SWINDON TOWN: Patey wants a bidding war (From Swindon Advertiser)

London Red wrote:
PdC said the other day wages are under budget and the cash is there it is the 65% issue stopping it
.
They need equity to boost that and AB won't do that again - so unless a sale occurs (either the club or a player) we are stuck and will lose Martin and Hollands at the end of Feb
.
The only reason this week has been disappointing is the shameful media
.
The news from the club has been positive!
.
AB wants to sell - well we've known that since Oct!
.
Club has debts of £13m - known that since the last accounts came out about 6 or so month ago
.
Club actually has no debt as ALL is owed to owners - known that for 5 years since they took over
.
The only actual news is there are 7 parties in talks, 2 are serious, 1 excites PdC and it could be concluded in weeks
.
That seems positive to me
.
As for the loanees if the sale is looking like going ahead I'm sure an advance or an injection by AB can occur to keep them on 31st

robstfc wrote:
Can someone please clarify for me..... What is the a actual value of our club or is black just looking to get back the money he as invested?

Chish and Fips wrote:
My concern is we end up with the 'property developers type investors' who have little interest in the club, ( Brady and Co. springs to mind), where when it got too hot in the kitchen they cleared off.
I can see where SWP is coming from but if these are his words, no wonder the war in Afghanistan has gone on so long if he was a negotiator out there.

London Red wrote:
Trueworth of the club is Black would have to pay someone to take it on in current state!
.
There is a negative shareholder equity of about £13m and debts of £13m - so it would need profits of £26m before a single penny could be taken back out!
.
Now AB is talking about wiping the debt out (or lots of it) which has a double effect of reducing both

so that could see the profit needed before a penny can be taken out reduced dramatically - As wiped off debt = profit and profit = reduced negative equity!
.
However, the actual price will be determined by the discounted future cash flows - which the experts are evaluating now under multiple scenarios so who knows!

btel66 wrote:
Cann I ask when Mr Fitton came in with the consortium I understood that a chap by the name of Martyn Arbib was the man with the money & I can remember looking at the rich list then & he was in the top 100 rich people in the uk (although I can;t find that now) but I also understand that he lives in Ramsbury can he not come back in with Mr Wray?

my other point is in the above article SWP says that some are property & others are football well couldn't we have 2 groups investings so one looks after the football side & the other lookd after tyhe ground etc then we have double the money coming into the club.

batch wrote:
Why can't the Red Army Fund be used to keep Martin and/or Hollands for a bit longer in the worst case - that the club isn't sold before their loan expires. Which lets be honest, 4 weeks is no time at all in the grand scheme of a takeover. I assume we aren't paying 10K in wages to either of them, so even another month is better than none.

red ed wrote:
More baloney. What would a bidding war achieve? A greater amount of money repaid to current investors? Certainly no benefit to the club. Money put into football is dead money, and repayment should never be expected. The adver has been too kind to black et al. Sure we're grateful for the good times, but if they weren't committed to those cash injections long term (like the simple matter of extending loan signings) why start them? They could have saved the club sustainably. And how does someone with no interest in football build a 98% stake in a club? These are successful businessmen, they knew what they knew were up to. All sniffs like a group who had ulterior motives that couldn't be satisfied. One by one they walked, black is just the last man standing.

old town robin wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote: My concern is we end up with the 'property developers type investors' who have little interest in the club, ( Brady and Co. springs to mind), where when it got too hot in the kitchen they cleared off. I can see where SWP is coming from but if these are his words, no wonder the war in Afghanistan has gone on so long if he was a negotiator out there.

i would also be concerned if property developers looking for a quick buck were prefered over footballing people that Paulo mention were interested, (would guess Phil Spencer might be leading that one). Would also suspect Patey's midde East contacts have proved to be fruitless. But at the end of day, I would hope whom ever comes in, will have the money not only to buy Andrew Blacks shares but to also progress the club with substantial financial commitment to the next level.

Oxon-Red wrote:

old town robin wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote: My concern is we end up with the 'property developers type investors' who have little interest in the club, ( Brady and Co. springs to mind), where when it got too hot in the kitchen they cleared off. I can see where SWP is coming from but if these are his words, no wonder the war in Afghanistan has gone on so long if he was a negotiator out there.

i would also be concerned if property developers looking for a quick buck were prefered over footballing people that Paulo mention were interested, (would guess Phil Spencer might be leading that one). Would also suspect Patey's midde East contacts have proved to be fruitless. But at the end of day, I would hope whom ever comes in, will have the money not only to buy Andrew Blacks shares but to also progress the club with substantial financial commitment to the next level.

Old Town,

Not sure I share the concern. Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that STFC has no property to sell and that the site of the County Ground cannot be used for any activity other than sport.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe I read somewhere that the lease on the CG land stipulated the sports proviso.

A property developer would therefore be interested in providing a new site. Some may be anti this, which I understand, but it could be a real shot in the arm for the club.

COYMR

Oxon-Red wrote:

old town robin wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote: My concern is we end up with the 'property developers type investors' who have little interest in the club, ( Brady and Co. springs to mind), where when it got too hot in the kitchen they cleared off. I can see where SWP is coming from but if these are his words, no wonder the war in Afghanistan has gone on so long if he was a negotiator out there.

i would also be concerned if property developers looking for a quick buck were prefered over footballing people that Paulo mention were interested, (would guess Phil Spencer might be leading that one). Would also suspect Patey's midde East contacts have proved to be fruitless. But at the end of day, I would hope whom ever comes in, will have the money not only to buy Andrew Blacks shares but to also progress the club with substantial financial commitment to the next level.

Old Town,

Not sure I share the concern. Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that STFC has no property to sell and that the site of the County Ground cannot be used for any activity other than sport.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe I read somewhere that the lease on the CG land stipulated the sports proviso.

A property developer would therefore be interested in providing a new site. Some may be anti this, which I understand, but it could be a real shot in the arm for the club.

COYMR

EastleazeRed wrote:
sorry but i think andrew patey is a knob and dont like idea of a bidding war !

Davidsyrett wrote:

EastleazeRed wrote: sorry but i think andrew patey is a knob and dont like idea of a bidding war !

yep, I'm sure SWP speaks highly of you as well, and I guess you will be happy with administration as well. Grow up

old town robin wrote:

Oxon-Red wrote:

old town robin wrote:

Chish and Fips wrote: My concern is we end up with the 'property developers type investors' who have little interest in the club, ( Brady and Co. springs to mind), where when it got too hot in the kitchen they cleared off. I can see where SWP is coming from but if these are his words, no wonder the war in Afghanistan has gone on so long if he was a negotiator out there.

i would also be concerned if property developers looking for a quick buck were prefered over footballing people that Paulo mention were interested, (would guess Phil Spencer might be leading that one). Would also suspect Patey's midde East contacts have proved to be fruitless. But at the end of day, I would hope whom ever comes in, will have the money not only to buy Andrew Blacks shares but to also progress the club with substantial financial commitment to the next level.

Old Town,

Not sure I share the concern. Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that STFC has no property to sell and that the site of the County Ground cannot be used for any activity other than sport.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe I read somewhere that the lease on the CG land stipulated the sports proviso.

A property developer would therefore be interested in providing a new site. Some may be anti this, which I understand, but it could be a real shot in the arm for the club.

COYMR

I see your point OX-Red and yes you are correct they would be severely limited with any future development at the CG becuse they don't own the ground and covenants.

Hadn't given much thought to a new location, but I can see that being a possibility. Would like to see us stay in SN1 for selfish reasons of it being convenient to where I live. Pity Town didn't buy the old Wills sports ground before it was developed, it would have been a good location for a new stadium..

London Red wrote:
There are various ways control can be defined - but the most basic and most likely is to hold 51% of the shares . So AB only needs to sell 51% to hand control over . This can be seen at Arsenal where Usmanov owns 30% but Kroenke has control and is preventing Usmanov a place on the board . Ours doesn't have to be hostile like that but AB could be a silent partner and not be on be board . It could be New Owner 51% who run the board, AB 47% and just passive and the remaing 3% individuals like me, Loyal, Terrier (I think) and the Trust . Think he will sell more than 51% though and is likely to only retain 10-20% to receive any potential future benefit after writing massive amounts of now . PdC is clearly excited by one party and I hope they do get it as that could see a new medium plan in place and PdC stay for a few more years . I'm certainly liking what PdC and Watkins have been saying and that is how this news should have been portrayed

Town Of The Future wrote:
WTF????? You lot are the only idiots!!! This is POSITIVE NEWS and you're all still full of doom and gloom. Jesus christ what does this club have to do to please you???
I swear some of you will not be happy until we're sat on top of the premiership.
Match of the Day is on tonight in case you're missing your premiership teams with all this local football lark!!

Oi Den! wrote:

Davidsyrett wrote:

EastleazeRed wrote: sorry but i think andrew patey is a knob and dont like idea of a bidding war !

yep, I'm sure SWP speaks highly of you as well, and I guess you will be happy with administration as well. Grow up

I would be interested to know who Andrew Patey is. Never heard of him.

Oi Den! wrote:
So this is POSITIVE news? Therefore it is better than the status quo - Andrew Black continuing to bankroll the club? We are looking for a buyer for a loss making business which is millions in debt to its shareholders, who now want as much of their money back as possible. How this can be good news is beyond me. I'm sure some people would put positive spin on a catastrophic fire that turned the County Ground into a pile of ashes. Getting a suitable buyer with the right motives is going to be no easy task.
.
And LR, why blame the media? We are all grown up and can make our own minds up. The headlines may not always be appropriate, and they do annoy me sometimes, but if people are too lazy to read the full story or listen to the full interview that's their own lookout. It seems to me that this has all come out into the open because the BBC caught Patey on the hop with a phone call. In view of Patey's previous evasiveness, this can only be a good thing.

matt71 wrote:
If we can keep Hollands then that will be fine Martin is no huge lose especially with storey back. There is still money in the trust fund,maybe it could be used to finance Hollands for an extra month.

stfc2012 wrote:
He says he wants the best deal to see us flourish, while obviously doing well for Black. Do people just read the negative? We have had a Huge budget to get promoted and the reason we have none left is because we have spent it all (a lot of that wasted). PDC and Wray should have planned things more accurately and I'm not talking about the tribunal fees as that's just the tip of the ice-berg. We were never guaranteed promotion despite what we spend and still aren't. We can't just keep throwing cash at Martin and Hollands in hope that wins us the league. Bostock was costing us a fortune to warm the bench and because we over-pay some of our players they don't want to go elsewhere and clubs won't pay what we want.

It seems our manager wants a bottomless pit of money and doesn't seem to understand what happens to a business if it spends far more than it generates. He may be shovelling snow and fair play to him but he must know that we can't just keep spending. Ultimately the board decides what funds are available and if they gave PDC a vision and that has changed like he said then he has the right to be annoyed. Wray isn't stupid so must have had a plan and I'd guess the other board members may have had a change of heart.

I don't think Patey should be the scapegoat: he's been brought in to do a job and its not his fault. PDC has made some poor signings and lives spending but if he's been promised money then he has the right to spend it. Black has saved us and if its now time to leave then good luck to him. Wray put passion back in from board level. I don't think 1 person is to blame but circumstances have meant this is where we are now. The club will go on one way or another.

thesixtyniner wrote:
Agreed. Shame that multi millionaires need to 'cut their losses' at all - how badly does he need the money. The least they can do is sell to the buyers who are best for the football club. Instead they're blatantly setting up a bidding war. Is that really the message to send out to potential suitors, I'd run a mile. Clearly, Patey's on a decent cut, hence the need to squeeze buyers instead of finding the right one for the club and the town. Shame on you.

joey butler wrote:
The situation seems to be going from bad to worse.

Bye bye to the promotion challenge then. How were things ever allowed to get this bad?

STFConyourpitch wrote:

joey butler wrote:
The situation seems to be going from bad to worse.

Bye bye to the promotion challenge then. How were things ever allowed to get this bad?

We aren't going into administration its been confirmed by the club that we don't owe any money. If you haven't heard yet that this was made up by a journalist

nlorenzo wrote:
Never been impressed with this bloke. Without wanting to be overly political he has hardly a great success in Afghanistan. He seems to think he's an expert in business when clearly he's not. Shame that Black got involved with him in the first place. A bit of humility is what Patey needs in Swindon's current predicament. He's not got it. He has certainly alienated the fans, now he seems to be doing his best to alienate potential investors as well.

Town Of The Future wrote:
WTF????? You lot are the only idiots!!! This is POSITIVE NEWS and you're all still full of doom and gloom. Jesus christ what does this club have to do to please you???
I swear some of you will not be happy until we're sat on top of the premiership.
Match of the Day is on tonight in case you're missing your premiership teams with all this local football lark!!

thesixtyniner wrote:
Agreed. Shame that multi millionaires need to 'cut their losses' at all - how badly does he need the money. The least they can do is sell to the buyers who are best for the football club. Instead they're blatantly setting up a bidding war. Is that really the message to send out to potential suitors, I'd run a mile. Clearly, Patey's on a decent cut, hence the need to squeeze buyers instead of finding the right one for the club and the town. Shame on you.

London Red wrote:
Joey all money is owed internally so is not debt
.
Also I said some was the shareholder equity - this is not debt or owed. It's retained losses which would prevent dividends as this needs to be positive for this to occur
.
The liabilites which are the "debt" as Wray said can be negotiated easily as it is with the owners not the HMRC etc
.
This is where AB will minimise his losses - for example one party may want 100% written off where another may accept 75%
.
If option 2 are sucessful in buying AB gets and "extra" £3m - but is really losing £9m
.
The true situation for STFC will not be known until accounts post the sale are produced as then we will see what the liabilities and shareholder equity stands at - though thanks to AB be a top bloke and looking for the best for the club over money for himself it should look pretty good!