Senile Council Article

[AVIM]

When wrongly asked IMO by the RS interviewer last night if he had proof of funding Mo said he had 32 million available for investment .I think the council may want to do business with him don't you?Granted that was not all for the Vale but why would anyone want to pay that much over the odds considering the board do quite well in getting loan holidays and rumour has it can't be a r s e d paying anything back now.There's taking the **ss then there's taking the giant **ss.

 

I agree. If he has 32m in cash it should be no problem to negotiate to roll over the loan with the council.

 

But if the council refuse, he can just pay it off. After all, he said he had up to 3.8m to loan to the club to do exactly that. So I dont understand why he has come out and said he will now pull out of the deal, unless the 3.8m was fabrication.

[AVIM]

But what do you think? I'm interested in your opinion.

 

You have seen and heard the things the board say and do. What's your evaluation of them?

 

My evaluation is they tell lies like anyone else does, when it serves their interest. I would not expect Bill Bell, Mo Chaudry, Mike Newton, or Abramovich to be any different.

 

It seems that this board are just not very good at lying, whereas I suspect another owner would get found out less often by being a bit smarter/craftier.

[Jacko51]

Mo Chaudry stated at the Baddeley Green meeting that he intended to negotiate with the Council to pay off the loan at a discount. By doing that, he would be able to put more money directly into the club. Being requested to pay off the entire loan within 60 days was never part of his thinking I don't imagine.

 

Secondly, with regard to the reason for the existence of the clause. Mr Jackson states in the article that " the clause has nothing to do with protecting the board, it's all about protecting the council." If the loan was being guaranteed personally by the Board of Directors, I could fully understand why the Council would need protection should a change of control at the club occur. It is not, however. I understand that Council carried out a valuation of the ground before agreeing to the loan to ensure that the Club possessed sufficient assets to guarantee the loan. If the ground guarantees the loan, why should a change of control in the Board Room require full repayment.

 

Something smells of fish to me.

[tobert1985]

for one am sick and tired of the Sentinels biased view of this takeover deal, you dont mind if mo wants to advertise or offers ticket deals do you?

This comment will be deleted i assume but a lot of your readers are Port Vale fans, its about time you protected your readership and not the interests of the board. Unless its scandal good journalism is based on facts and opinions from both side of the fence, you constantly paint out Mo to be a blagger, first saying he will pull out of the deal before going into the fact that he says "only if it cant be renegotiated" you paint the currrent board as saints, were you not as a paper once banned from vale park, you have extremly short memories and instead of supporting a man with a proven record who could help a small local team prosper you choose to portray him as some sort of irritant.

Where are the stories on the boards proposed takeover been extremely flawed, where are the stories on the loopholes this board have been jumping through, some good investigative journalism is required right now the only thing your doing is pushing this club to the brink.

How many people will want to read the backpage when PVFC dont exsist Utter amateurs just posted on the seniles website

[Fosse69]

Just a thought;) but knowing what a good relationship Pratty has with Harlequin, if Pratty goes I would imagine Harlequin would go! Hence the need to repay the £130k.

Also, I wonder what would happen IF the club has ordered any shirts with Harlequin printed on as the club sponsor.

 

Could we use the Tricell ones instead?

[geosname]

Its "valid" in the sense that v2001 would only relinquish control of the club to someone who has sufficient funding in place to either clear the debt, or set up alternative lines of credit, or meet with the approval of the clubs main investor (the council).

 

The clause acts to support this view.

 

It basically gives the council veto over any takeover of control my someone who doesn't have capital. They can choose to renew the loan with Mo if they see fit. As the biggest investor in port vale, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable veto to have? As we have all agreed here many times, who will invest as large amount as 2.2m in the club without having some say?

 

The council are not investors they are creditors.... huge difference.

Anyone with any sense would get the business to service the loan on an ongoing basis, paid from future profits it allows other monies to be used in different areas.... like team/services/development etc. If a five million pound investment is swallowed by static debt it leaves nothing to progress and it values the club at an unrealistic price.

It also places the present board in a strange position.... if bratt does stand down the structure of the board changes... is the loan repayable?.... if the signatories stand down does that trigger the repayment?

Ah I hear you say.... No because V2001 will still be in control.... if thats the case Mo is ok..... because Mo is trying to buy 51% of V2001 so V2001 will still be in control.

[AVIM]

why should a change of control in the Board Room require full repayment.

 

It doesn't require full payment exactly. It is easy enough for the council to terminate this agreement by entering into another one with a new board.

 

What it does is give the council some say in who controls the clubs assets (the ground etc). As the clubs biggest investor (2.2m), this seems like a reasonable request.

 

If the council don't think their investment is safe with a new potential board, they can ask for their money back. If they are in favour of the "take over", they can roll the deal over.

[ginginator]

I feel that until this lot are tried in the Hague for there acts against fans, Vale will go nowhere. Some of the guff they try and muster is scandalous and I would not even give them a penny of my money. Roll on change and I will return.

[AVIM]

The council are not investors they are creditors.... huge difference.

 

They are in fact both. They have invested in port vale a lump of capital and receive a coupon payment as a return on that investment. At the end of the term, they receive back their original investment in full.

 

Bondholders and shareholders are different classes and kinds of investors. But they are investors all the same.

 

In the event the club goes bump, they are a major creditor who will be first in line to get their money back based on sale of the ground.

[Fosse69]

for one am sick and tired of the Sentinels biased view of this takeover deal, you dont mind if mo wants to advertise or offers ticket deals do you?

This comment will be deleted i assume but a lot of your readers are Port Vale fans, its about time you protected your readership and not the interests of the board. Unless its scandal good journalism is based on facts and opinions from both side of the fence, you constantly paint out Mo to be a blagger, first saying he will pull out of the deal before going into the fact that he says "only if it cant be renegotiated" you paint the currrent board as saints, were you not as a paper once banned from vale park, you have extremly short memories and instead of supporting a man with a proven record who could help a small local team prosper you choose to portray him as some sort of irritant.

Where are the stories on the boards proposed takeover been extremely flawed, where are the stories on the loopholes this board have been jumping through, some good investigative journalism is required right now the only thing your doing is pushing this club to the brink.

How many people will want to read the backpage when PVFC dont exsist Utter amateurs just posted on the seniles website

 

As I said earlier the Senile have distorted his statement. MC has always said he would take over the loans, but this clause reduces his negotiating options, but it also gives him the option of highlighting how far Bratt and Jackson have departed from the ideals of a fan based club.

[AVIM]

If a five million pound investment is swallowed by static debt it leaves nothing to progress and it values the club at an unrealistic price..

 

So are you saying that Mo will lend 3.8m to the club to spend, as opposed to clear off the existing debt? His business plan is based on simply loading the club up with more debt?

 

This was not my understanding of his plans.

[stupers]

Hes said many times, 5m. He will borrow the club upto 3.8m to clear the council and other debt if necessary (ie if he cant renegotiate the council to a better rate).

 

VFIM. I feel a hell of a lot better knowing that we would owe Mo Chaudry £3.8m that we would not be paying interest back on until we could afford it.

 

It seems ridiculously better than paying interest on loans that we can't currently afford to pay.

 

I rarely chip in on these things. I feel good that having read all the articles on both pro-board or anti-board i've been able to decide my own position on the state of the club, rather than having someone tell me what I should think. There are so many parts of Chaudry's bid that would make this club a better business.

 

I know you like to play devil's advocate on here and don't get me wrong it's a good part to play on here as it stimulates debate (and quite humourous that some people have yet to pick up on it). But you know as well as I do that he was talking in particular about initial investment to purchase shares, as well as paying off the council loan, hence why the £5m figure wasn't mentioned in Chaudry's statements.

[geosname]

It doesn't require full payment exactly. It is easy enough for the council to terminate this agreement by entering into another one with a new board.

 

What it does is give the council some say in who controls the clubs assets (the ground etc). As the clubs biggest investor (2.2m), this seems like a reasonable request.

 

If the council don't think their investment is safe with a new potential board, they can ask for their money back. If they are in favour of the "take over", they can roll the deal over.

 

Being realistic.... why would the council want any say in who controls the club?.... their money is safe in the ground.... any interference would, Im sure, alienate them and their council tax payers and cause some upset, given the britt fiasco,.... especially if their choice was to fail.

If you take a loan against your house the creditor doesnt care who you sell your house to.... they just take their money.

Its a credit agreement.... a loan.... the money is safe.... 2M against a valuation of 5M+

[andy jones]

Jackson says this is a common clause put in by the Council.

 

If it was it would have been in the Council's agreement with Stoke City and if so then Peter Coates would not have been able to buy the club and Stoke would not be where they are now.

[geosname]

So are you saying that Mo will lend 3.8m to the club to spend, as opposed to clear off the existing debt? His business plan is based on simply loading the club up with more debt?

 

This was not my understanding of his plans.

 

Thats not what I said at all.... but well avoided on the other points

Personally I would endeavor to get the business to a position where it can service its own debt... which equates to not making a loss year on year.