Splitting the ground and the club

[marky mark]

Fully appreciate that. I for one cannot wait for Keith to take control off the club and start to put his ideas in place.

 

However, just because he would own it lock stock and barrel doesn't mean we can't discuss the pros as cons of what he does, does it??

 

If he trippled the playing budget we'd discus it. Similarly if he asset stripped we'd do the same.

 

I've heard the rumour from two people. One with connections to te club and one with connections to the council. However I must stress I've not his this direct. Friend of a friend etc. there may be a perfectly sound business reason for doing this, which could also benefit th football team, hence me asking the question.

 

 

It sounds logical. It would mean that KR retains the ownership and income of any development, ensuring that should the club fail again, he does not lose all of that to someone else. At the end of day we don't know if it's true and without KR who knows where we would have been now? No one knows who the 2nd closest bidder was or this new one BY talked about and what their plans were.

 

People have always said they wanted change, so now we have to just go along with it.

[werstayinup]

It sounds logical. It would mean that KR retains the ownership and income of any development, ensuring that should the club fail again, he does not lose all of that to someone else. At the end of day we don't know if it's true and without KR who knows where we would have been now? No one knows who the 2nd closest bidder was or this new one BY talked about and what their plans were.

 

People have always said they wanted change, so now we have to just go along with it.

 

Agree totally and in all reality anybody who took over the club would want to try and make some money out of it in some way,so i cant really see what all the fuss is about.

[Birches Head Fred]

Sorry George, wasn't meant as a dig at you or anyone else. Perhaps my reply was a little too bland. I'm always up for a decent debate re all things Port Vale :)

 

I'm not sure of all the 'pro's and con's' of the financial aspects of running a club. But would this be one way of 'bending' rules regarding money into the club, thereby altering playing budgets in our favour?.

 

I understand Keith wants to make money and I don't blame him one bit, indeed I hope he does as surely that will mean Port Vale FC are moving in the right direction. I want to see steady forward growth, both on and off the pitch - I sincerely hope Mr. Ryder is of a similar mindset and has the wherewithall to acheve this and will support him fully if that's what I believe he is doing..

[werstayinup]

I'm not sure of all the 'pro's and con's' of the financial aspects of running a club. But would this be one way of 'bending' rules regarding money into the club, thereby altering playing budgets in our favour?.

 

I understand Keith wants to make money and I don't blame him one bit, indeed I hope he does as surely that will mean Port Vale FC are moving in the right direction. I want to see steady forward growth, both on and off the pitch - I sincerely hope Mr. Ryder is of a similar mindset and has the wherewithall to acheve this and will support him fully if that's what I believe he is doing..

 

Cracking post BHF:yes:

[Mark-Valiant]

To be honest i don't know much about this situation. I believe if Ryder did do this then the new owners (in the future) would have to pay Ryder rent. How this would effect matters whilst he owns both, i don't know? I suppose in effect Ryder would get his money back for what he paid for the ground within in a year or two, if he were to rent it out in the future.

I think Oxford are paying around £650k rent

Bradford £1.2 million, for example.

[Average Valiant]

If such a thing ever goes ahead at any point in the future. (not saying Mr Ryder is planning this renting idea), hope there is a limit set on the amount of rent we would pay. I gather Stockport are in the mess they're in because they pay a huge rent to use Edgeley Park and don't get a beam from any non-footballing events.

 

Not saying for a second that this could happen to us, its jusr something I feel wary of when I see a club is renting its own ground.

[paulmogan]

Agree totally and in all reality anybody who took over the club would want to try and make some money out of it in some way,so i cant really see what all the fuss is about.

 

If seperating ownership of the ground from the club was such a bad idea when Bratt and co were planning on doing it,why is it such a good idea now?

[grebovale]

He can do what he wants because without his money we wouldn't have a club to support.

 

Well said TRIGGER,cosner put it better me-sen :)

[Timothius]

If seperating ownership of the ground from the club was such a bad idea when Bratt and co were planning on doing it,why is it such a good idea now?

 

Because basically that was a scheme concocted by Bratt and Jackson that other directors knew nothing of.

 

I don't see the benefits personally but also I am mindful this is a rumour at present.

[melv]

The general idea when V2001 set up the 'Newco' was if PVFC(2001) went into administration and a football buyer could not be found then the assets would be sold off,creditors paid and any balance would go to the FL Benevolent funds and PVFC would be no more.But if the assets were put into "Newco" and PVFC(2001) went,then PVFC(football team) would start up the next day and have a ground to play on.The same shareholders would have the same number of shares in 'Newco'.

[Timothius]

The general idea when V2001 set up the 'Newco' was if PVFC(2001) went into administration and a football buyer could not be found then the assets would be sold off,creditors paid and any balance would go to the FL Benevolent funds and PVFC would be no more.But if the assets were put into "Newco" and PVFC(2001) went,then PVFC(football team) would start up the next day and have a ground to play on.The same shareholders would have the same number of shares in 'Newco'.

 

well that's what they said when they were Rumbled Melv. The whole scenario was being played out at a similar time to Southampton going into admin having already done the above but it didn't work for them. I am still of the opinion that this was setup with ulterior motives in mind. Don't forget Bratt tried to pass it off as a way of the club changing its name back to PVFC ltd when this could have been done with the existing company name. He later changed the story to tally in with your explanation above.

[melv]

well that's what they said when they were Rumbled Melv. The whole scenario was being played out at a similar time to Southampton going into admin having already done the above but it didn't work for them. I am still of the opinion that this was setup with ulterior motives in mind. Don't forget Bratt tried to pass it off as a way of the club changing its name back to PVFC ltd when this could have been done with the existing company name. He later changed the story to tally in with your explanation above.

 

The point that other directors didnt know about it did seem very strange.Which would lead to suspicion.

[Timothius]

The point that other directors didnt know about it did seem very strange.Which would lead to suspicion.

 

plus the fact Bratt gave 2 or 3 vastly different reasons for the setting up of Newco and the fact I don't believe a single word the lying ******* said/says

[melv]

plus the fact Bratt gave 2 or 3 vastly different reasons for the setting up of Newco and the fact I don't believe a single word the lying ******* said/says

 

The fact that he often contradicted himself,other version's of stories came from other board members says it all.

[Warren]

Supporters club, please ask me Ryder.