerns but the aim of the current Board/Exec was always to clear the debt and they have done that, credit where it’s due......but surely we should be looking to more than existing? Surely we should be looking at the ambitions that the consortium are talking about?? No??Not only do I think we should be aspiring to be “that club” but to be in a position which is realistically risk free as a club, I don’t see how we can knock that back.I get people’s concerns and this is by no means me having a pop at anyone, but it’s a no brainer for me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhliston Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 2 hours ago, BB_Bino said: BUT going nowhere on the pitch and playing in front of more red seats than bums on seats. This isn’t a dig at anyone and I totally get the concerns but the aim of the current Board/Exec was always to clear the debt and they have done that, credit where it’s due......but surely we should be looking to more than existing? Surely we should be looking at the ambitions that the consortium are talking about?? No?? Not only do I think we should be aspiring to be “that club” but to be in a position which is realistically risk free as a club, I don’t see how we can knock that back. I get people’s concerns and this is by no means me having a pop at anyone, but it’s a no brainer for me. Agree with your comments its time for this Club to get out of the basement League and stay out. I don't care who is in charge provided that it moves the Club forward up the Leagues and keeps the Club in the black. Sick and tired of us wallowing in the basement of Scottish football with the facilities we have at Forthbank and seeing other smaller teams with little support getting promoted above us. Time for change whether its the Consortium bid or this latest offer we need to make sure we are not in this Basement League for much longer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Crownest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, BB_Bino said: BUT going nowhere on the pitch and playing in front of more red seats than bums on seats. This isn’t a dig at anyone and I totally get the concerns but the aim of the current Board/Exec was always to clear the debt and they have done that, credit where it’s due......but surely we should be looking to more than existing? Surely we should be looking at the ambitions that the consortium are talking about?? No?? Not only do I think we should be aspiring to be “that club” but to be in a position which is realistically risk free as a club, I don’t see how we can knock that back. I get people’s concerns and this is by no means me having a pop at anyone, but it’s a no brainer for me. Short term, on the pitch, it comes down to recruitment. With the budget Dave Mackay already has at his disposal topped up with some of that 200K already in the bank, there’s no good reason why, with the right choice of players, Albion can’t win that division comfortably. It wouldn’t take long for attendances to increase – Montrose had the biggest home crowds in League 2 last season - so there's time yet. Longer term, I totally agree with you, there’s a need for fresh faces and ideas and there aren’t many of either around just now. But the Trust/Club should take their time to locate the person/people with the right experience. There’s no need to rush into a contract that doesn’t suit the club. The lure of £600K may be attractive but it is a loan with lots of strings attached and a foreseeable scenario where SAFC could end up in liquidation. You're right, fans shouldn’t be sitting back and accepting the status quo and the lack of success is frustrating. But equally I think we owe it to ourselves and future generations not to sign up for something - through sheer will for the club to succeed - that could leave SAFC in grave danger. Edited July 2, 2018 by King Crownest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Give the club to the consortium. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pastmaster Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Be careful guys, Albion Rovers are in the shit because of imprudent `borrowings` by directors who walked away when the going got tough. Now we can only afford youths and juniors. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Crownest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JakeSAFC said: Give the club to the consortium. So would you – and John Neill and Colin Rowley – be happy to include unlimited personal guarantees as part of the final deal that you will be liable for any loan debt the club is left with? I’d be content to go with the consortium if they and their supporters are prepared to put all their personal assets on the line to make sure the club does not end up in liquidation. If the deal's a no-brainer as you reckon it is, I'm sure you'd be happy to do that? We all want success for the club but I’d like a guarantee that Stirling Albion is still going to be in existence in ten years time and not be the next Gretna. Edited July 2, 2018 by King Crownest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 So would you – and John Neill and Colin Rowley – be happy to include unlimited personal guarantees as part of the final deal that you will be liable for any loan debt the club is left with? I’d be content to go with the consortium if they and their supporters are prepared to put all their personal assets on the line to make sure the club does not end up in liquidation. If the deal's a no-brainer as you reckon it is, I'm sure you'd be happy to do that? We all want success for the club but I’d like a guarantee that Stirling Albion is still going to be in existence in ten years time and not be the next Gretna.Why would I put my personal assets on the line? The consortiums bid has and continues to be properly looked over. If there was any problems with it, it would be turned down. The majority seem in favour and it’s certainly what the club needs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Crownest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, JakeSAFC said: Why would I put my personal assets on the line? The consortiums bid has and continues to be properly looked over. If there was any problems with it, it would be turned down. The majority seem in favour and it’s certainly what the club needs. Jake, accountability makes for good decisions. It’s easy to be reckless when you have nothing to lose. There seems to be a train of events where John Neill could load up Stirling Albion with debt, walk away scot-free and leave the club to die. He's not giving any personal guarantees in that situation and you’re not prepared to put your money where your mouth is either. So who is accountable? And who pays the price if the club goes under? Quite rightly, the fans have been crying out for the right to make decisions about the club. And now you want to leave the responsibility to the lawyers? Well don’t rely on the lawyers because something can be legal yet stupid – the lawyers won’t make the final decision, the Trust members will. The lawyers will highlight illegalities but it's down to you, me and everyone else to spot the elephant traps. Every supporter who votes on this has a responsibility to be properly informed and have given it serious thought. Have you read the bid documents yourself? Edited July 2, 2018 by King Crownest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Jake, accountability makes for good decisions. It’s easy to be reckless when you have nothing to lose. There seems to be a train of events where John Neill could load up Stirling Albion with debt, walk away scot-free and leave the club to die. He's not giving any personal guarantees in that situation and you’re not prepared to put your money where your mouth is either. So who is accountable? And who pays the price if the club goes under? Quite rightly, the fans have been crying out for the right to make decisions about the club. And now you want to leave the responsibility to the lawyers? Well don’t rely on the lawyers because something can be legal yet stupid – the lawyers won’t make the final decision, the Trust members will. The lawyers will highlight illegalities but it's down to you, me and everyone else to spot the elephant traps. Every supporter who votes on this has a responsibility to be properly informed and have given it serious thought. Have you read the bid documents yourself? The club won’t go under. Sell the club. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Crownest Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, JakeSAFC said: The club won’t go under. Sell the club. Thank you. You're not much of an advert for fan ownership of football clubs. Edited July 2, 2018 by King Crownest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 You're not much of an advert for fan ownership of football clubs.I don’t care mate. I’m sick of being stuck in this shitey league, I want out and I believe under the consortium its our best chance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Crownest Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 35 minutes ago, JakeSAFC said: I don’t care mate. I’m sick of being stuck in this shitey league, I want out and I believe under the consortium its our best chance. You’ll have read the bid documents then to reach that conclusion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Crownest Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 (edited) I see John Neill’s written up his own contract. As part of it, he must “agree to travel abroad on Company business, as required and as at the Company’s (ie Club's) expense”. A dirty job but someone’s got to do it! Perhaps we’ll start to see a lot of trialists from Mediterranean countries – Malta, for example. Edited July 4, 2018 by King Crownest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhliston Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 From the back pages of the Stirling Observer, bad news I`m afraid Darren Barr is set to have surgery on one of his knees to clear up a problem and will be out for at least 7 weeks. In addition Darren Smith is out of the upcoming League Cup tie against Dundee at Forthbank with a back problem. Just hope we get some more players signed up for the start of the season as already we look like missing our best Central Defender for at least 2 weeks at the start of the League program. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB_Bino Posted July 4, 2018 Author Share Posted July 4, 2018 From the back pages of the Stirling Observer, bad news I`m afraid Darren Barr is set to have surgery on one of his knees to clear up a problem and will be out for at least 7 weeks. [emoji20] In addition Darren Smith is out of the upcoming League Cup tie against Dundee at Forthbank with a back problem. [emoji20] Just hope we get some more players signed up for the start of the season as already we look like missing our best Central Defender for at least 2 weeks at the start of the League program. That is indeed bad news. I think one of the reasons Smith had a good season last year was the fact that it was probably the first in years where he had had a pre-season and Barr is vital at the back for us, as we are so inconsistent without him.The squad is pretty worrying, as it currently stands, I don’t think lesson’s have been learned from last summer and I also think the squad lacks that goal scoring quality......I just keep my fingers crossed it’s sorted in the coming weeks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 I don’t think the squad is that bad tbh. A few more signings needed 100% but I’m happy with what we have so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanMck Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 Very impressed by your wee number 10 here tonight. Kevin Fell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.