Stinky Kat
Tripping
Seagullible said:
I thought Pezza was something to do with McAlpine?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
A Genuine Question
- Thread starter BensGrandad
- Start date
I thought Pezza was something to do with McAlpine?
BensGrandad
New member
- Thread starter
- #22
Martin Perry worked for McAlpines before joining us and I was under the impression that the builders were already picked to build the new stadium whereever it may be, Adenstar who are putting in the new seats and whose MD happens to be a director of the club.
I am obviously wrong and misinformed and the building of it will go out to tender.
I am obviously wrong and misinformed and the building of it will go out to tender.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Jeez, Brian, call yourself a businessman? A contract this size (in excess of £50m) - of course it's got to go out to tender. And the tender process can't start until Prescott says YES, any judicial review is done and dusted, and it is proof is ascertain that the money is there.
That's not to say McAlpine won't win the contract, nor Adenstar do the concreting and foundations (that's what they do - not seats), but they have to go through the same process as everyone else.
With the answer to your previous point about invest £100m, then that is a completely different pot of money comapred to what the club is used to, and is vastly above the value of the club and the stadium together.
I suppose in theory if anyone came along with that sort of dough, then who could refuse?
That's not to say McAlpine won't win the contract, nor Adenstar do the concreting and foundations (that's what they do - not seats), but they have to go through the same process as everyone else.
With the answer to your previous point about invest £100m, then that is a completely different pot of money comapred to what the club is used to, and is vastly above the value of the club and the stadium together.
I suppose in theory if anyone came along with that sort of dough, then who could refuse?
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
- Thread starter
- #24
The Large One said:
As I said about the tender obviously I am wrong but I am more concerned about my other point of the rule changes ok I used too high a figure in £10m lets use the same idea with £2m, which is about DK reported wealth on paper.
I would still control the club something that according to the rules cannot happen.
I am sure that you will agree that nobody in their right mind would put any substantial amount of money into the club without having control especially if they do not own the ground only 1/4 of the shares of the company that does.
The Large One
Who's Next?
I don't know how the 'rules' would be administered. But I would suspect that one of the conditions for putting money in would be the acceptance that you don't get TOTAL control of the club.
Non-accepatance of this rule I guess would be a polite declining of the offer. That's the theory. I suppose it depends on what price one is prepared to put on putting your faith in one person's absolute control.
Non-accepatance of this rule I guess would be a polite declining of the offer. That's the theory. I suppose it depends on what price one is prepared to put on putting your faith in one person's absolute control.
BensGrandad
New member
- Thread starter
- #26
The bottom line is that the rule is only good for a limited amount of money and if the price was right it could be thrown out of the window.
i.e take over the debts of the club and give the shareholders x amount for their shares, probably need to be above their actual value, and away you go owning the club.
The problem then comes as to what are you actually buying because they do not own the ground, their name their position in the league not much else.
What value would any wealthy person put on that?
i.e take over the debts of the club and give the shareholders x amount for their shares, probably need to be above their actual value, and away you go owning the club.
The problem then comes as to what are you actually buying because they do not own the ground, their name their position in the league not much else.
What value would any wealthy person put on that?
this is getting really confusing! 
The Large One
Who's Next?
It depends on what you are looking for in an investment.
Do you invest to take over the club? Do you invest to have a say in the running of the club, while trusting the present incumbents? Or is it an 'investment of the heart' - i.e. putting money into the club while not expecting to see it again?
I am in favour of a separate company owning the stadium - it gives us safeguards against what happened in 1995. This was because of the problem during the Archer years in that one person had control of the club AND the ground, and could do things pretty much unchecked. The only thing that could really stop them would be the fans, which is why they (a) sold the ground in secret, and (b) initially denied that they had done so when the story broke.
I accept that it makes for an investment in the Albion being a little less attractive, seeing as the club's assets would not be so voluminous. However, it ought to be a fair price to guard against a future Bill Archer stitching us up again.
Do you invest to take over the club? Do you invest to have a say in the running of the club, while trusting the present incumbents? Or is it an 'investment of the heart' - i.e. putting money into the club while not expecting to see it again?
I am in favour of a separate company owning the stadium - it gives us safeguards against what happened in 1995. This was because of the problem during the Archer years in that one person had control of the club AND the ground, and could do things pretty much unchecked. The only thing that could really stop them would be the fans, which is why they (a) sold the ground in secret, and (b) initially denied that they had done so when the story broke.
I accept that it makes for an investment in the Albion being a little less attractive, seeing as the club's assets would not be so voluminous. However, it ought to be a fair price to guard against a future Bill Archer stitching us up again.
Last edited:
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
Let's be realistic here. Any BIG investor with serious dosh - one who is effectively bankrolling the club - is going to want control. As things stand at the moment, with very few assets and a Chairman who is a fan first and an investor second other investors will be happy with the current ownership rules. But a new guy with loadsamoney - even if a fan - probably will want to change those rules.
So we have to trust DK that if the time comes when he agrees to let a dominant investor on board - and it will - he will have enough checks and balances in place to ensure that the new guy can't do the dirty on us but will be able to have control of his asset. That's a difficult trick to pull off but I for one will trust DK to do it.
If he says this new guy is the right guy for the club, whoever he may be, then that's good enough for me. Knowing Dick, he will see it as essential that the fans are happy with any new dominant investor.
Whoever the new dominant investor turns out to be, and whatever the ownership rules, there needs to be openness in the dealings whilst still respecting the need for business confidentiality. That almost certainly means a fan's representative on the board and a committment from the new owners - DK is going to be pretty busy setting that lot up!
So we have to trust DK that if the time comes when he agrees to let a dominant investor on board - and it will - he will have enough checks and balances in place to ensure that the new guy can't do the dirty on us but will be able to have control of his asset. That's a difficult trick to pull off but I for one will trust DK to do it.
If he says this new guy is the right guy for the club, whoever he may be, then that's good enough for me. Knowing Dick, he will see it as essential that the fans are happy with any new dominant investor.
Whoever the new dominant investor turns out to be, and whatever the ownership rules, there needs to be openness in the dealings whilst still respecting the need for business confidentiality. That almost certainly means a fan's representative on the board and a committment from the new owners - DK is going to be pretty busy setting that lot up!
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I suppose what all this really leads to is that we the fans need to form a Supporters Trust and directly invest in the club ourselves, and thus ensure that no one person owns the club.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Watch this space...
Note to self: Got to find an accountant, a financial advisor, someone with good presentional skills, some Albion fans and some dosh. Now where can I possibly get them - at this hour?
Note to self: Got to find an accountant, a financial advisor, someone with good presentional skills, some Albion fans and some dosh. Now where can I possibly get them - at this hour?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,869
The Large One said:
why is this?
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
The Large One said:
None of those things are a problem to find
except the dosh
So how about you and I setting up a partnership - you supply the dosh and I'll supply the other 4 items
Last edited:
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Both Ardiles and Maradona are already very rich men. Are we to assume that their motivation for investing in the Albion would be to get even richer? Or to get control of a new plaything called a football club?
Those are the classic Anglo Saxon reasons for being in business. They don't necessarily apply in this case.
Ardiles and Maradona both know what it is to be lauded as HEROES. Maybe that's what motivates them MORE than money?
They will know that the route to heroism is respect for the traditions held dear by the people who will worship you. That is how it worked at Spurs and how it worked at Napoli. It is how it can work at the Albion - but only if they respect how we got to where we are now.
And that will mean that they will have to understand WHY we will never fully trust a single owner who is motivated by money and power.
Steve Perryman appears to be advising them. Does HE understand our recent history?
As to the core question in this thread, my view is that it is an essential element in the Falmer project that it is a COMMUNITY stadium and that the interests of the community will be protected by the continuing involvement of the City Council in the stadium project.
Those are the classic Anglo Saxon reasons for being in business. They don't necessarily apply in this case.
Ardiles and Maradona both know what it is to be lauded as HEROES. Maybe that's what motivates them MORE than money?
They will know that the route to heroism is respect for the traditions held dear by the people who will worship you. That is how it worked at Spurs and how it worked at Napoli. It is how it can work at the Albion - but only if they respect how we got to where we are now.
And that will mean that they will have to understand WHY we will never fully trust a single owner who is motivated by money and power.
Steve Perryman appears to be advising them. Does HE understand our recent history?
As to the core question in this thread, my view is that it is an essential element in the Falmer project that it is a COMMUNITY stadium and that the interests of the community will be protected by the continuing involvement of the City Council in the stadium project.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
- Thread starter
- #35
Curious Orange said:
That is fine provided you can accumulate sufficient cash to enable you to aquire some of the existing shares but from whom are you going to purchase them? Is Dick Knight,Ray Bloom or Derek Chapman going to relinquish any of their shares and control to enable this to happen, I do not think so if they decide to sell their shares it will be for a lot of money.
The Large One
Who's Next?
BensGrandad said:
We're back to the question of volume of investment again.
In answer to that question, I believe one of those three would be prepared to (no names, so don't ask). However, if the board saw that it was a Supporters' Trust, they may be satsified with the Trust's intentions to relinquish a percentage of their shareholding. If you excuse the pun, it is all about trust.
BensGrandad
New member
- Thread starter
- #37
I am not doubting you or your intentions TLO what I caanot get to grips with is one of those 3 would say yes you can have some of my shares, which weakens his holding and then would give the space for somebody to buy the other shares easier.
Going back to my hypothetical example my 3 sons have 17% each and me 49% if anyone of those gives up 5% it weakens their position and makes the rest more vulnerable to a take over.
Going back to my hypothetical example my 3 sons have 17% each and me 49% if anyone of those gives up 5% it weakens their position and makes the rest more vulnerable to a take over.