Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)

CAFCsayer said:

J BLOCK said:

Airman Brown said:

SomervilleAddick said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

The training ground has needed substantial sums spent on it to achieve category one status. TS thought he'd found a way to do it cheaper. He hasn't succeeded. No one is spending £10m plus on an asset held on a relatively short lease, so then you've got to find another training ground and start again. Similarly The Valley, which will need investment in line with an owner's ambitions, particularly the Jimmy Seed Stand. Same problem.

Do we know why they were rejected for cat. 1? Was it a facilities issue, or organizational/ staff? I don’t think the reasons were ever released, 

I've been told that TS refused point blank to employ the number of academy staff specified in the regulations, so no matter what he did with buildings he was never going to succeed. This information came from a football source outside the club. I've no reason to think it isn't true, but I can't confirm it.

The man is an idiot. 

I'm not sure I believe that one... why would you sink money into something and then knowingly break a rule that you know is going to make your investment a waste of time

Equally, why would anybody make that story up?

benjest1989 said:

I'm not sure I believe that one... why would you sink money into something and then knowingly break a rule that you know is going to make your investment a waste of time

Thought he'd get around it by coaches taking on more than one specified role

Or his son and missus could also add coaching to their many "talents".

JamesSeed said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

Loans can be secured if you own the freeholds. Also, freeholds can increase in value, even if considered ‘unviable’ for development. 

Outdated view. No one wants to lend to football clubs based only on the freehold of the stadium. It’s largely unenforceable security. 

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

J BLOCK said:

CAFCsayer said:

J BLOCK said:

Airman Brown said:

SomervilleAddick said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

The training ground has needed substantial sums spent on it to achieve category one status. TS thought he'd found a way to do it cheaper. He hasn't succeeded. No one is spending £10m plus on an asset held on a relatively short lease, so then you've got to find another training ground and start again. Similarly The Valley, which will need investment in line with an owner's ambitions, particularly the Jimmy Seed Stand. Same problem.

Do we know why they were rejected for cat. 1? Was it a facilities issue, or organizational/ staff? I don’t think the reasons were ever released, 

I've been told that TS refused point blank to employ the number of academy staff specified in the regulations, so no matter what he did with buildings he was never going to succeed. This information came from a football source outside the club. I've no reason to think it isn't true, but I can't confirm it.

The man is an idiot. 

I'm not sure I believe that one... why would you sink money into something and then knowingly break a rule that you know is going to make your investment a waste of time

I don't think Airman would post something without being certain. Based on TS's judgement calls so far, I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Quite. But there must be more to it. TS isn’t stupid, naive possibly. 

The point is there must have been an angle he thought he could use as otherwise the request would have been thrown out without any inspection / audit I imagine?

I would question why he hasn’t been willing to share any information about the shortfall identified by the inspection or even issue any official statement about the situation. He was quite happy to tell people how confident he was about getting approval.

Agreed. But the answer I presume is simply he’s disappointed / feels frustrated I imagine and doesn’t want to admit to the knock back.

No idea if there is some sort of appeal /near term re-evaluation or such like. 

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

J BLOCK said:

CAFCsayer said:

J BLOCK said:

Airman Brown said:

SomervilleAddick said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

The training ground has needed substantial sums spent on it to achieve category one status. TS thought he'd found a way to do it cheaper. He hasn't succeeded. No one is spending £10m plus on an asset held on a relatively short lease, so then you've got to find another training ground and start again. Similarly The Valley, which will need investment in line with an owner's ambitions, particularly the Jimmy Seed Stand. Same problem.

Do we know why they were rejected for cat. 1? Was it a facilities issue, or organizational/ staff? I don’t think the reasons were ever released, 

I've been told that TS refused point blank to employ the number of academy staff specified in the regulations, so no matter what he did with buildings he was never going to succeed. This information came from a football source outside the club. I've no reason to think it isn't true, but I can't confirm it.

The man is an idiot. 

I'm not sure I believe that one... why would you sink money into something and then knowingly break a rule that you know is going to make your investment a waste of time

I don't think Airman would post something without being certain. Based on TS's judgement calls so far, I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Quite. But there must be more to it. TS isn’t stupid, naive possibly. 

The point is there must have been an angle he thought he could use as otherwise the request would have been thrown out without any inspection / audit I imagine?

I would question why he hasn’t been willing to share any information about the shortfall identified by the inspection or even issue any official statement about the situation. He was quite happy to tell people how confident he was about getting approval.

Agreed. But the answer I presume is simply he’s disappointed / feels frustrated I imagine and doesn’t want to admit to the knock back.

No idea if there is some sort of appeal /near term re-evaluation or such like. 

Whilst everyone likes a scapegoat does Roddy perhaps share some  blame here  for creating this angle / option to proceed even with the deficiency?

As the fixture list is based on category, I think you can't be upgraded during a season?

Don’t know. I’m just speculating as to why the radio silence. Softer message if he can say not yet but I’ve got (now) commitment for next season subject to x,y and z. 

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

J BLOCK said:

CAFCsayer said:

J BLOCK said:

Airman Brown said:

SomervilleAddick said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

The training ground has needed substantial sums spent on it to achieve category one status. TS thought he'd found a way to do it cheaper. He hasn't succeeded. No one is spending £10m plus on an asset held on a relatively short lease, so then you've got to find another training ground and start again. Similarly The Valley, which will need investment in line with an owner's ambitions, particularly the Jimmy Seed Stand. Same problem.

Do we know why they were rejected for cat. 1? Was it a facilities issue, or organizational/ staff? I don’t think the reasons were ever released, 

I've been told that TS refused point blank to employ the number of academy staff specified in the regulations, so no matter what he did with buildings he was never going to succeed. This information came from a football source outside the club. I've no reason to think it isn't true, but I can't confirm it.

The man is an idiot. 

I'm not sure I believe that one... why would you sink money into something and then knowingly break a rule that you know is going to make your investment a waste of time

I don't think Airman would post something without being certain. Based on TS's judgement calls so far, I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Quite. But there must be more to it. TS isn’t stupid, naive possibly. 

The point is there must have been an angle he thought he could use as otherwise the request would have been thrown out without any inspection / audit I imagine?

I would question why he hasn’t been willing to share any information about the shortfall identified by the inspection or even issue any official statement about the situation. He was quite happy to tell people how confident he was about getting approval.

This is the same bloke who was confident we would blow the league away. He doesn't have a clue. If he wasn't such a nasty piece of work overseeing the bullying of hard working people, it would almost be funny he is so pathetic. 

Probably the only ones not laughing in football are us fans.

valleynick66 said:

JamesSeed said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

Loans can be secured if you own the freeholds. Also, freeholds can increase in value, even if considered ‘unviable’ for development. 

Outdated view. No one wants to lend to football clubs based only on the freehold of the stadium. It’s largely unenforceable security. 

The security they want are Personal guarantees backed by secure assets. 

Must have changed in the last three or four years then. What happened? Not saying you’re wrong, but why do people like Barclay still say they’re only interested in the club with freeholds attached @valleynick66?

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

Do you honestly believe any of these people were actually interested? serious billionaires, ready to blow cash and they can’t even get a meeting with RD, come on. 

Why do you imagine Andrew Barclay bothered to speak to Mark Kleinman, me and Peter Varney, then engage with Elliott and co, if he wasn't "actually interested"?

Do you not think he could entertain himself in other ways? That wasn't even his starting point. He'd tried and failed to get to Duchatelet already, which is why he sought help.

The Aussies had plenty of meetings and discussions over an 18-month period. When they matched Duchatelet's price, he increased it.

A bit of attention perhaps. I just find it impossible to believe a man of his wealth couldn’t get at least a meeting with RD, if he really wanted to. 

Well, he couldn’t. LDT said that RD had a lease with ESI so there was nothing to discuss.

i don’t hold any brief for Barclay, I don’t think we have much in common, but I would imagine there are plenty of ways he could get attention without putting himself in meetings to be sneered at by the likes of Farnell and Elliott.

CAFCsayer said:

J BLOCK said:

Airman Brown said:

SomervilleAddick said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

The training ground has needed substantial sums spent on it to achieve category one status. TS thought he'd found a way to do it cheaper. He hasn't succeeded. No one is spending £10m plus on an asset held on a relatively short lease, so then you've got to find another training ground and start again. Similarly The Valley, which will need investment in line with an owner's ambitions, particularly the Jimmy Seed Stand. Same problem.

Do we know why they were rejected for cat. 1? Was it a facilities issue, or organizational/ staff? I don’t think the reasons were ever released, 

I've been told that TS refused point blank to employ the number of academy staff specified in the regulations, so no matter what he did with buildings he was never going to succeed. This information came from a football source outside the club. I've no reason to think it isn't true, but I can't confirm it.

The man is an idiot. 

I'm not sure I believe that one... why would you sink money into something and then knowingly break a rule that you know is going to make your investment a waste of time

Well, he bought a football team to get it promoted then failed to spend the money on players so the club could get promoted- so he has form in that area.

Airman Brown said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Airman Brown said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

Do you honestly believe any of these people were actually interested? serious billionaires, ready to blow cash and they can’t even get a meeting with RD, come on. 

Why do you imagine Andrew Barclay bothered to speak to Mark Kleinman, me and Peter Varney, then engage with Elliott and co, if he wasn't "actually interested"?

Do you not think he could entertain himself in other ways? That wasn't even his starting point. He'd tried and failed to get to Duchatelet already, which is why he sought help.

The Aussies had plenty of meetings and discussions over an 18-month period. When they matched Duchatelet's price, he increased it.

A bit of attention perhaps. I just find it impossible to believe a man of his wealth couldn’t get at least a meeting with RD, if he really wanted to. 

Well, he couldn’t. LDT said that RD had a lease with ESI so there was nothing to discuss.

i don’t hold any brief for Barclay, I don’t think we have much in common, but I would imagine there are plenty of ways he could get attention without putting himself in meetings to be sneered at by the likes of Farnell and Elliott.

Now there's something that's always baffled me about the lease RD subsequently agreed with TS. It was on different terms to those RD had with ESI wasn't it? If I remember correctly, it's for longer and the monthly payments are quite a bit higher, but I don't think TS was a poor negotiator. Wasn't it because he didn't agree to also pay RD the £50M that ESI had done before him and, as he wouldn't accept those terms, he wasn't offered the same preferential rate? 

You see, I don't subscribe to the theory that RD sold to ESI to bankrupt us because, if he had, why did he later negotiate a lease agreement with TS when he appeared on the scene. He wouldn't even talk to Barclay & Co earlier, so he'd have had no qualms about sending TS packing if that was his intention.

Furthermore, if he hadn't agreed to deal with TS, or any other potential buyer at that point, and we'd subsequently folded, wouldn't he have had to pay back the £7M in director loans?

I'm not convinced his actions were those of a man in whose interests it was to put us out of business. As I've said before, to the amusement of some, I maintain that by choosing ESI, he effectively sold to the highest bidder (£50M+£1), motivated by money and not revenge, and he knows his best chance recovering his now comes with our promotion to the top flight.

The accounts for Clear Ocean Capital still have not been published will these accounts tell us more once revealed?

valleynick66 said:

JamesSeed said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

The only conclusion I can come to with all of this is jacko laid it on the line, said what was needed, TS had decided that wasn’t going to happen, he looked for a cheap manager option who could bring in cheap players and he also cut staff costs, raised ticket prices and will look to find a buyer who hopefully would be fooled into buying the club on some temporary business metrics -  great - more years of shit and more years of looking for a saviour whilst being made apparently impossible by RD owning the grounds - millwall don’t  own fuck all and they’ve got an owner who is willing to fund a decent side - I don’t want to hear any more about these fantasist potential buyers that are always lurking to destabilise things but never stump up when they have the opportunity - they and they’re cheerleaders are partly responsible for putting us in this shit 

The freehold to Millwall’s ground is publicly owned, which is more secure than a private landlord and a common model, especially in Europe. I’d have thought the actual buyers were the fantasists, as experience has shown.

well, you've always stated its virtually 'undevelopable' Airman so you can't ahve it both ways when it suits the argument  

Nothing in London is "undevelopable" but some sites are more difficult than others, which affects the cost, the number and type of units feasible, and hence the value of the land for residential use. Self-evidently a plot of land with good access to main roads and a motorway is likely to be more attractive to a developer than The Valley.

agreed - lets call it unviable and indeed, impossible if the football club owner doesn't quit the valley - so why are these mega rich potential investors so keen to have the ground and training ground - hasn't bothered man city's owners  

For the same reason the ex-directors secured their loans on the land, presumably. In any event, the problem it is giving us is that it opens the door to £1 purchasers because the club itself is worth nothing in a sale.

the bigger problem is it 'appears' to be putting off all these mega rich potential owners - utter nonsense if they were just interested in running a football club  

Loans can be secured if you own the freeholds. Also, freeholds can increase in value, even if considered ‘unviable’ for development. 

Outdated view. No one wants to lend to football clubs based only on the freehold of the stadium. It’s largely unenforceable security. 

The security they want are Personal guarantees backed by secure assets. 

I agree that mainstream UK lenders will not willingly touch non-elite football clubs anymore. It's too much of a basket case industry with special regulations and intense pressure from the "customers". However, it depends which investment pool you are fishing in and we are not going to be fishing in a mainstream funding pool for the next generation at this rate, potentially ever. Any business which lacks tangible (or indeed, any) assets is going to have to work extra hard to justify its funding structure.

LMAO What ex player is worth enough to buy and run this club?