Jon
Admin 
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jun 26, 2008 22:55:49 GMT
Merse,
You ask how was the balance was expected to be paid. What was known (or thought to be known) at the time of the original deal was:
1.Roberts had been able to come up with a £300k down-payment without a problem
2.Roberts was backed by a consortium of well-respected business professionals
3.Roberts had the ideas, the ability and the contacts to generate significant commercial/sponsorship revenues for TUFC. There was an agreement in place for Roberts’ holding company to charge a commission on these revenues which would generate a significant income for the holding company.
That all looks silly with hindsight – but how was it seen at the time? If Roberts had walked the walk half as well as he talked the talk, he could have brought massively increased revenues into the club AND got rid of Bateson.
I can just imagine if the above facts had come out at the time, but Mike Bateson had said “I’m a little concerned about how Roberts might be able to fund the remaining payments, so I believe it is in the best interests of TUFC for me to retain ownership and continue to run the club in the way I have been running it”. Would there have been a round of applause for good old Uncle Mike and a sigh of relief that it was business as usual? Or a volley of accusations that he’d never wanted to sell at all and would rather choke the life out of the club than let somebody have a go at running things more progressively? That is a rhetorical question, by the way.
I find your sympathy with Bryn Walker very strange on the one hand, but utterly understandable on the other hand. Walker is clearly a man who has read “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. He treated you with respect, took you seriously and made you feel part of a decision process. Having got you “onside” he could shaft your football club, nail your head to the floor or invade Poland and still have you thinking he was a decent bloke. In contrast to that clever “people management”, Bateson would probably have looked at you as if you were something he’d trodden in and certainly would never give the impression that you could conceivably come up with a decent idea on anything relating to the club. Nobody likes being treated dismissively or disrespectfully (especially you!), so he would not have put himself in with the best chance of being viewed positively. Even if he had written off the thick end of a million quid and gifted the club to the supporters, you would have still thought he was a nasty man who was up to something.
On the subject of how to handle people, I attended the last shareholders’ meeting and sat behind a man who asked if we could have a lasting memorial to Tony Boyce at Plainmoor to acknowledge all he had done for the club. At the close of the meeting, Mark Boyce raced straight over to thank him for his kind comments. For a second, I thought this was refreshingly smart PR work. But then I saw that it wasn’t PR at all. It was genuine straight from the heart thanks – not clever people management. What a genuine thoroughly nice bloke - but he was impeccably bred, wasn’t he?
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jun 26, 2008 23:09:45 GMT
I haven't heard anything to the contrary, but I believe Mr Sadler still has his 34%. I thought that the in the original deal 34% was initially transfered to Roberts/Sadler with the rest being bought over a 3 year period. I'm guessing that Mr Sadler hasn't been asked to contribute to club funding, meaning that he can only gain from continued investment? Yes - Mr Sadler is the proud owner of 34% of our club. That share did belong to Chris Roberts' company, but reverted to Sadler when Roberts defaulted on the loan from Sadler. I am certain that Mr Sadler has not and will not chuck any more good money after bad. His investment is effectively worthless. I am sure that the current Board will treat him with respect and decency if he ever wishes to turn up at Plainmoor. But that is a pretty thin return on £341,000. I'd love to meet the guy one day and find out his take on what went on. I'm not sure whether to think of him as someone who tried to make a killing out of my football club and deserved it to fall flat or to see him as an innocent victim of a dodgy financial advisor. |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jun 27, 2008 3:09:24 GMT
I find your sympathy with Bryn Walker very strange on the one hand, but utterly understandable on the other hand. Walker is clearly a man who has read “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. He treated you with respect, took you seriously and made you feel part of a decision process. Having got you “onside” he could shaft your football club, nail your head to the floor or invade Poland and still have you thinking he was a decent bloke.  If you refer to para 4 of my posting on this thread re Bryn Walker.............I did state that I understood just what his priorities were - protecting Mr Sadler's investment. As a point of accuracy, Walker did not contact anyone he picked out from the .net boards until that investment had gone belly up, and I did say I had the feeling about his understanding of our feelings as fans. There are two types of "investors in football clubs" those that have a predominantly business focus and those who have an altruistic perception. Strangely, I would place Bateson in both of those camps; obviously Roberts and co in the former and thankfully Alex Rowe's board in the latter, but with a business acumen. Would that not be a valid assumption? One thing is for sure, whatever the type of investor; it would make no sense to run the football side of the operation into the ground, just as it makes no sense to let it run totally uncontrolled until it bleeds the "investors" in it dry. I always believed that the only positive way forward for the club to survive and (whisper it quietly) even prosper, was for local people with financial clout and business acumen to get together collectively (as has happened under Alex Rowe) and for the supporters to actually do something positive towards expanding the club's reach into the community and thereby increasing it's "safety net" of interested folk (and that has been achieved with the long overdue and successful setting up of the Trust. |
|
|
|
Post by graygull on Jun 27, 2008 3:36:33 GMT
ok fella's, I have been reading all of what you said and still have a brain cramp, I had been wondering for ages what had happened to to Mr sadler's investment, still not sure why his 34% is considered worthless though.
Perhaps someone can put it in simple terms, I'm a little confused still.
Must add one thing though, people who do not look at history are sometimes condemed to repeat it, lets hope our new board took a long look back before leaping into the future.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jun 27, 2008 6:02:15 GMT
ok fella's, I have been reading all of what you said and still have a brain cramp, I had been wondering for ages what had happened to to Mr sadler's investment, still not sure why his 34% is considered worthless though. Perhaps someone can put it in simple terms, I'm a little confused still. Must add one thing though, people who do not look at history are sometimes condemed to repeat it, lets hope our new board took a long look back before leaping into the future. Its only worthless in the sense, he can not have any influence at the club and is investmant is making him nothing. The consortium own the 51% needed to run and make the decisions needed. They may well buy Saddler's shares at some time, only if one of them wants to own some more shares. Unless Saddler could sell his shares.its money sat in a football club, that is not making him any money, so for now it can only be seen as dead money. |
|
|
|
Post by jond on Jun 27, 2008 7:36:49 GMT
Maybe the TUST could make Sadler an offer for his shares, he would probably be more than happy to see the back of the club and get back some of his investment, however small.
Great thread by the way, I'm getting my enthusiasm back again for message boards.
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jun 27, 2008 12:16:57 GMT
ok fella's, I have been reading all of what you said and still have a brain cramp, I had been wondering for ages what had happened to to Mr sadler's investment, still not sure why his 34% is considered worthless though. Perhaps someone can put it in simple terms, I'm a little confused still. Gray, People buy shares in a “normal company” for financial reasons. They expect to receive regular dividends and hope to be able to sell the shares eventually for more than they paid for them. I don’t think TUFC shares have ever paid out a dividend in 87 years, and there is no market for selling shares. TUFC has hundreds of small shareholders who have basically just put a few quid into the club they love – with no expectation of a return. A majority shareholding is different because it gives you the power to do whatever you want with the club – run it well, run it badly or shut it down of you really want to. That power holds some kind of value. A crook can use the power to extort money from fans by threatening to close the club. A saint can use the power to pass the club FOC to whoever he thinks will look after it best. Someone who is neither a crook nor a saint can look to get back what he has put in before handing the power over. Whilst there is a single power block of 51%, all of this power is in the hands of whoever has control of it. A 49% share would be worth no more than a single £1 share as it would never have a real say in any decision making. The situation would be different if the 51% got fragmented. If, for example, the 51% were divided into three blocks of 17% that would give Mr 34% the opportunity to make an alliance with one of the Mr 17%s to grab effective control. The way the consortium has set up their purchase is designed to stop this happening. A number of people share the 51%, but how it works is that the consortium members each have shares in a holding company called Plainmoor Ltd. That holding company then holds one block of 51% in TUFC Ltd. So if ever there were any split in the ranks, and I am not saying there ever has been, that would be resolved within Plainmoor Ltd and the majority view there would have the whole 51% block vote in TUFC Ltd and carry the day. So Mr Saddler is in the same position as all the small shareholders. A committed TUFC fan would have no regrets at having gifted say £100 to the club. I wouldn’t expect a Walsall fan to be so happy about having inadvertently gifted £341,000 to Torquay United. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jun 27, 2008 12:18:06 GMT
Maybe the TUST could make Sadler an offer for his shares, he would probably be more than happy to see the back of the club and get back some of his investment, however small. Jond, You are not the first Trust member to ask if TUST would be interested in buying Mr Saddler’s shares. My strongly held view is that this would be an utter waste of money as we would be taking money off TUFC supporters and giving it to a businessman in the Midlands with no benefit whatsoever to the club. If the club issued NEW share capital it would be an entirely different matter as then money paid for shares would go to the club to help in its development. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jun 27, 2008 12:26:27 GMT
There are two types of "investors in football clubs" those that have a predominantly business focus and those who have an altruistic perception. Strangely, I would place Bateson in both of those camps; obviously Roberts and co in the former and thankfully Alex Rowe's board in the latter, but with a business acumen. Would that not be a valid assumption? One thing is for sure, whatever the type of investor; it would make no sense to run the football side of the operation into the ground, just as it makes no sense to let it run totally uncontrolled until it bleeds the "investors" in it dry. I always believed that the only positive way forward for the club to survive and (whisper it quietly) even prosper, was for local people with financial clout and business acumen to get together collectively (as has happened under Alex Rowe) and for the supporters to actually do something positive towards expanding the club's reach into the community and thereby increasing it's "safety net" of interested folk (and that has been achieved with the long overdue and successful setting up of the Trust. Pretty much agree with all of that. Unfortunately, there are far more sharks out there than there are angels. Fortunately, we have fallen on our feet with how things have eventually turned out. I like to think that the fans have played a part in it though, so maybe we have deserved the "good luck" we've had. COME ON YOU YELLOWS! |
|
|
|
Post by the92ndfish on Jun 27, 2008 18:19:47 GMT
Maybe the TUST could make Sadler an offer for his shares, he would probably be more than happy to see the back of the club and get back some of his investment, however small. Jond, You are not the first Trust member to ask if TUST would be interested in buying Mr Saddler’s shares. My strongly held view is that this would be an utter waste of money as we would be taking money off TUFC supporters and giving it to a businessman in the Midlands with no benefit whatsoever to the club. If the club issued NEW share capital it would be an entirely different matter as then money paid for shares would go to the club to help in its development. It would however give the fans more of a voice at the club, I'm eternally grateful for everything that the consortium has done in this past year and a bit and the one thing that is still rather lacking and thats good communication with the fans over a number of matters. If the TUST could ever purchase even a 10% stake in the club (and off Walker/Sadler, I have no doubt it'd come at a knock down price just to get rid of it), they could probably push for a permenant member of the board for a TUST representative elected by the TUST members. Which would allow for greater board/fan communication and for the ideas which fans come up with to filter into the club in a more prominent role, off the top of my head ideas such as direct debit payments for season tickets, half season tickets and the like. (ps I'm back, my firefox has an awful habit of deleting bookmarks and .net have filtered the link here, so I was lost in the wilderness for a while before noticing a link back here on the Rayner HE story today!) |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jun 27, 2008 18:33:33 GMT
Jond, You are not the first Trust member to ask if TUST would be interested in buying Mr Saddler’s shares. My strongly held view is that this would be an utter waste of money as we would be taking money off TUFC supporters and giving it to a businessman in the Midlands with no benefit whatsoever to the club. If the club issued NEW share capital it would be an entirely different matter as then money paid for shares would go to the club to help in its development. It would however give the fans more of a voice at the club, I'm eternally grateful for everything that the consortium has done in this past year and a bit and the one thing that is still rather lacking and thats good communication with the fans over a number of matters. If the TUST could ever purchase even a 10% stake in the club (and off Walker, I have no doubt it'd come at a knock down price just to get rid of it), they could probably push for a permenant member of the board for a TUST representative elected by the TUST members. Which would allow for greater board/fan communication and for the ideas which fans come up with to filter into the club in a more prominent role, off the top of my head ideas such as direct debit payments for season tickets, half season tickets and the like. (ps I'm back, my firefox has an awful habit of deleting bookmarks and .net have filtered the link here, so I was lost in the wilderness for a while before noticing a link back here on the Rayner HE story today!) Very glad to have you back, you posts are always a very good read. You will notice I have made a post about how the club does seem to me anyway, a little more distant than I would like. I'm sure Sean will take note of the remarks made on here and hopefully the club will start to look at ways to improve fan and club contact. The tust idea is a very good one and I see no reason, why the club could not invite it into some of the meetings, I don't think it should need to have to buy shares, as a voice of the fans, the club should welcome the input, that the tust could bring. |
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jun 27, 2008 19:08:37 GMT
(ps I'm back, my firefox has an awful habit of deleting bookmarks and .net have filtered the link here, so I was lost in the wilderness for a while before noticing a link back here on the Rayner HE story today!) It seems certain folk are in denial that this forum exists and behave as if it's some figment of the imagination.................why would that be? It's funny how those links keep "appearing" on the HE site isn't it!  |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jun 27, 2008 19:21:23 GMT
Merse, with remarks like those, you will be getting my mate jumping out from the bushes again ;D ;D and there was I enjoying a peaceful life.
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Jun 27, 2008 19:49:26 GMT
Merse, with remarks like those, you will be getting my mate jumping out from the bushes again ;D ;D and there was I enjoying a peaceful life. Only if his "policeman" grasses! ;D |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Jun 27, 2008 20:25:55 GMT
Merse, I have never heard spoken the reason Bateson, wanted to take over the club. One thing I do know that when he did, fans were saying without Bateson coming in, we would not still have had a club.
Over the years it’s true that he lost interest and maybe could never understand all the anti-Bateson, talk, as he believed he was doing his best for the club. So did he do anything near the end, simply to spite those, who now were also giving is family abuse as well.
Roberts did not simply appear at the start of the season, he was in the background for some time before. It does make you wonder, what figures that Sadler had been shown, that would have made him feel his SIP pension would do so much better, in the Torquay Holding Company.
Now did Roberts offer a carrot to Bateson, as a part of the deal Bateson would get a slice of the cake? One thing for sure the changes made to the club, IE, taking the club from a PLC to a Private Limited Company at the end of the season before, suggests that Roberts had already done a deal with Bateson. The changes made, were simply to allow Roberts to use the income of the club, to buy out a leaving director, this is not allowed in a PLC.
Why did Bateson take his whole loan back when Roberts took over, £300.000, leaving Roberts with no money in the bank. Bateson would have known all the figures and I’m sure he would have known, Roberts was never going to make ends meet. The time scale of the buy out was it seems the correct amount of time needed to know, if the plans for the seafront, would go ahead.
You see maybe old Mike, knew he would fail and that he could then return briefly as the man to save the club from Roberts. To those who feel he did nothing to push up the price, I say this. The first offer was rejected, he then removed Richardson, put Merve back in charged, who was made to sack Colin Lee and then to call any bluff, that in fact we would still carry on, got Leroy back. Soon after this he got his price, or close to it.
|
|
If you refer to para 4 of my posting on this thread re Bryn Walker.............I did state that I understood just what his priorities were - protecting Mr Sadler's investment.
