Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation". Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
When I bought my first house with the aid of a mortgage @Chizz I had to produce a full monthly income and expenditure statement to satisfy my lender that I could afford the repayments. The last thing a lender wants is the hassle of having to enforce his security, so viability is key in any lending situation surely?
Yes.
And it seems that the Aussies have shown they have funds to make the purchase (in the house-buying analogy, they've demonstrated they have access to a mortgage, as you did).
But the speculation seems to be that the EFL requires that the buyers also show they have funds in order to service the current debt level of the club. In the house-buying scenario, this would be you having to prove that you could continue to pay all of the current owners' household bills, including the ones you wouldn't necessarily want to keep up.
The reason I think it's (wild) speculation that the Aussies have been required to (and have failed so far to) show they have funds to meet the current owners' levels of loss. I don't know whether they have to do that or not. But I would be interested to know if they do.
Does anyone have knowledge of this? Specifically, whether the owner has to show they have funds to cover the current owner's levels of debt, going forward?
EFL Rules:
16.21
If any Person proposes to acquire Control of a Club:
16.21.1
the Club shall submit to The League up to date Future Financial Information prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position as far in advance of the change of Control as reasonably possible or, if such submission is not reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control, no later than 10 Normal Working Days thereafter; and 16.21.2 The League shall have the power to require the Person who proposes to acquire or has acquired Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.
I believe the sufficiency is based on two years 'future financial position' as a rule of thumb.
That is to cover operational losses - not acquired debt, although clearly servicing any acquired debt would be an operational expense.
That's really interesting, thanks for posting it. It's certainly added to my knowledge.
It doesn't, however, seem to say that the buyers would have to have give any indication that they have to have sufficient funds to cover the current owners on-going losses.
It may be a moot point, but I think there's a difference between having to show you have money to sustain your own plans and having to show you have the money to sustain the previous owner's plans.
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
Seems odd.
What seems odd ?
Sorry, should have said more.....
It would seem odd, on the face of it, if the meeting was just an attempt to raise funds for the Aussies. That’d be pretty embarrassing for them.
You’d think it was more likely to have be a conference call where the (potential?) American backers could ask questions of LdT?
If it really was a fund raising exercise held in front of Lieven, it’d be a sign of how hard it is find anyone interested in buying us at the price/terms available. It’d be very concerning.
So I’m hoping it was a q & a session where, if the yanks had their questions answered satisfactorily, their funds might be ‘unlocked’
Fingers crossed.
As previously discussed, it’s worrying that no other bidder has even got to the stage the Aussies have. What is putting everyone off?
The madman’s price.
Clearly if the club was for sale with clean title for £1 it would have sold long ago.
Whichever way you look at it, unless you are a fan with 2x a large euromillions win this is an investment, one which you would only make if you believe you would get a return on your money.
If you are laying out £20/30/70m or whatever the latest price is on a company currently losing 6m+ per year you need a plan how to turn that around and within 5 years you will grow the worth of the company enough to a) recoup your initial outlay and b) recoup any operational losses you may make along the way.
That realistically is getting into the premium league. It’s a huge gamble and therefore the return investors will want for that gamble will be large if indeed you can find such investors.
Ultimately the asking price will kill the deal for most investors. It’s one thing taking on a loss making entity if you have a plan to turn that around. It’s a whole other matter laying out tens of millions for something that has a true value considerably less. Extremely high risk.
Agree with that but I stil find it hard to believe that the operating loss has fallen from £14m to £6m - I suspect that even if that is the bottom line loss it’s achieved with some one-off windfalls. There’s no way he can have cut the operating costs by £8m, even if revenue was static.
We'll find out soon when the accounts are published,
Pure guesstimates but I would expect the turnover to be on par or slightly better than prior year, maybe £8m, wage bill may be down 3m+, predominantly players and exec's (prior year was nearly 1m exec salaries) making up the lions share of that, all the other cost cutting will be minimal and just noise rather than a real big effect. So likewise I'd be surprised if the true operational loss was only 6m, more likely 8-9m I would have thought before player sales.
Would love to see someone's plan as to how to turn even 6m around if indeed it was that, another 10,000 bums on seats every single home game would probably net less than 4m per annum after costs leaving minimum 2m to find from commercial activities.
If you go back to 2012 the turnover was around 8.5m, operating expense only 16m, compare that to the last accounts with 7.5m and 21m..........
Ultimately that's the struggle for an investor, paying more than asset value for a company losing that sort of money per annum without a clear way of turning that around is a person difficult to attract. But if the asset value (for arguments sake) was 20m and the club was sold for £1 it's a much more viable risk. That said the asset value in a football club is marginal anyway as the likelihood of being able to realise that is almost zero (talking property here not players), hence if I was buying i'd probably value the asset at most 25% of booked value.
Even if I felt I could run the club successfully and break even, I don't see the value exceeding 20m with clear title/no debt (you may take a punt on the directors loans as in effect they only get repaid upon a massive windfall so largely irrelevant other than on a negotiating point). Even at that price the risk/reward is not great, there's much better ways to get a decent ROE. Hence why the majority of club owners are either so rich it almost doesn't matter and it's just for fun/a plaything or it's lower league bouncing around trying to not lose much money and hope to make up any shortfall on finding a gem from the academy to sel, hopefully after they just got you promoted ALA MK Dons.
If it was relatively low risk to get towards a break even point we could probably buy it ourselves and do so, if of course the seller was sensible on price!
Slightly confused with a lot of the above comments ....doubt I am the only one.
From the notes taken at the CARD/EFL meeting, i read it as some paperwork is missing from the Aussies, but not that the paperwork is specifically about financial information.
Just wondered why so many people are saying the issue is that Aussies are having possible problems proving funds for takeover/5 year plan.
Could it not be paperwork on a completely different subject? Harvey seemed to say that once the missing documents are given to EFL then it's all go for the takeover, so i'd imagine it's nothing to do with money as surely that would be something far more complicated.
If it's nothing to do with money, please explain why LDT, the Aussies and the Americans were in a meeting last week, in an attempt for the Aussies to obtain financial backing from the Americans. (Unlock the money as Jim White called it) ?
Why would the Australians be looking for financial backing if they have enough money ?
Is that what the meeting was about? Where was that reported as a matter of interest?
Sky Sports and Talksport. I'm not sure if the Talksport podcasts are still available, but the links were posted on the for sale thread and I listened to them.
Isn’t it obvious at this stage that everything said on Talksport is not always 100% fact. Why would Talksport know what was said in a behind closed doors meeting between possible new owners?
LDT also confirmed the meeting was held by conference call between himself, The Aussies & the Americans.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation". Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
When I bought my first house with the aid of a mortgage @Chizz I had to produce a full monthly income and expenditure statement to satisfy my lender that I could afford the repayments. The last thing a lender wants is the hassle of having to enforce his security, so viability is key in any lending situation surely?
Yes.
And it seems that the Aussies have shown they have funds to make the purchase (in the house-buying analogy, they've demonstrated they have access to a mortgage, as you did).
But the speculation seems to be that the EFL requires that the buyers also show they have funds in order to service the current debt level of the club. In the house-buying scenario, this would be you having to prove that you could continue to pay all of the current owners' household bills, including the ones you wouldn't necessarily want to keep up.
The reason I think it's (wild) speculation that the Aussies have been required to (and have failed so far to) show they have funds to meet the current owners' levels of loss. I don't know whether they have to do that or not. But I would be interested to know if they do.
Does anyone have knowledge of this? Specifically, whether the owner has to show they have funds to cover the current owner's levels of debt, going forward?
EFL Rules:
16.21
If any Person proposes to acquire Control of a Club:
16.21.1
the Club shall submit to The League up to date Future Financial Information prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position as far in advance of the change of Control as reasonably possible or, if such submission is not reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control, no later than 10 Normal Working Days thereafter; and 16.21.2 The League shall have the power to require the Person who proposes to acquire or has acquired Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.
I believe the sufficiency is based on two years 'future financial position' as a rule of thumb.
That is to cover operational losses - not acquired debt, although clearly servicing any acquired debt would be an operational expense.
That's really interesting, thanks for posting it. It's certainly added to my knowledge.
It doesn't, however, seem to say that the buyers would have to have give any indication that they have to have sufficient funds to cover the current owners on-going losses.
It may be a moot point, but I think there's a difference between having to show you have money to sustain your own plans and having to show you have the money to sustain the previous owner's plans.
As you say a moot point. Common sense says that if the present incumbent is losing £10M pa and you say you will break even, you will have to provide evidence of how you will achieve this. The two must be inter related.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
Its not wild speculation in my opinion but based on a number of comments made by LdT in the FF meetings. Happy to be corrected on this however and its just my view
LdT is satisfied the Aussies have the cash to buy the club, however they have not submitted paperwork to fully satisfy the EFL in some way.
This can only be two things, clear identification of potential owners (and LdT does mention them needing to simplify their consortium), or proof that they have funds to run the club after the purchase for the following period to meet EFL regs, or a combination of the two.
The fact that the sale has taken so long makes me think its more the latter.
You say "opinion based on comments", I say "speculation". Potato/tomato.
I haven't seen anywhere that the EFL requires a new owner to show sufficient funds to service the previous owner's debt. It may be the case, but I haven't seen it anywhere.
If I buy a house (I know, I know...) I have to show I can afford to buy the house. I don't have to show I have the money to pay for the window cleaner, gardener, Sky subscription, TV license and residents' parking permit.
When I bought my first house with the aid of a mortgage @Chizz I had to produce a full monthly income and expenditure statement to satisfy my lender that I could afford the repayments. The last thing a lender wants is the hassle of having to enforce his security, so viability is key in any lending situation surely?
Yes.
And it seems that the Aussies have shown they have funds to make the purchase (in the house-buying analogy, they've demonstrated they have access to a mortgage, as you did).
But the speculation seems to be that the EFL requires that the buyers also show they have funds in order to service the current debt level of the club. In the house-buying scenario, this would be you having to prove that you could continue to pay all of the current owners' household bills, including the ones you wouldn't necessarily want to keep up.
The reason I think it's (wild) speculation that the Aussies have been required to (and have failed so far to) show they have funds to meet the current owners' levels of loss. I don't know whether they have to do that or not. But I would be interested to know if they do.
Does anyone have knowledge of this? Specifically, whether the owner has to show they have funds to cover the current owner's levels of debt, going forward?
EFL Rules:
16.21
If any Person proposes to acquire Control of a Club:
16.21.1
the Club shall submit to The League up to date Future Financial Information prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position as far in advance of the change of Control as reasonably possible or, if such submission is not reasonably practicable prior to the change of Control, no later than 10 Normal Working Days thereafter; and 16.21.2 The League shall have the power to require the Person who proposes to acquire or has acquired Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club.
I believe the sufficiency is based on two years 'future financial position' as a rule of thumb.
That is to cover operational losses - not acquired debt, although clearly servicing any acquired debt would be an operational expense.
That's really interesting, thanks for posting it. It's certainly added to my knowledge.
It doesn't, however, seem to say that the buyers would have to have give any indication that they have to have sufficient funds to cover the current owners on-going losses.
It may be a moot point, but I think there's a difference between having to show you have money to sustain your own plans and having to show you have the money to sustain the previous owner's plans.
As you say a moot point. Common sense says that if the present incumbent is losing £10M pa and you say you will break even, you will have to provide evidence of how you will achieve this. The two must be inter related.
I doubt very much if the EFL would assess a business plan - the suggestion yesterday was they put down a number.
He is saying the takeover is nearer because he (his staff) has reduced operating costs yet refuses to pay bonuses because we had a bad year. The guy is truly Alan Turing personified.
He is saying the takeover is nearer because he (his staff) has reduced operating costs yet refuses to pay bonuses because we had a bad year. The guy is truly Alan Turing personified.
He is saying the takeover is nearer because he (his staff) has reduced operating costs yet refuses to pay bonuses because we had a bad year. The guy is truly Alan Turing personified.
He is saying the takeover is nearer because he (his staff) has reduced operating costs yet refuses to pay bonuses because we had a bad year. The guy is truly Alan Turing personified.
Alan Turing was a good guy though. Or was that ironic?
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I’m as certain as I can be that this isn’t about funds. Proof of funds possibly, but not funding. They wouldn’t go ahead without funding for the ‘5 yr plan’ as anything else wouldn’t makes sense. ‘We just want to scramble together enough cash so that we can lose £600k a month’ isn’t going to attract backers. A bid aimed potentially at the Prem (i.e. a gamble with a possible reward at the end) might.
Indeed and they haven't which suggests they don't have that funding
Funding for what is the key.
There’s a big difference between raising the funds to a) buy the club and run it for a year or two, and b) buy the club and run if for five years with genuine ambition.
If I thought they were struggling to do a) I’d be worried for sure.
So is it possible that the reason for the delays is that finding backers prepared to take on that level of risk can’t be easy, and it’s possible some have backed out as they learn more about the Cash/Jimenez/Roland related problems at the club.
Just speculation of course.
Meanwhile no one is stopping anybody else stepping up to the plate and buying the club if they want to.
As the Aussies have most likely made the highest bid, Rolly is hanging on for them. Hence his 'honour' the Aussies deal comment.
Seems a few people are reaching the conclusion that the Aussies haven't shown the EFL that they have the funds to run the club. I haven't seen that in any context other than wild speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true (or somewhere close to the truth). But if it is true, can anyone explain how much funding a potential incoming owner would have to show in order to prove they can run the club?
It doesn't seem to make sense that a potential owner has to prove (or otherwise be prevented from buying) that they have funds to cover, say, the current owners' annual losses. If so, that would mean that buyers who intend to purchase a club and create their own cost-cutting schedule in order to reduce the cost of running the club would be prevented from doing so. But it would also mean that incoming owners would need to demonstrate they have the funds to cover the on-going debts of the current owner, whatever size they are. Why would that make any sense? It's basically saying "I'm a crap owner and keep losing pots of money. You have to prove you're just as crap as I am and will therefore continue to lose money at the rate I am doing, but you have to prove you've got the money to do so".
Instead, the question should be "do you have a business plan that shows the losses of the club reducing". Not, "do you have more money than the current owner, and can afford to keep flushing it down the loo like he does"?
So, other that wild speculation, does anyone have an idea what figure the new owners would have to prove they have funds to cover?
I’m as certain as I can be that this isn’t about funds. Proof of funds possibly, but not funding. They wouldn’t go ahead without funding for the ‘5 yr plan’ as anything else wouldn’t makes sense. ‘We just want to scramble together enough cash so that we can lose £600k a month’ isn’t going to attract backers. A bid aimed potentially at the Prem (i.e. a gamble with a possible reward at the end) might.
Indeed and they haven't which suggests they don't have that funding
Funding for what is the key.
There’s a big difference between raising the funds to a) buy the club and run it for a year or two, and b) buy the club and run if for five years with genuine ambition.
If I thought they were struggling to do a) I’d be worried for sure.
So is it possible that the reason for the delays is that finding backers prepared to take on that level of risk can’t be easy, and it’s possible some have backed out as they learn more about the Cash/Jimenez/Roland related problems at the club.
Just speculation of course.
Meanwhile no one is stopping anybody else stepping up to the plate and buying the club if they want to.
As the Aussies have most likely made the highest bid, Rolly is hanging on for them. Hence his 'honour' the Aussies deal comment.
Weren’t they saying that no other potential buyer had even signed an NDA, so would even know what the asking price was/is?
I certainly hope they’re not putting off other bidders though of course.
Comments
It doesn't, however, seem to say that the buyers would have to have give any indication that they have to have sufficient funds to cover the current owners on-going losses.
It may be a moot point, but I think there's a difference between having to show you have money to sustain your own plans and having to show you have the money to sustain the previous owner's plans.
Pure guesstimates but I would expect the turnover to be on par or slightly better than prior year, maybe £8m, wage bill may be down 3m+, predominantly players and exec's (prior year was nearly 1m exec salaries) making up the lions share of that, all the other cost cutting will be minimal and just noise rather than a real big effect. So likewise I'd be surprised if the true operational loss was only 6m, more likely 8-9m I would have thought before player sales.
Would love to see someone's plan as to how to turn even 6m around if indeed it was that, another 10,000 bums on seats every single home game would probably net less than 4m per annum after costs leaving minimum 2m to find from commercial activities.
If you go back to 2012 the turnover was around 8.5m, operating expense only 16m, compare that to the last accounts with 7.5m and 21m..........
Ultimately that's the struggle for an investor, paying more than asset value for a company losing that sort of money per annum without a clear way of turning that around is a person difficult to attract. But if the asset value (for arguments sake) was 20m and the club was sold for £1 it's a much more viable risk. That said the asset value in a football club is marginal anyway as the likelihood of being able to realise that is almost zero (talking property here not players), hence if I was buying i'd probably value the asset at most 25% of booked value.
Even if I felt I could run the club successfully and break even, I don't see the value exceeding 20m with clear title/no debt (you may take a punt on the directors loans as in effect they only get repaid upon a massive windfall so largely irrelevant other than on a negotiating point). Even at that price the risk/reward is not great, there's much better ways to get a decent ROE. Hence why the majority of club owners are either so rich it almost doesn't matter and it's just for fun/a plaything or it's lower league bouncing around trying to not lose much money and hope to make up any shortfall on finding a gem from the academy to sel, hopefully after they just got you promoted ALA MK Dons.
If it was relatively low risk to get towards a break even point we could probably buy it ourselves and do so, if of course the seller was sensible on price!
Common sense says that if the present incumbent is losing £10M pa and you say you will break even, you will have to provide evidence of how you will achieve this. The two must be inter related.
Hence, I assume, the comment
Investor Height Tests
I certainly hope they’re not putting off other bidders though of course.