Is Bloom REALLY in charge ?

[warmleyseagull]

New thread, new conspiracy theory. One that I think is on the fringes of credibility - who the hell wants to shove £00ms down the toilet of football ANONYMOUSLY?

There seem to me to be four arguments for TB not sacking Sami:

1) It's not his fault. GG pointed out on Friday that the players could be doing more (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30551771) perhaps explaining why we were less crap yesterday than recently. If TB believes that the squad is not up to it whoever is in charge then it is pointless spending a lot of money on compo;

2) It doesn't work. See this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517. If teams recover under a new manager, they would have done anyway, and if they don't, it hasn't worked. Several other people have noted this as an example of regression to the mean. Basically your performance over the medium term is better if you have better players, how about that? As a poker player who knows the odds better then most, I suspect TB subscribes to this.

3) Keep the money for Jan transfers;

4) Ensure we are compliant with FFP this season (remember the financial criteria are harsher)

 

[El Presidente]

Its beginning to look a lot like His Excellency The Lord Sugar when he was chairman at Spurs. Despite being a success at whatever he turned his hand to in any other sphere of business, football turned round and bit him in the bum. Football's like that.

Alan Sugar lost a fortune in a number of businesses, he has effectively made his money from property, not buying and selling, where his record is very patchy.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

My guess is that he will deal with the conundrum by solving the Burke problem, bringing in an experienced elder statesman to actually support the manager, and giving Sami (and the elder statesman) money to spend in the window. I could be wrong. It's just a guess. But I can't see any other way he can deal with the mess that has been created.

That would be a way out of this mess. But what do you mean by "solving the Burke problem"? Getting rid of the role? Or changing the person who does the job?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Err.........No. First of all there is no debt or interest being paid (if you look at the books).

Secondly, no PE house would stick money into a business that continually loses money, has huge downside risk (no guarantee of being promoted, and no guarantee of staying up even if do get to the PL).

I don't know which business model you have used, LBO, DCF or Comps, but they ALL point to not investing a bean in the Albion unless you have money to throw away.

You're just coming up with conspiracy theory nonsense that is totally groundless in terms of facts.

A bit harsh. PeterWard has suggested we do not know the true source of Bloom's money; this is all. Just because no interest is being paid does not mean it's all his money. He may well have backers. He might not. No one really seems to know for sure.

 

[GT49er]

That would be a way out of this mess. But what do you mean by "solving the Burke problem"? Getting rid of the role? Or changing the person who does the job?

Both?

 

[El Presidente]

A bit harsh. PeterWard has suggested we do not know the true source of Bloom's money. Just because no interest is being paid does not mean it's all his money. He may well have backers. He might not. No one seems to know.

He suggested that we are subject to highly leveraged debt such as Manchester United, who paid interest at 14.75%-16.75% on the deal.

If we apply that to the Albion and the £200m investment by Bloom, that comes out at an annual interest charge of £29.5-£33.5 million, or, to put it another way, 150% of the revenues generated last season at the Amex.

If he is suggesting that Tony Bloom, with his 96% shareholding in the Albion, is merely a patsy for some mysterious foreigners, who, for reasons that make zero commercial sense, chose to build a stadium, training facilities, and squad for a historically unsuccessful provincial football club with a fickle fan base that no one overseas has heard of, it could be true, but it's stretching the realms of possibility to a ridiculous amount.

As for for the magnitude of Bloom's riches, speak to people who work in wealth management, they'll be able to give you a ball park figure off the record. He can lose what he has invested in the Albion a few more times should he choose to do so IMO.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

How can anyone take a thread like this seriously when the OP has spent the previous 10 years slagging off Dick Knight (POTLESS PILLOCK) and ALL the previous managers and back room staff?

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Blooms loaded-otherwise why spend thousands on the new sign on the side of the Amex

 

[peterward]

He suggested that we are subject to highly leveraged debt such as Manchester United, who paid interest at 14.75%-16.75% on the deal.

If we apply that to the Albion and the £200m investment by Bloom, that comes out at an annual interest charge of £29.5-£33.5 million, or, to put it another way, 150% of the revenues generated last season at the Amex.

If he is suggesting that Tony Bloom, with his 96% shareholding in the Albion, is merely a patsy for some mysterious foreigners, who, for reasons that make zero commercial sense, chose to build a stadium, training facilities, and squad for a historically unsuccessful provincial football club with a fickle fan base that no one overseas has heard of, it could be true, but it's stretching the realms of possibility to a ridiculous amount.

As for for the magnitude of Bloom's riches, speak to people who work in wealth management, they'll be able to give you a ball park figure off the record. He can lose what he has invested in the Albion a few more times should he choose to do so IMO.

I'm not suggesting we are secretly ruled by outsiders, I dont believe for one second we are. Perhaps i didnt make it clear enough El pres about potential debt.........i am not suggesting WE ARE subject to highly leveraged debt, i simply asked the question "if" and in that I also did not mean that any highly leveraged debt arrangement (if that was the case?) was secured against the clubs balance sheet (as it was with Man U). I know the money our club has, has come from Bloom....... I meant, where did Bloom get it from?? is it from his own wealth or has be hocked himself up to the eyeballs?

Could it be that Bloom leveraged all his assets/property/business interests to raise credit to pay for the Albion? leaving himself with huge debt/exposure?

Of course nobody knows, but i'm sure they'd like to

 

[Ernest]

How can anyone take a thread like this seriously when the OP has spent the previous 10 years slagging off Dick Knight (POTLESS PILLOCK) and ALL the previous managers and back room staff?

It's ELEVEN

 

[BensGrandad]

Possibly. A more likely scenario is that Bloom himself has over-stretched himself or is struggling financially.

Or has been advised by his financial advisers to pull in the reins a bit before he gets to that point.

 

[El Presidente]

Could it be that Bloom leveraged all his assets/property/business interests to raise credit to pay for the Albion? leaving himself with huge debt/exposure?

Of course nobody knows, but i'm sure they'd like to

It 'could' be the case, but highly unlikely in a lending environment that is extremely cautious post the 2008 meltdown. Anyone lending to Bloom asks two key questions. (a) Can he repay? (b) If he fails to repay, what security would we get?

I can't see lenders doing (a) personally as no one would want to sign off on the deal, however if they did for (b) to work then TB MUST have assets worth at least £300 million (as the lender would factor in a potential decrease in both equity and property prices in a distressed market). I don't count the Amex in these estimates, because it's a white elephant, as it doesn't generate positive cash flows once you strip out operational costs.

 

[El Presidente]

Or has been advised by his financial advisers to pull in the reins a bit before he gets to that point.

Or that we've signed a bunch of overpaid duffers this season, and he is still bankrolling the club.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Ultimately yes.

But I do feel he has been surrounded (whether his choice or it just happened) with yes men or people good at pulling the wool over his eyes, trying to cling onto their jobs to justify their huge salaries.

I hope that while he is Oz he isnt surrounded by these "no problems here boss types and starts making changes.

You forget that there are experienced men on the board like Derek Chapman, Ray Bloom and Martin Perry. I doubt that they are yes men.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

The tiny, tiny issue with your hypothetical scenario, is the identity of these background 'investors' who have decided that the best use of their £200m is to spunk it on a provincial football club that hey have no affinity with, to turn it into a maximum of half that, even if the club DID get promoted.

Sorry - it's a rubbish theory.

You are defining exactly what moneylaunderers do. Yes, it's a rubbish theory.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

It's ELEVEN

I stand corrected!

 

[Seagull73]

You forget that there are experienced men on the board like Derek Chapman, Ray Bloom and Martin Perry. I doubt that they are yes men.

and what makes you doubt it? It's the money that talks, nothing else.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Do those old enough to remember 86-87 see any comparisons?

 

[Seagull73]

Do those old enough to remember 86-87 see any comparisons?

Off the pitch or on it? Mullery got the boot after, ironically, an away win at Grimsby (or Sheffield United can't remember exactly). What's the point?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

You forget that there are experienced men on the board like Derek Chapman, Ray Bloom and Martin Perry. I doubt that they are yes men.

Though not a peep out of any of them. Can't imagine they are at all happy with how things are being allowed pan out this season without remedial action being taken. Extremely worrying.