dude with cash

[fish 0]

norwich city have been offered 5m from a multi million air he will only help us if he gets a place on the board

[William Darby 0]

I''d bite his hand off.

[SwindonCanary 457]

A place on the board, with how many shares ?

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 417]

Who''s doing the time travelling.

[Willmeister 35]

Is his surname Turner?

[The Masked Raccoon 0]

Multi-millionaire offering £5mil? In todays footballing world, it''s not worth the effort. Reading, Leicester, Notts County and so many others had bigger dealings with, what I''d class as ''sponsors'' for a cut back but how well have they fared? Leicester eventually got up but could so easily go straight back down (in my book a poorer QPR)

 

Keep it real. Decent sound investment only

[Duncan Edwards 2,424]

Good old Andy and Sharon!! Very influential in the appointment of Glenn Roeder, they should have stuck to selling secured loans and shonky Payment Protection.

[crabbycanary 2]

I don''t think you''ll find that''s the dates (2003) of the Turner''s involvement.

Anyway, whilst on the subject, they didn''t like the ''terms'' put to them, even though they were happy to invest a certain amount

[# 0]

I bet he''s offering a damn sight more than Fry ever has! [:|]

[Dubai Mark 0]

Clearly there are different reasons why some are on the board, its not always about money, and not really worth getting angry about.

That said, it does get you thinking, just how much of a financial contribution would the club consider from a genuine investor for a seat on the board.

For example, a life long City fan could win 100 million on the Euro lottery and want to invest, lets say 15 million in the club......I wonder what the terms would be?

[# 0]

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]Clearly there are different reasons why some are on the board, its not always about money, and not really worth getting angry about. That said, it does get you thinking, just how much of a financial contribution would the club consider from a genuine investor for a seat on the board. For example, a life long City fan could win 100 million on the Euro lottery and want to invest, lets say 15 million in the club......I wonder what the terms would be?[/quote]

 

He''d still fail Delia''s fit and proper test Mark.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]Clearly there are different reasons why some are on the board, its not always about money, and not really worth getting angry about.

That said, it does get you thinking, just how much of a financial contribution would the club consider from a genuine investor for a seat on the board.

For example, a life long City fan could win 100 million on the Euro lottery and want to invest, lets say 15 million in the club......I wonder what the terms would be?[/quote]

I guess it depends on what the money is actually spent on.  If somebody said they''d pay for a stand extension, would they be happy with a life long free season ticket and their name plastered on the stand somewhere.

But there''s a thought.  Ask 5 wealthy locals with big egos to chuck in 4m each.  And they can all have a block named after them.

[GrantsMoustache 0]

Nobody will just gift the club £5m.

It would either be money loan to the club, so would become an internal debt (and we have just cleared that), or be the purchase of newly issued shares which would dilute the shareholding of all other directors, or more likely a bit of both.

If we are talking about a loan of £5m, then whether we should take it very much depends on whether we need it.

If we are talking about the issue of new shares, then what is in it for the current shareholders to see their equity diluted?

And I thought our board are put up to vote every year at the AGM, so shareholders would need to vote on the new individual? Why would shareholders vote to have their shares diluted unless the club had a very good reason why they should...

If the club needed £5m that much then perhaps it would be better to sacrifice a player, like Ruddy or Fer for £8m to £10m, spend a couple of million on a replacement and we have that £5m without borrowing it or without diluting shareholders.

People seem to think that investment is a gift, it isn''t, either the shareholders are diluting shares or the club is borrowing money.

With a budget of £5m the man may as well just go and buy a League Two team outright.

[GrantsMoustache 0]

You don''t understand how investment works Private Frazer, it is not donating. Donating is what happens when people die childless and lonely.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]You don''t understand how investment works Private Frazer, it is not donating. Donating is what happens when people die childless and lonely.[/quote]

Excuse me I do.  

It''s all a question of scale eg what''s the difference in buying a brick for £100 with your name on it. And buying a block in a stand and having your name on it?

And besides people do just donate money to the club.  Didn''t it come out a number of years back that a fan chucked in several £1000s to help fund a transfer?  

[PurpleCanary 6,372]

[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]Nobody will just gift the club £5m.

It would either be money loan to the club, so would become an internal debt (and we have just cleared that), or be the purchase of newly issued shares which would dilute the shareholding of all other directors, or more likely a bit of both.

If we are talking about a loan of £5m, then whether we should take it very much depends on whether we need it.

If we are talking about the issue of new shares, then what is in it for the current shareholders to see their equity diluted?

And I thought our board are put up to vote every year at the AGM, so shareholders would need to vote on the new individual? Why would shareholders vote to have their shares diluted unless the club had a very good reason why they should...

If the club needed £5m that much then perhaps it would be better to sacrifice a player, like Ruddy or Fer for £8m to £10m, spend a couple of million on a replacement and we have that £5m without borrowing it or without diluting shareholders.

People seem to think that investment is a gift, it isn''t, either the shareholders are diluting shares or the club is borrowing money.

With a budget of £5m the man may as well just go and buy a League Two team outright.[/quote]Without for a moment taking this £5m seriously, it is not unknown for people simply to give football clubs money. Fans who didn''t demand their rebate back were effectively doing that, as was anyone who bought a handful of shares in one of those offers some years ago.As to dilution as a result of a purchase of a large block of new ordinary shares, under most circumstances this would not financially affect existing shareholders. The possible exception would be in the event of a takeover, when whatever was being offered could end up being split more ways than would otherwise have been the case.The more relevant problem would be if such dilution (as would be probable) reduced Smith and Jones''s stake to below 50 per cent, although in practice, assuming the loyalty of Michael Foulger, they would retain effective control.

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

I think the internal debt argument is a good one.

[Syteanric 1]

The tottenham Turners ran a finance company, and resigned from their plaes on the the board when someone else running a finance company was blocked from buying the club by the board at that time...

I''ll leave others to speculate...

[PurpleCanary 6,372]

[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]I think the internal debt argument is a good one.[/quote]It would only count as internal debt if it was a loan (rather than a gift or a purchase of shares) and if it came from an existing shareholder. I think the implication from the OP was that this rich person (real or imaginary) with £5m floating around (ditto) is not one of the current seven.

[Bury Green 0]

This ties in to about the time Colin Davey made an approach to the club?

For the younger members of this message board and indeed those who tend not to concern themselves with such things he is and was a rather ''colourful'' horse racing tipster based out this way.

[William Darby 0]

That there Colin Davey is the type of person Delia wants to protect the club from falling into the hands of.  

[GrantsMoustache 0]

"It would only count as internal debt if it was a loan (rather than a gift or a purchase of shares) and if it came from an existing shareholder. I think the implication from the OP was that this rich person (real or imaginary) with £5m floating around (ditto) is not one of the current seven"

Eh? The individual becomes a director, lends the club £5m, that is a loan from a director and therefore an internal debt.

[GrantsMoustache 0]

And it would be a loan from a director, not a loan from a shareholder (OK they may be both), but in accounting it would be considered a loan from a director, and in bookkeeping repayments would be credited against the directors loan account.

Never heard of the phrase ''shareholders loan account'', pretty sure that if I lent the club money (I have a few shares) I would be considered an external debt.

The place on the board is the crucial aspect here. The individual takes a directorship, lends the club money, the club can then make zero interest repayments to that director and the director faces no tax penalty for the money returned.

[PurpleCanary 6,372]

[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]"It would only count as internal debt if it was a loan (rather than a gift or a purchase of shares) and if it came from an existing shareholder. I think the implication from the OP was that this rich person (real or imaginary) with £5m floating around (ditto) is not one of the current seven"

Eh? The individual becomes a director, lends the club £5m, that is a loan from a director and therefore an internal debt.[/quote]Yes, of course if the person became a director then it would count as an internal loan.