Statement breakdown

[geosname]

Without the emotion and anger which usually follows statements by the board, I have tried to break down the various claims.....

 

There are simply far too many untruths contained within his statement to respond to them all individually, however;

 

Mr Meakin claims to have only been involved in 'private and tentative discussions', yet had completed all of the required Football League paperwork, which had already been approved by the Football League. He had visited the club as recently as Tuesday this week to discuss payment of his proposed investment.

 

Wasn’t MS progress delayed because the FL paperwork had not been completed, so wouldn’t it be prudent to complete before any further actions are taken?

 

Mr Meakin categorically stated during his visit to the club on 9th August that he had never met Mr Sims. The club was therefore surprised to read Mr Meakin's public admission in his statement that he had been working behind the scenes with Mr Sims and Mr Chaudry from the beginning and that he was, in fact, being completely dishonest in his application to join the board of Port Vale.Mr Sims' part in this apparent attempt at deception should also be considered by genuine supporters of Port Vale.

 

Why was he asked? Is it a condition of joining the board? Why would the board need to know? Would he have stated this “out of the blue” It is not dishonest to “not state” something but it may be dishonest to not answer a “question” correctly.

If Mr Meakin was being dishonest in his application it suggests that the application includes questions about knowing MS and Mo, Why?

Why should Mr Sims part [whatever that may be] be considered? Its just a simple application to join the board, isn’t it? Or is it a screening process to eliminate possible dissenters by association?

 

Mr Meakin's statement is completely without truth or foundation and the club believes it is just another attempt to undermine Port Vale and create serious issues at such a vital time both on and off the field.

It is always a vital time on and off the field. Don’t disrupt the pre season preparations? Don’t disrupt the season? Don’t disrupt the preparations for the pre season?

 

Mr Meakin highlights the following points during his statement;

•He would only invest if Mr Sims joined the board - This is completely untrue.Mr Meakin did not on any occasion indicate this; indeed, having claimed never once to have met or spoken with Mr Sims, Mr Meakin would have found this a difficult condition to apply.

 

Why should he if he wasn’t at the final stages of joining? Whether he had met him or not he could have stated it at any time before joining. It may have been a difficult condition to apply but it would have been the board’s choice. Do you want my money or not? If so here are my conditions.

 

•Made it clear that Mr Bratt and Mr Oliver must resign - again, completely untrue. Not once was this discussed.

Again it’s an end game not an opening gambit.

 

•Will not throw money into a bottomless pit - This statement is completely contradictory to Mr Meakin's following claim that he has not been given any access at all to the club's financial affairs and accounts; clearly Mr Meakin could not have come to any informed view about the financial status of the club if his second claim were true.

In fact, Mr Meakin was given assurances about the healthy state of the club's finances, and the opportunity to carry out further due diligence.

It’s not a contradictory statement at all, it’s a generality, a shortened version of if I find the finances on the verge of collapse I will not invest. Assurances by whom? Was the opportunity to do further due diligence full and comprehensive or limited and restricted?

 

•Will not buy Mr Bratt's shares - Again completely untrue as, when asked the question regarding Mr Bratt's shares, Mr Meakin readily agreed to purchase.

Why was he even asked? To do so negates the concept of investment. No money goes into the club only into the directors pocket.

 

We are entering a vital and potentially exciting period for Port Vale FC and this attempt to undermine the club's progress and potential, via a clearly admitted plan of deceit and subterfuge does little credit to the individuals involved. This also demonstrates the level of the business practice and methods to which the club believes individuals will sink in order to progress their own agendas, despite having been rejected by the shareholders as recently as this June.

Underwhelming statement, considering the business practices of asking potential investors if they know certain people as a condition of investing. Asking investors not to invest in the business but to buy existing shares as a condition of joining the board. Rejecting proposals without due consideration to the shareholders and other board members etc.

As for own agendas, isn’t that what the board practice by making it a condition to buy existing shares? Or by refusing to sell shares to people who could threaten their position? I don’t remember Mr Meakin being rejected at the EGM in june or Mr Sims

 

We will continue along the path we announced via our press release of 11th August and maintain our focus upon driving the club forwards.

We believe that given the facts presented, genuine supporters of Port Vale will respect and support these constructive efforts to build up our great club, which remains our only priority.

Are you actually saying that if people don’t support the board they are not Vale supporters and therefore should not attend games?

[valeontrent]

:clap:

[Stone Valiant]

absolutely bang flipping on!!!! ===

[Santa]

There are too many press releases with too many words coming from all sides at the moment.

 

I'll be disappointed with Lloyd if he sanctioned that one for release. It's far too long and verbose and the tone will not help to unite the club

[Stone Valiant]

I agree, this is probably the most vitriolic and spiteful release I have read. This tells me a few things:

 

1. This hurt the board more than they dare to let on

2. Identifies that despite their claims to the supporters reps, MS is now blacklisted by the board

3. That the board cannot distinguish between business and personal issues which will ultimately lead to problems

4. I do not believe that with the tone and language used, plus the speed at which it was released, that it was formally vetted by a legal representative beforehand

5. the animal has been wounded, often when they are at their most dangerous

6. with Bratt announcing he is going, Oliver is now attempting to get a stronger foothold in the club, as he undoubtedly had much to do with this announcement

7. they can't buy Bratt out, which means he won't go, which means that the new investor will have an issue if he is staying unless they buy him out!

 

[VantaaVale]

What puzzles me about this forthcoming investment is why is it a pre-condition of the investment that Bill Bratt steps down? He isn't chairman anymore. Something doesn't smell right there.

[Burslem Academicals]

Couple of questions....

How is it that somebody who has put more money into the club than the Directors and who has been elected by the shareholders and sponsored by the clubs biggest single shareholder be both blocked from doing "due dilligence"

and on a blacklist?

So in effect the clubs owners can elect a Director at the EGM and the Board of Directors have turned them away and put them on a blacklist....and does this also mean that Robbie Williams representatives can not look at the books...is Robbie Williams also on a blacklist.

Also since when did Bill Bratts 38k of shares become worth 110k?

[butt lane vale fan]

What puzzles me about this forthcoming investment is why is it a pre-condition of the investment that Bill Bratt steps down? He isn't chairman anymore. Something doesn't smell right there.

 

I honestly do not think it is their condition, but Bratt insisting on it.

Remember the golden handshake story, regarding what Harlequin had promised Bratt, if ever they had gone through will their investment. Makes you wonder, if there was some truth in it.

[Stone Valiant]

What puzzles me about this forthcoming investment is why is it a pre-condition of the investment that Bill Bratt steps down? He isn't chairman anymore. Something doesn't smell right there.

 

If it is AGS, I suspect they are p'd off at his announcements about it being a share issue and not just sponsorship. As a result, they reeived a lot of vitriolic communications from fans if you remember. There they were wanting to build a good reputation in British football to sell their artificial pitches and instead, Bratty pours a wasps nest over the whole deal.

 

It does not surprise me at all that they are now saying, "Okay, we will invest, but Bratt has to go given the lack of professionalism he has shown in his announcements". The thing is, if he is to go off the board, he wants his money back otherwise he can't protect his investment (ironic really that this is exactly why Mo wanted more than 24.9%), so ML, who has taken over negotiations with AGS, manufactures an additional investor to come in Nigel Meakin. It is pitched to NM that he is being brought in as an additional investor, when all he really is is a bank account to pay Bratty off with so they can bring the AGS money in.

 

With NM now pulling out, this is why the board are so angry and released this terrible statement! Childish really! It means they have to find another way to pay Bratty off and get him out, but they are probably already overstretched with their own commitments towards paying off the addiotional Bratty shares, plus what they have purchased from Rob Lee. The whole exercise of keeping themselves in power is now starting to cost them money personally, and they are not the men of riches compared to people like Mo, Newton or Sims. so if they can't afford themselves, they have to go to another source, but who? Given the list of who has rebuffed them to date, I can only see AGS being the viable option, but will they take it? I guess this will stretch the funds a little and if it enmds up costing them significantly more than expected, you can bet your life they will start to consider other, cheaper options in this league!

 

The board members wil then be stuck with ML in temporary charge, BB who doesn't want to be there and Oliver who NOBODY likes and MA who wants off to concentrate on the pitch ASAP!

 

without the AGS investment, they could be looking at the books in a worried way as it is obvious that investment is needed. At that point, they may, just may, consider waving the white flag and asking Mark Sims to come back and renegotiate!

[Stone Valiant]

Couple of questions....

How is it that somebody who has put more money into the club than the Directors and who has been elected by the shareholders and sponsored by the clubs biggest single shareholder be both blocked from doing "due dilligence"

and on a blacklist?

So in effect the clubs owners can elect a Director at the EGM and the Board of Directors have turned them away and put them on a blacklist....and does this also mean that Robbie Williams representatives can not look at the books...is Robbie Williams also on a blacklist.

Also since when did Bill Bratts 38k of shares become worth 110k?

 

Almost certainly, RW is now considered persona non grata by the board, which would include his representatives also. (Would be interesting if RW's lawyers asked to see the books and were denied, now there is one hell of a potential legal battle!)

 

As for Bratty's shares, increases would have come from Rob Lee, some suspect they bought out Charles Machin also. I would also suspect a lot of other mid-to-smaller shareholders had been approached under a similar deal (Vote for us, I buy you out). In times of austerity, those funds may have been welcome to some.

[VantaaVale]

I honestly do not think it is their condition, but Bratt insisting on it.

Remember the golden handshake story, regarding what Harlequin had promised Bratt, if ever they had gone through will their investment. Makes you wonder, if there was some truth in it.

 

I am sure Bratt is now looking to get out, but, in the interests of trying to determine what is the truth, I am quite curious about this paragraph in last week's club statement.

 

Furthermore, Port Vale can reveal that ex-chairman Bill Bratt has confirmed in writing to the board that he will step down from the board of directors immediately after this investment has been secured and indeed, the investment is conditional upon Mr Bratt stepping down

 

Now Bratt as Chairman stepping down I understand, but Bratt as director? So, what is the truth here? I can only come to the same conclusion as you have that it is the board or Bill Bratt himself that made it a condition. So why officially report it otherwise?

 

Also, if AGS want Bratt to resign (assuming it is AGS), then why don't they pay him off?

[Stone Valiant]

Also, if AGS want Bratt to resign (assuming it is AGS), then why don't they pay him off?

 

Budget and ROI. The will have expected to pay a certain sum to make a certain. the certain sum they intend to make is fixed within their budget, so you look to invest as little as possible for the greater gain, or Return On Investment. So lets use some made up numbers:

 

You look to invest £100k, for a £1m return, a 10:1 ROI

If you suddenly have to pay £200k, your ROI is down to 5:1

 

Now if instead they could invest in another clubat this level for £125k, your ROI is much better. Better deal with the Vale at the low price, but if you also have to but Bratt out, it's suddenly a lot pricier.

 

Next question then is, why not just use the original amount to pay Bratty off? well then the club recieves no investment, which does not help the books (i.e. the Nigel Meakin scenario and what he is not happy about, neither would AGS, but at that point, neither would the rest of the board). The funds intended to prop them up have all suddenly gone to Bratty.

 

Hope that helps!

[Stone Valiant]

In fact, Bratty stepping down MUST be because of AGS (or whoever the new investor is, but almost certainly AGS)

 

Quote from PVFC Statement on Nigel Meakin

 

Made it clear that Mr Bratt and Mr Oliver must resign - again, completely untrue. Not once was this discussed.

 

quote from PVFC on New investors

 

Furthermore, Port Vale can reveal that ex-chairman Bill Bratt has confirmed in writing to the board that he will step down from the board of directors immediately after this investment has been secured and indeed, the investment is conditional upon Mr Bratt stepping down

[VantaaVale]

Budget and ROI. The will have expected to pay a certain sum to make a certain. the certain sum they intend to make is fixed within their budget, so you look to invest as little as possible for the greater gain, or Return On Investment. So lets use some made up numbers:

 

You look to invest £100k, for a £1m return, a 10:1 ROI

If you suddenly have to pay £200k, your ROI is down to 5:1

 

Now if instead they could invest in another clubat this level for £125k, your ROI is much better. Better deal with the Vale at the low price, but if you also have to but Bratt out, it's suddenly a lot pricier.

 

Next question then is, why not just use the original amount to pay Bratty off? well then the club recieves no investment, which does not help the books (i.e. the Nigel Meakin scenario and what he is not happy about, neither would AGS, but at that point, neither would the rest of the board). The funds intended to prop them up have all suddenly gone to Bratty.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Yes it does. This brings some clarity to the situation.

 

So now that Nigel Meakin will not join the board, they have a rather ironic problem. Bratt has increased his shareholding so much so that it appears to be difficult to purchase his shares in order for him to resign from the board of directors. It may be so that he's protected his position to the extent that it could scupper this investment. I wonder if this was also the real reason why NLV were told they must invest £50K.

 

So, my guess is that another investor will be approached in order to make this happen. I wonder who.

[Stone Valiant]

Yes it does. This brings some clarity to the situation.

 

So now that Nigel Meakin will not join the board, they have a rather ironic problem. Bratt has increased his shareholding so much so that it appears to be difficult to purchase his shares in order for him to resign from the board of directors. It may be so that he's protected his position to the extent that it could scupper this investment. I wonder if this was also the real reason why NLV were told they must invest £50K.

 

So, my guess is that another investor will be approached in order to make this happen. I wonder who.

 

Exactly!

 

And considering who we know has been approached to date shows their level of deperation, and these same people have all counted themselves out, some even explicitly stating because they support the MC bid, others because they refuse to work with the current administration, irrespective of the current finances.

 

Their list of allies grows thin and I think they are finding themselves being backed up into a blind canyon!