Barrow AFC.net

Reg, the directors loans have never come into it.

The sole motivation is to do the best by the club. No doubt I'll be decried as being "a mouthpiece for the Keen's" but that's the truth.



Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Peter, sorry to take up more of your time but just to clarify:

You say the club supplied details of what was owed and to who but then two pages later say you do not know the current debt level.

Do you simply mean you don't have it to hand? If not would you be able to make it available?

By the way Peter I don't think people are having a pop at you it's just that you the the only link between those in charge and the fans/members.

post withdrawn

blue nige wrote:On page 9 of this thread"spongebob" says the ground CANNOT be bought any potential investor can only pay off the debt and invest in the club so are we all getting confused ?please somebody HELPwhat is the current position!

That's the way things stand at present being a members club.
PC is wanting to change to a shareholding club so he must make a bid for what the club is worth and then let the members decide whether or not to accept the proposal in changing from a members club to a private shareholding club where members would lose what say they had in the running of the club (unless they bought lots of shares themselves).

These are my thoughts on this matter whatever they are worth :

Keens and others won't get all their money back (easy for me to say). Neither should they- if I put money unwisely into something, even with the best intentions, partly to cover mistakes I have made, then some sort of loss will be incurred. To think otherwise is utterly unrealistic.

I would hazard a guess that in the current economic climate the club won't come out at 600k in an independent valuation but am happy to stand corrected if this proves to be the case.

BC isn't going to get the club for 250k. Neither he should- no matter how [SwearFilter] off some are at the B.O.D it's shameful that some seem to be suggesting we bump them and the debentures off because it suits the membership. I think what Hoss says in essence is right. Pay back some of the debt/debentures (pluck out of air 350k) and let him have the club for a quid.

It's no good us getting all frustrated and falling out. We will have a chance to question both sides and they should be subjected to the same rigour. My limited understanding of the Progress Group time was that sides were too quickly taken and a lot of ill feeling hung around which immediately resurfaced when the wheels came off again.

My impression from the letter is that P.C sounds sincere and is getting some decent advice locally on what buttons to press- no issue with that, it's what I would do. He also could clearly give the board a few lessons in how to operate articulately in the media, again no problem with that. I think Tony et al probably feel annoyed that the EM is giving him an easy ride, if anyone like Steve Shaw is reading this, make sure the EM reports both sides with equal emphasis.

Big decisions and we have some say in it. Let's not blow that.

spongebobsquarepants wrote:Peter, sorry to take up more of your time but just to clarify:

You say the club supplied details of what was owed and to who but then two pages later say you do not know the current debt level.

Do you simply mean you don't have it to hand? If not would you be able to make it available?

By the way Peter I don't think people are having a pop at you it's just that you the the only link between those in charge and the fans/members.

I meant i don't have them to hand. I'm not sure whether we can release figures before the AGM but certainly at the AGM we'll be issuing an up to date picture of where we are as a club financially. My gut feeling is that this is the right way to do things as members get the info first.

And i know people aren't having a pop at me, and if they were i could understand them.

John Very Little wrote:

blue nige wrote:On page 9 of this thread"spongebob" says the ground CANNOT be bought any potential investor can only pay off the debt and invest in the club so are we all getting confused ?please somebody HELPwhat is the current position!

That's the way things stand at present being a members club.
PC is wanting to change to a shareholding club so he must make a bid for what the club is worth and then let the members decide whether or not to accept the proposal in changing from a members club to a private shareholding club where members would lose what say they had in the running of the club (unless they bought lots of shares themselves).

What "say" we barley have a say as it is.

We never get told the true state of the club financially its always a year out of date that's one of the problems.

If it wasn't for Peter we wouldn't have any contact with the board apart from the odd chat with Tony Keen on match days. who seems like a nice guy but its hard to accept what he tells you as truth anymore.

We shut down in the summer, beg for money and file the accounts late.

They are people who obviously care but are they capable It has been proven they are not looking at the current debt levels.

This is a members club in name only hasn't been run like one for years.

barrowaberdeen wrote:These are my thoughts on this matter whatever they are worth :

Keens and others won't get all their money back (easy for me to say). Neither should they- if I put money unwisely into something, even with the best intentions, partly to cover mistakes I have made, then some sort of loss will be incurred. To think otherwise is utterly unrealistic.

I would hazard a guess that in the current economic climate the club won't come out at 600k in an independent valuation but am happy to stand corrected if this proves to be the case.

BC isn't going to get the club for 250k. Neither he should- no matter how [SwearFilter] off some are at the B.O.D it's shameful that some seem to be suggesting we bump them and the debentures off because it suits the membership. I think what Hoss says in essence is right. Pay back some of the debt/debentures (pluck out of air 350k) and let him have the club for a quid.

It's no good us getting all frustrated and falling out. We will have a chance to question both sides and they should be subjected to the same rigour. My limited understanding of the Progress Group time was that sides were too quickly taken and a lot of ill feeling hung around which immediately resurfaced when the wheels came off again.

My impression from the letter is that P.C sounds sincere and is getting some decent advice locally on what buttons to press- no issue with that, it's what I would do. He also could clearly give the board a few lessons in how to operate articulately in the media, again no problem with that. I think Tony et al probably feel annoyed that the EM is giving him an easy ride, if anyone like Steve Shaw is reading this, make sure the EM reports both sides with equal emphasis.

Big decisions and we have some say in it. Let's not blow that.

My question to any fan or member would be - what would you be happy selling the club for? Forget debts and creditors for a second, what would the membership be happy selling to a private individual for.

Should that individual get an asset for well below its value? Some will say anyone but the current board, which is a bit short sighted but quite understandable.

John Very Little wrote:...the loan with St Andrews is subject to interest but no interest has been claimed on this loan. However the interest could be added at any time and if someone like PC is coming in with a cash bid then I'd guess the unclaimed interest would also be added on?

If St Andrews can still claim that interest then I would have thought that the theoretical interest accrued over the years would have been included in the total debt figure in the accounts under the "accounting prudence convention" which exists to ensure that debts are not understated and that assets are not overstated. I'm not an accountant mind you, so before taking that as given I'd await confirmation from someone who actually knows what they are talking about!

DaveP wrote:He wouldn't be buying the debts without the assets and so he's probably suggesting a figure that nets one against the other.

Three Lie Ins wrote:That's right no one would pay £1.1M, but if the ground is worth £600K and there are debts of £500K, they may pay £100K which would be the net worth.

That only makes sense if the debts transfer to the new owner as well as the assets. I've no idea if that is legally an option (I suspect not) but if it was, using the numbers in your example, Casson would effectively be paying £600k for the ground (£100k cash to the old members' club and £500k of debt which he'd have to pay off eventually).

I think John is basically right that any offer has to be at least equal to the total amount of debt (less anything that any creditors, including debenture holders, choose to write off).

For what it's worth I want to hear what PC has to say, he's said a lot of the things we as fans want to hear so far. Listening to any potential investor is the correct thing to do. Just because we want to listen doesn't necessarily mean we have to vote for the take-over.

Pete- nowt- the issue is the loans, debentures and mortgage. I know you don't agree Peter, but the unwise loans, while given to keep the club going, stymie the whole process.

And yes Dave, I agree 100%. I want him to listen but he's not to be given an easy ride because we are angry at the present incumbents.

Uncle Peter wrote: My question to any fan or member would be - what would you be happy selling the club for? Forget debts and creditors for a second, what would the membership be happy selling to a private individual for.

Should that individual get an asset for well below its value? Some will say anyone but the current board, which is a bit short sighted but quite understandable.

Peter, the bid isn't for an asset (the ground), it's for the Club. Therefore you cannot 'forget' the debt and creditors.The ground may or may not be worth £600K, but what ever it's value, the value of Club is much less because of all the debt and creditors.

Uncle Peter wrote:My question to any fan or member would be - what would you be happy selling the club for? Forget debts and creditors for a second, what would the membership be happy selling to a private individual for.

My view (as I suggested earlier in this thread): something very close to a fair value of the ground, with the condition (and approval from the members) that any surplus (over the total value of the debts) gets reinvested as share capital in the new company Mr Casson sets up to run the football club. In other words Mr Casson effectively gets back any surplus as cash to spend on the football club, but that way the members (in the form of the current club or preferably a supporters' trust) have a stake in the football club into the future.

Three Lie Ins wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote: My question to any fan or member would be - what would you be happy selling the club for? Forget debts and creditors for a second, what would the membership be happy selling to a private individual for.

Should that individual get an asset for well below its value? Some will say anyone but the current board, which is a bit short sighted but quite understandable.

Peter, the bid isn't for an asset (the ground), it's for the Club. Therefore you cannot 'forget' the debt and creditors.The ground may or may not be worth £600K, but what ever it's value, the value of Club is much less because of all the debt and creditors.

The bid, as far as i see, is for the assets of the club and not the club itself.

The club, as it stands cannot be sold due to the way its structured and It can't simply be converted into a share capital company. Therefore any investor would have to set up a new company and purchase the assets, which would be the ground and the ability to play football in the Conference. The old company would then be wound down, with any surplus cash being distributed as decided by the members in line with the constitution.