To provide a little balance - The budget

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Thats the second time you have used the phrase "Its a sellers market".... what exactly do you mean by that.

 

Usually, a sellers market indicates there is a lot of demand for the thing he is selling....but you also state there are no viable alternatives.

 

I'm also awaiting a response from you on the appropriateness of his valuation. I mentioned that an appropriate value would be based on the EBITDA multiples of similar transactions, or in the case of a failing business, the value of its assets.

 

The inappropriate value is "What the owner wants for it".... I agree that is his valuation... but its not appropriate and is prohibitive to other people presenting themselves as viable alternatives.

 

Do you disagree... if so, on what basis?

 

It’s a sellers market purely because no one has matched his valuation of his asset and he is showing no need or urgency to sell. Therefore he sits comfortably on his asset.

 

It’s only viable option if it viably has the function to purchase the club at the sale price the seller requires or agrees to and then the buyer has more than enough capital to run it successfully moving forwards, ££££££’s is sadly the key factor in modern day football.

 

It doesn’t matter what you think the club is worth, it doesn’t matter what I think it’s worth, it doesn’t matter what the Turkish guy sat shouting on his phone next to me thinks it’s worth, the only people that matter in any sale agreement initially is the seller and the buyer.

[geosname]

Valiant!

 

Well technically in the standings we are over paying the crap players so it’s good money 😉

 

All money is good mate.... we sometimes spend it on crap things

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

All money is good mate.... we sometimes spend it on crap things

 

Ain’t that the case! 😂

[Iron Curtain]

It’s a sellers market purely because no one has matched his valuation of his asset and he is showing no need or urgency to sell. Therefore he sits comfortably on his asset.

 

It’s only viable option if it viably has the function to purchase the club at the sale price the seller requires or agrees to and then the buyer has more than enough capital to run it successfully moving forwards, ££££££’s is sadly the key factor in modern day football.

 

It doesn’t matter what you think the club is worth, it doesn’t matter what I think it’s worth, it doesn’t matter what the Turkish guy sat shouting on his phone next to me thinks it’s worth, the only people that matter in any sale agreement initially is the seller and the buyer.

 

And if the seller has a stupid valuation that the buyer will never pay? Whose fault is that?

 

It's not the buyers fault, its not my fault, its not your, fault, its not the Turkish guy sat shouting on his phone next to you's fault.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

And if the seller has a stupid valuation that the buyer will never pay? Whose fault is that?

 

It's not the buyers fault, its not my fault, its not your, fault, its not the Turkish guy sat shouting on his phone next to you's fault.

 

It’s no ones fault as possession is the law or 9/10ths as the saying goes.

 

Blame can only be attached if something fails and as yet there has been no viable take over agreeable to both parties launched.

[geosname]

And if the seller has a stupid valuation that the buyer will never pay? Whose fault is that?

 

It's no one's fault because nothing is wrong for fault to be apportioned.

It's the opposite of caveat emptor..... seller beware?

[geosname]

It’s no ones fault as possession is the law or 9/10ths as the saying goes.

 

I could spend hours arguing that point but it would take the thread way off topic.

Suffice to say, you have a car in your possession, you have the log book in your name, you have insurance in your name on the vehicle, you have the MOT and you paid the road tax..... is that proof of ownership of the vehicle?

[man in the pub]

The thing that always makes me smile is when Smurf says he wants £4m to sell and I remember he paid in the region of £1.5m when he bought the club. I cant see any major structural improvements to the ground,and there is little value in the players on the books. Sometimes though an asset can increase in a rising market, for example my house is worth more now than it was 20 years ago. Cannot think that applies to struggling League 2 clubs. For me though the strangest factor is when the Chairman says in his own words that the Vale is costing him £75k approx. per month. I take onboard REPs comments that the Chairman is in the driving seat as regards selling the club, its his to sell . We all have our own theories but I would love to hear in his own words exactly how he arrives at his valuation and why he wants to keep an asset that is allegedly bleeding money. If it actually is losing the figures mentioned why would anyone pay the £4m asking price ? Debenhams is struggling and losing money and can be bought at a knock down price as would be expected. What is so special about the Vale that the reverse economic principle applies ?

[geosname]

The thing that always makes me smile is when Smurf says he wants £4m to sell and I remember he paid in the region of £1.5m when he bought the club. I cant see any major structural improvements to the ground,and there is little value in the players on the books. Sometimes though an asset can increase in a rising market, for example my house is worth more now than it was 20 years ago. Cannot think that applies to struggling League 2 clubs. For me though the strangest factor is when the Chairman says in his own words that the Vale is costing him £75k approx. per month. I take onboard REPs comments that the Chairman is in the driving seat as regards selling the club, its his to sell . We all have our own theories but I would love to hear in his own words exactly how he arrives at his valuation and why he wants to keep an asset that is allegedly bleeding money. If it actually is losing the figures mentioned why would anyone pay the £4m asking price ? Debenhams is struggling and losing money and can be bought at a knock down price as would be expected. What is so special about the Vale that the reverse economic principle applies ?

 

Nothing at all mate. A palace built on hopes and dreams if you are a fan but a bottomless pit financially.

[Jacko51]

I could spend hours arguing that point but it would take the thread way off topic.

Suffice to say, you have a car in your possession, you have the log book in your name, you have insurance in your name on the vehicle, you have the MOT and you paid the road tax..... is that proof of ownership of the vehicle?

 

Not if you've nicked the car and forged the documents.

[Jacko51]

Ken Anderson/Dean Saunders bought Bolton for a pound.

[Family Stand Terrier]

And if the seller has a stupid valuation that the buyer will never pay? Whose fault is that?

 

It's not the buyers fault, its not my fault, its not your, fault, its not the Turkish guy sat shouting on his phone next to you's fault.

 

Can see his post with you quoting him. The crazy logic he uses to justify the phrase sellers market is hilarious. Think he's confusing sellers market with, not for sale. It's only a sellers market if you're actively in the market to sell, demand is high, which drives the value up.

[geosname]

Not if you've nicked the car and forged the documents.

 

 

Not nicked or forged.... all legal documents.

You can be in possession, be the registered keeper (not owner on log book) be insured etc etc and not own the vehicle

[Iron Curtain]

It’s no ones fault as possession is the law or 9/10ths as the saying goes.

 

Blame can only be attached if something fails and as yet there has been no viable take over agreeable to both parties launched.

 

And the award for completely missing the point once again goes to REP.

 

I agree he is doing nothing legally wrong... but he has put an unrealistic valuation on the club, which is prohibing viable alternatives who would never pay the over inflated price.

 

That means he is holding the club for either his own ego, or his own gain, whilst not having the will, or ability to improve the club... putting us in deadlock.

 

I don’t think that’s ok.

 

You on the other hand think it’s fine... despite apparently “not having strong feelings either way” 😂😂😂

[Family Stand Terrier]

And the award for completely missing the point once again goes to REP.

 

I agree he is doing nothing legally wrong... but he has put an unrealistic valuation on the club, which is prohibing viable alternatives who would never pay the over inflated price.

 

That means he is holding the club for either his own ego, or his own gain, whilst not having the will, or ability to improve the club... putting us in deadlock.

 

I don’t think that’s ok.

 

You on the other hand think it’s fine... despite apparently “not having strong feelings either way” 😂😂😂

 

This is what irritates me about some of the arguments defending Smurthwaite. As Vale fans, why would anyone want a potential new owner paying out money to an individual, rather than pumping it into the club. I wish he'd sell the club for £1, however unlikely that may be. There's defending the man with valid reasons, then it comes to a point that you wonder what's in it for them, are they Vale fans? Why would any genuine Vale fan want one person to get money that could go towards the club they claim to love. When everyone agrees, even REP, that Smurthwaite is failing, why would you not care whether that failure continued owning the club or not? It seriously beggars belief.