Senile Council Article

[Santa]

I notice that either Roger Ibbs or somebody claiming to be him has weighed into the discussion.

[PVTony]

Mo is no mug, he is a very astute business man and will write and/or say things that are conducive to attaining his goal, even though it may seem strange to unknowledgeable people.

In selling and business it is best not to listen what is being said but the reason why it is being said.

I have read Mo's comments in the Sentinel with an open mind knowing that he will achieve his goal. He will overcome all obsticles and P.V.F.C. will rise to become a successful football club under his and his team's leadership.

[tisdeano]

I notice that either Roger Ibbs or somebody claiming to be him has weighed into the discussion.

 

me to, bit thick isnt he ? stoke never had a loan so what the hell is he on about

[AVIM]

Mo is no mug, he is a very astute business man and will write and/or say things that are conducive to attaining his goal, even though it may seem strange to unknowledgeable people.

In selling and business it is best not to listen what is being said but the reason why it is being said.

 

I think you are probably right Tony. But I wonder if, in trying to get cute with the council, he might have shot himself in the foot a little with respect to the egm.

[Heron X Valiant]

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 have not invested in the club as this would have left them with some equity. They have made a loan to the club and as such provided Mo can meet the repayments I see no reason why the agreement should not carry on as it. I mean it's not as if the current lot can afford the re-payment schedule.

[PGTips]

So what happened to his 5m?

 

You really need to be more worried about the regular repayments that need to be made by the current business wizards who borrowed this money in the first place .

They are struggling to find £5k never mind 5m.

[lydiatevaliant]

You really need to be more worried about the regular repayments that need to be made by the current business wizards who borrowed this money in the first place .

They are struggling to find £5k never mind 5m.

 

Exactly! We're still all waiting for the V2001 business plan to take us forward. It's incredible they're a week away from potentially being voted out of office and still haven't offered anything to explain how they plan to take the club forward.

[melv]

Exactly! We're still all waiting for the V2001 business plan to take us forward. It's incredible they're a week away from potentially being voted out of office and still haven't offered anything to explain how they plan to take the club forward.

 

Amazingly some people still trust,believe in them.

[PGTips]

Exactly! We're still all waiting for the V2001 business plan to take us forward. It's incredible they're a week away from potentially being voted out of office and still haven't offered anything to explain how they plan to take the club forward.

 

Spot on !

 

The answer is , they don't know .

 

Wing & a Prayer once again comes to mind and we're all supposed to accept that .

[nodge]

Another smokescreen. The Sentinel are tapping in to scaremonger the lesser financially minded.

 

V2001 you have no money, you are small time, dated, out of touch. Just go!

[Aussie Rules]

Exactly! We're still all waiting for the V2001 business plan to take us forward. It's incredible they're a week away from potentially being voted out of office and still haven't offered anything to explain how they plan to take the club forward.

 

You know what bothers me, and I think the 5 remaining 'Board members are savvy to it, they don't need to give us one scrap of information because they believe they cannot be beaten.

 

Also, for the first time I'm beginning to wonder if Mo Chaudry will be around to pick up the pieces should the 'Board still be power post EGM :(

[Burslem Academicals]

It is interesting that Bratt says there will be no show of hands because obviously that will be a landslide against and it will go straight to a poll vote.

Also there should be no mention of AmeriTurf at the EGM as they are not on the set agenda...the EGM is simply about just one thing a VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE to remove the V2001 Board.

If the V2001 Board win then hundreds of shareholders will want their money back and thousands of fans will walk away never to return untill they have gone....2,000 gates in the Blue Square Premiership.

[Tone]

The bit in the Sentinel report that is curious to me, if accurate is Mr. Chaudry's suggestion that:

 

"My original business plan never included paying £3m for a 51 per cent controlling stake.

 

"I'm paying a premium price of £1.21m, which is already well over the odds."

 

In the event that the loan was called in by the council, and I seriously doubt they would not, at the very least, renegotiate it, MC would still be paying £1.21m for his shares. In doing so he would take on the liabilities including the council loan. It is not a cost it is a liability and he would still have to pay it at some time.

 

And as others have said, MC has committed to making further loans to the club beyond his investment. He has also stated that he would repay any shareholder who wanted to cash in (except the board) on top of the 51%. So further cash must be in his business plan.

 

Or am I missing something? Perhaps TLB will answer that?

[IDF]

can anyone answer who asked for the clause to be inserted??

 

Judging by Jacksons comments that this sort of clause is common then I assume the council asked for it?

 

If not, then the club must have asked for it in which case it is to protect the current directors?