Parker not the knight in shining armour then

It seems that Parker isn’t going to be everyone’s saviour after all then. So he’s had his play with his little toy and now he’s thrown it away and left us in the excrement for next season. A lot of people knock Fenty on here but at least he will never leave the club to rot like Parker is doing. Wait and see who puts the necessary money into the club to keep it going. Again BTW.  

Quoted from Rich Boy

A lot of people knock Fenty on here but at least he will never leave the club to rot like Parker is doing.

After 8 years of Fenty it seems pretty rotten to me. My initial reaction is that they are both putting their own ego's ahead of the club at the moment. How else would you explain the lack of communication between the two?

He's put £1m+ into the club in the last year. Not sure why you're knocking the guy.

Quoted from wigworld

He's put £1m+ into the club in the last year. Not sure why you're knocking the guy.

hasn't he bought shares with the money hes put it ??  Not really putting his money in more of a loan I would say  

Exactly. Cherio next season.

You two are complete muppets!

How can a share purchase be deemed to be 'more like a loan'??

The only way Parker can get his investment back is if somebody buys the shares off him.  If nobody does that then he doesn't get any money back.

Unlike someone who puts money into the club in the form of an actual loan who can ask for that money to be returned - like 'Saviour John' for example.  

Quoted from Rich Boy

It seems that Parker isn’t going to be everyone’s saviour after all then. So he’s had his play with his little toy and now he’s thrown it away and left us in the excrement for next season. A lot of people knock Fenty on here but at least he will never leave the club to rot like Parker is doing. Wait and see who puts the necessary money into the club to keep it going. Again BTW.  

So what the intercourse did fenty do on monday then, threw his flipping toys out and put GTFC in danger. I flipping hate him and the club at this moment in time, I don't know were we go from here, If we go back grovelling to fenty  we'll be in the unibond within 5 years if we don't we take the risk that someone is willing to invest its a big risk and GTFC  could be no more, I don't know maybe if the worse did happen starting up again maybe not a bad thing

Quoted from Quagmire

You two are complete muppets!

How can a share purchase be deemed to be 'more like a loan'??

The only way Parker can get his investment back is if somebody buys the shares off him.  If nobody does that then he doesn't get any money back.

Unlike someone who puts money into the club in the form of an actual loan who can ask for that money to be returned - like 'Saviour John' for example.  

so I am a complete muppet am I ?  I was pointing at the fact that putting money into the club and wanting shares is not giving the club money, you will want a return on your investment.  In simplistic terms is can be classed as a "loan" only shares can either increase or decrease in value or even be worth nothing (ala banking crisis that has screwed various companies in the past few years ).

I think the question that does need to asked is why would somebody who doesn't want to own the club buy more than half the shares if he does not want to invest or own it.  The club is different as it is a PLC but the wiki doesn't shed too much light on how been a PLC effects us but if you would like to read it here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_limited_company  and if somebody who knows a bit more could post on this

I am not commenting on how much John has invested or how he has invested his money but more of the worry that we have somebody who has 54% of shares in the club and he doesnt want to put any money into or run the club.  I hope that somebody has a plan to get us out of this mess and we can move forward which ever way.

UTM!

Sorry, but as has been pointed out by others - to put 54% into shares IS putting money into the club
without strings attached, the money has been invested and cannot be taken away unless the shares are sold - to put your money into the club  in the form of a loan as JF apparently has done is  attaching strings, we only have his word that these loans will not be called in.

Quoted from petethemariner

Sorry, but as has been pointed out by others - to put 54% into shares IS putting money into the club
without strings attached, the money has been invested and cannot be taken away unless the shares are sold - to put your money into the club  in the form of a loan as JF apparently has done is  attaching strings, we only have his word that these loans will not be called in.

OK but I think the question that does need to asked is why would somebody who doesn't want to own the club buy more than half the shares if he does not want to invest or own it ??

Unless he has somebody "waiting in the wings" ....  

Nobody in the world invests money in a lower league football club with the intention of securing an ROI.  The money that Mike Parker has invested in shares has been put into the GTFC coffers and spent on the club.  If Mike Parker decides to sell his shares and somehow gets the same amount of money back that he initially paid then this money comes from the person who is purchasing those shares from him, not from out of the clubs coffers, unlike a loan.

His personal net investment in the club would be zero BUT the actual investment into the clubs coffers is still 1.25 million.

It would appear that the reason he now holds 54% of the clubs issued shares is because Fenty hasn't matched his 500k share investment as it was, supposedly, agreed.

Quoted from Quagmire

Nobody in the world invests money in a lower league football club with the intention of securing an ROI.  The money that Mike Parker has invested in shares has been put into the GTFC coffers and spent on the club.  If Mike Parker decides to sell his shares and somehow gets the same amount of money back that he initially paid then this money comes from the person who is purchasing those shares from him, not from out of the clubs coffers, unlike a loan.

His personal net investment in the club would be zero BUT the actual investment into the clubs coffers is still 1.25 million.

It would appear that the reason he now holds 54% of the clubs issued shares is because Fenty hasn't matched his 500k share investment as it was, supposedly, agreed.

Then why wouldn't fenty convert his loan to shares then, sorry finance not my thing ask my bank manager  & my creditors

Apols for me being a tad OTT Red, a little bit uptight at the mo!

Depends on who you believe and how much of what both say is true.

If you believe Parker 100% then he agreed to fund this seasons predicted losses 50/50 with Fenty and that this would be in the form of share purchases rather than loans as this looks better on the company accounts.

Parker appears to have put in his 500k in share purchases but Fenty has yet to do the same.  If he were to do this then it would appear that Parker would own less than 54% of issued shares and this current issue with the takeover panel may well go some way to being resolved.

Only Fenty knows if he is going to invest in additional shares rather than a loan.

Quoted from Red mariner

Then why wouldn't fenty convert his loan to shares then, sorry finance not my thing ask my bank manager  & my creditors

Well IMO if he converted his loan ( according to MP only 150K so far, against MP's 500K) he would likely become major shareholder  & Chairman again in a failing, loss making business and in my opinion JF wants a way out, i do not believe he wants to lose any more  cash than he already has and i think he would prefer to recoup as much as possible and disappear off to a political career.

Quoted from Quagmire

Apols for me being a tad OTT Red, a little bit uptight at the mo!

Depends on who you believe and how much of what both say is true.

If you believe Parker 100% then he agreed to fund this seasons predicted losses 50/50 with Fenty and that this would be in the form of share purchases rather than loans as this looks better on the company accounts.

Parker appears to have put in his 500k in share purchases but Fenty has yet to do the same.  If he were to do this then it would appear that Parker would own less than 54% of issued shares and this current issue with the takeover panel may well go some way to being resolved.

Only Fenty knows if he is going to invest in additional shares rather than a loan.

hey no probs I think we all are a bit upset as we don't want to the club to go under and who knows what they are both u to, just hope that GTFC comes out of it better, stronger & ready for the league  

Quoted Text

It would appear that the reason he now holds 54% of the clubs issued shares is because Fenty hasn't matched his 500k share investment as it was, supposedly, agreed.

And therein lies the problem - firstly JF, according to MP, has still to put £350k into the club in one way, or another.
If JF invests this money and buys shares like MP then he will regain the majority shareholding, which MP seems comfortable with. So why hasn’t JF injected the money and why would JF prefer to go for a loan instead of shares?

How about this for a conspiracy theory…………

Surely the only answer to that is he wants it to be a loan so he can ask for his loans to be repaid at some point, therefore holding a gun to any future investors head. Anyone wanting to join the board will face the prospect of having to find enough money to pay off JF's loans, as well as funding the club. Effectively the loans are a far more powerful bargaining chip in takeover battle than a shareholding.

It is also worth remembering that JF has been withdrawing £162,500 each year paid into a pension fund (which grossed up for tax purposes are worth in excess of £250k for a 40% tax payer). Up to May 2010 he had received 3 of these payments and I believe there was another due in the last financial year (this will become apparent when the latest accounts are released). So potentially he has recouped £1m and the club still has loans of approximately £2m outstanding.

So, theoretically, if JF’s loans are repaid in full he will have lent £2m and recovered £3m over 7 years – not bad eh!

So is it possible that MP is trying to smoke JF out at the moment in order to ascertain whether the club will have to repay JF in the event of a new board taking over and reducing JF’s influence!

Quoted from petethemariner

Sorry, but as has been pointed out by others - to put 54% into shares IS putting money into the club
without strings attached, the money has been invested and cannot be taken away unless the shares are sold - to put your money into the club  in the form of a loan as JF apparently has done is  attaching strings, we only have his word that these loans will not be called in.

Oh dear - we are beholden to the word of a Conservative politician. The future is grim...

Quoted from thebigeasy

And therein lies the problem - firstly JF, according to MP, has still to put £350k into the club in one way, or another.
If JF invests this money and buys shares like MP then he will regain the majority shareholding, which MP seems comfortable with. So why hasn’t JF injected the money and why would JF prefer to go for a loan instead of shares?

How about this for a conspiracy theory…………

Surely the only answer to that is he wants it to be a loan so he can ask for his loans to be repaid at some point, therefore holding a gun to any future investors head. Anyone wanting to join the board will face the prospect of having to find enough money to pay off JF's loans, as well as funding the club. Effectively the loans are a far more powerful bargaining chip in takeover battle than a shareholding.

It is also worth remembering that JF has been withdrawing £162,500 each year paid into a pension fund (which grossed up for tax purposes are worth in excess of £250k for a 40% tax payer). Up to May 2010 he had received 3 of these payments and I believe there was another due in the last financial year (this will become apparent when the latest accounts are released). So potentially he has recouped £1m and the club still has loans of approximately £2m outstanding.

So, theoretically, if JF’s loans are repaid in full he will have lent £2m and recovered £3m over 7 years – not bad eh!

So is it possible that MP is trying to smoke JF out at the moment in order to ascertain whether the club will have to repay JF in the event of a new board taking over and reducing JF’s influence!

very interesting bigeasy and very plausible. even more so if you add into the equation 1)pete's equally plausible theory that fenty is looking for a way out, 2 ) tarka, who does speak to jf regularly,saying that he's just got sick and tired of the pressure,hasle and abuse and 3) chrisloz's interesting guestimates of f & p's worth - they indicate that fenty has committed 15-20% of his worth whilst parker has spent the equivalent of 2.5%. this means fenty has some pretty serious finances invested in gtfc whilst for parker it's a hobby, a play thing which isn't costing him that much money

so could we surmise that fenty wants to get out of the hole he's dug himself into and will do so if he can get a couple of million back and that whilst parker could easily afford to do that, he certainly wants to avoid that expenditure if at all possible? last nights interview therefore is part of parker's srategy to get fans worried and give negative info about fenty, so increasing the pressure on fenty to give ground, which in turn decreases the likelihood of parker having to pay him off?

Quoted from Red mariner

hasn't he bought shares with the money hes put it ??  Not really putting his money in more of a loan I would say  

Are you for real? buying unissued shares is a donation, John Fenty on the other hand has loaned the club money.

Quoted from forza ivano

very interesting bigeasy and very plausible. even more so if you add into the equation 1)pete's equally plausible theory that fenty is looking for a way out, 2 ) tarka, who does speak to jf regularly,saying that he's just got sick and tired of the pressure,hasle and abuse and 3) chrisloz's interesting guestimates of f & p's worth - they indicate that fenty has committed 15-20% of his worth whilst parker has spent the equivalent of 2.5%. this means fenty has some pretty serious finances invested in gtfc whilst for parker it's a hobby, a play thing which isn't costing him that much money

so could we surmise that fenty wants to get out of the hole he's dug himself into and will do so if he can get a couple of million back and that whilst parker could easily afford to do that, he certainly wants to avoid that expenditure if at all possible? last nights interview therefore is part of parker's srategy to get fans worried and give negative info about fenty, so increasing the pressure on fenty to give ground, which in turn decreases the likelihood of parker having to pay him off?

if Fenty gets any money out of the club it will be sickening.

I increasingly think that Fenty is sick of bankrolling us and wants a way out so he's trying to put the onus on Parker. Then when things go wrong he can say it wasn't him who let the club fall apart, Parker was the majority shareholder.

I think those who say 'Surely they won't let the club collapse, they have money invested' are missing the point. You don't invest in a non-league football club, you keep it afloat. The money that they've put in has gone and they won't be seeing it again whether the club goes belly up or not. Fenty could call his loans in but there's no money to pay them - it'd mean administration or bankruptcy I'd assume.

[quote=153]

It is also worth remembering that JF has been withdrawing £162,500 each year paid into a pension fund (which grossed up for tax purposes are worth in excess of £250k for a 40% tax payer). Up to May 2010 he had received 3 of these payments and I believe there was another due in the last financial year (this will become apparent when the latest accounts are released). So potentially he has recouped £1m and the club still has loans of approximately £2m outstanding.

So, theoretically, if JF’s loans are repaid in full he will have lent £2m and recovered £3m over 7 years – not bad eh!


If the accounts show a pension charge of £162,500 then that is the gross payment into JF's pension fund.  Company contributions are paid gross not net.  If JF had loaned £2m and recovered £3m, this would have been noted way before now.

Do the accounts specifically relate to directors' pension costs?  My understanding is that no director receives any salary or pension.  The pension costs in the accounts may therefore be players / staff pensions.

Quoted from paulgtfc

[quote=153]

It is also worth remembering that JF has been withdrawing £162,500 each year paid into a pension fund (which grossed up for tax purposes are worth in excess of £250k for a 40% tax payer). Up to May 2010 he had received 3 of these payments and I believe there was another due in the last financial year (this will become apparent when the latest accounts are released). So potentially he has recouped £1m and the club still has loans of approximately £2m outstanding.

So, theoretically, if JF’s loans are repaid in full he will have lent £2m and recovered £3m over 7 years – not bad eh!


If the accounts show a pension charge of £162,500 then that is the gross payment into JF's pension fund.  Company contributions are paid gross not net.  If JF had loaned £2m and recovered £3m, this would have been noted way before now.

Do the accounts specifically relate to directors' pension costs?  My understanding is that no director receives any salary or pension.  The pension costs in the accounts may therefore be players / staff pensions.

thanks for that info paul, although i think you slightly misunderstand  what bigeasy is saying - IF it is JFs personal pension and IF parker repaid fenty'sloans in full, then fenty has put in £2million, but come away with £3million.

there's so many angles to this - soemone has argued that having loans puts fenty in a stronger position than if he had shares, but if fenty really does want to get out then parker has some cards to play with. equally it will be very difficult for fenty to go for the nuclear option and demand repayment of his loans a) because he's got tory- political considerations (imagine how it'll play in the media and to his reputation) and b) every man and his dog knows where he lives , which could make his life very uncomfortabl., parker is also considerably richer than fenty so doesn't have the pressure on him like fenty does

Quoted Text

Do the accounts specifically relate to directors' pension costs?  My understanding is that no director receives any salary or pension.  The pension costs in the accounts may therefore be players / staff pensions.

There is a specific reference to these payments in one years club accounts - and yes they are specific pension payments. So in theory they are paid into the pension fund gross. This is worth more because if JF had taken these payments as a salary, the gross cost to the club would have been the same but JF would have had tax deducted from the payment leaving him with a much smaller sum. So in order for him to come away with £162500 in his pocket net of tax the club would have had to make a gross payment in excess of around £250k.

One other thing to add - I think it could quite reasonably be assumed that MP is trying to "smoke the snake out of the grass" so he knows exactly what JF's position is, now JF has made public his "gripe". This adds weight to my comments made on here over the years that there are other potential directors/investors out there ready to step in, but not whilst JF still has the power of his loans/shareholding.  In short neither MP or anyone else is going to step in and sort out this unholy mess that JF has created, and see JF walk off into the sunlight having made a tidy profit. Far easier to let the club fail, and then buy it back from the administrators without the debt burden of JF's loans.

Somewhere in all that mess I'm sure a compromise will be found. But at this moment JF has twitched and fired the first shot, and MP has responded. It's very early days!

Quoted from thebigeasy

There is a specific reference to these payments in one years club accounts - and yes they are specific pension payments. So in theory they are paid into the pension fund gross. This is worth more because if JF had taken these payments as a salary, the gross cost to the club would have been the same but JF would have had tax deducted from the payment leaving him with a much smaller sum. So in order for him to come away with £162500 in his pocket net of tax the club would have had to make a gross payment in excess of around £250k.

One other thing to add - I think it could quite reasonably be assumed that MP is trying to "smoke the snake out of the grass" so he knows exactly what JF's position is, now JF has made public his "gripe". This adds weight to my comments made on here over the years that there are other potential directors/investors out there ready to step in, but not whilst JF still has the power of his loans/shareholding.  In short neither MP or anyone else is going to step in and sort out this unholy mess that JF has created, and see JF walk off into the sunlight having made a tidy profit. Far easier to let the club fail, and then buy it back from the administrators without the debt burden of JF's loans.

Somewhere in all that mess I'm sure a compromise will be found. But at this moment JF has twitched and fired the first shot, and MP has responded. It's very early days!

That and your tax comments are probably as good an explanation as we're going to get into this situation. Very plausible IMO.