Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Archive › The benign debt
Users Browsing Forum
AdSense, Googlebot and 373 Guests

The benign debt

  This thread currently has 10,831 views. Print
11 Pages Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next All Recommend Thread
FishOutOfWater
January 5, 2018, 4:46pm
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 12,827
Posts Per Day: 2.15
Reputation: 87.01%
Rep Score: +52 / -7
Location: Goole
Approval: +6,564
Gold Stars: 37
Quoted from pen penfras



The funds might have been badly spent, but that's more on the manager than the board. The board have largely backed managers with as much money as was available. Most managerial appointments made in the last 15 years were appointing the most popular candidate amongst fans for the job. The manager has then been backed with funds to the point where lack of success has caused significant losses.

Yes the board make these decisions and they have often gone badly, so ultimately they are responsible for the failure. But I don't think there's a large contingent of fans that would have done things hugely different in terms of managerial choices.


I don't recall there being too many fans happy with Neil Woods' appointment and I seem to remember us being quite underwhelmed when Graham Roger got the job too after Slade left us after Cardiff
Logged Offline
Private Message Skype
Reply: 40 - 100
arryarryarry
January 5, 2018, 4:58pm
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 10,193
Posts Per Day: 1.71
Reputation: 52.76%
Rep Score: +26 / -28
Approval: +9,946
Gold Stars: 113
Quoted from FishOutOfWater


I don't recall there being too many fans happy with Neil Woods' appointment and I seem to remember us being quite underwhelmed when Graham Roger got the job too after Slade left us after Cardiff


I think there were a fair number not happy with Slade's re-appointment.
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 41 - 100
golfer
January 5, 2018, 5:05pm
Vodka Drinker
Posts: 6,880
Posts Per Day: 2.30
Reputation: 67.55%
Rep Score: +34 / -18
Approval: +3,374
Gold Stars: 111
Quoted from HertsGTFC


Like you say in reality the shares are only worth the value the seller places on them rather than a quoted figure, JF has an interest to attach a price to these "magic beans".  


The shares are only worth the price the BUYER puts on them. If no buyers are prepared to put a price on them when the seller wants to sell then the shares are worthless.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 42 - 100
pen penfras
January 5, 2018, 5:11pm

Cocktail Drinker
Posts: 1,677
Posts Per Day: 0.67
Reputation: 58.56%
Rep Score: +8 / -9
Approval: -137
Gold Stars: 71
Quoted from Gaffer58
So what are the shares worth, do they go up and down in value and can they be bought.


The shares aren't really worth anything right now. Yes, they do go up and down in value, but investing in a football club to make a profit is very unlikely to happen. Unless somebody comes along and wants to buy 100% of the club, then there's unlikely to be any financial value to a small holding of shares.

You can buy new shares from the club at £100 per share along with a shareholders certificate. This is a means of funding the club, plus you also get to own a small part of your club and the right attend the AGM meeting to ask questions of the board. It is something that is a good thing to feel a bigger part of the club, but not something you should do in the hope of making a profit.

http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/acatalog/Commerative-Share-Certificate.html
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 43 - 100
MuddyWaters
January 5, 2018, 5:11pm
Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 14,028
Posts Per Day: 2.60
Reputation: 68.15%
Rep Score: +48 / -24
Approval: +31,882
Gold Stars: 230
Quoted from Gaffer58
So what are the shares worth, do they go up and down in value and can they be bought.


The shares aren't worth anything unless you own a controlling interest. They will become of any value if someone wants to buy them to assume control. Until such time, they are worth a percentage of what GTFC is worth, which on paper is zero.
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 44 - 100
Marinerz93
January 5, 2018, 5:22pm

Barley Wine Drinker
Posts: 15,108
Posts Per Day: 2.58
Reputation: 88.22%
Rep Score: +89 / -11
Location: Great Grimsby
Approval: +6,292
Gold Stars: 1
Quoted from pen penfras


With the pathetic interest rates lately, then yes he would be slightly better off. That sort of money would more likely be invested and likely to have gone up more than inflation assuming it wasn't badly invested.


How much would it cost to get backroom access when Town play at Wembley or beat higher placed teams in cup competitions and be lofted on to peoples shoulders at Bournemouth, somethings money can't buy but it can put you in a position where you reap those sorts of rewards. There are pro's and cons to being a money man, some just want the pro stuff and not suffer the consequences of the cons.


Supporting the Mighty Mariners for over 30 years, home town club is were the heart and soul is and it's great to be a part of it.

Jesus’ disciple Peter, picked up a fish to get the tribute money from it, Jesus left his thumb print on the fish, bless'ed is the Haddock.
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 45 - 100
lew chaterleys lover
January 5, 2018, 5:50pm
Whiskey Drinker
Posts: 4,943
Posts Per Day: 1.07
Reputation: 75.9%
Rep Score: +30 / -10
Approval: +10,545
Gold Stars: 231
Quoted from 139914
How many times do we need to cover the same ground before everyone gets ‘the plan’.  Let me simplify:-

1.  The club could and should have been taken into administration years ago, but the main creditor didn’t fancy 5p in the pound of his ‘investment’.
2.  If the loans are benign (dormant), why are they secured against the clubs assets?
3.  If the loans are benign, how come £200k was paid back last year when other non-benign debts remained outstanding?

As a question, who authorised repayment of the £200k?  Did the Uber powerful trust board member endorse?

Time you all woke up and faced facts.  The non-chairman’s plan is simple, run the club on an absolute shoestring, each time fortune strikes he takes a bit back.  There will be no investment while he retains control, there will be no ambition while he retains control.  The only thing that’s benign is the club.

I vowed never to set foot in BP again while he remains in charge, if you want to get rid then consider doing the same.  Feed the cancer (with your hard earned cash) and he won’t leave until he’s had his ‘investment’ repaid in full.

I have no time for egotistical megalomaniacs.  The club isn’t dead but it might as well be!


I think most of us know the score with the non chairman; I urged him to invest in the team and the facilities in a post earlier today but I know I am p****g in the wind really. Like you say he has no intention of investing, he is just going through the motions in the hope football fortune strikes to let him get his money back over time.

Where I disagree is in the support for the club. It is my club, not his, and I will always support the team by going to the games. I will have a good moan (usually on here!) but I never let a chairman or manager influence my decision to go. All club employees/owners are temporary ,although some more stubborn than others but things will sort themselves out whether I attend or not.

I do wish we could find a way of getting him his money back so he can move on, and let us have a new start. I wonder if he would accept tenner a week and push off lol  
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 46 - 100
lew chaterleys lover
January 5, 2018, 6:03pm
Whiskey Drinker
Posts: 4,943
Posts Per Day: 1.07
Reputation: 75.9%
Rep Score: +30 / -10
Approval: +10,545
Gold Stars: 231
Quoted from pen penfras



The funds might have been badly spent, but that's more on the manager than the board. The board have largely backed managers with as much money as was available. Most managerial appointments made in the last 15 years were appointing the most popular candidate amongst fans for the job. The manager has then been backed with funds to the point where lack of success has caused significant losses.

Yes the board make these decisions and they have often gone badly, so ultimately they are responsible for the failure. But I don't think there's a large contingent of fans that would have done things hugely different in terms of managerial choices.


Weirdly I find myself agreeing with that last sentence, apart from Woods and Rodger.

The point about "backing the manager with funds available" hasn't worked (we are worse off now in every area since Fenty took control) because the investment has been nowhere near enough. We are in the bottom division, and a targetted investment in quality players would make a world of difference to our fortunes. We have never invested in the quality of player needed to win the league, or ever get close even in non league. If the owner wants the prestige and kudos that goes with being a football league chairman (non) then he has to accept he will have to invest his own money in return for football fortune, and to speculate to accumulate.

It is his number one job to find other investment if his personal fortune isn't sufficient to get us moving forwards.      
Logged
Private Message
Reply: 47 - 100
TheRealJohnLewis
January 5, 2018, 6:06pm
Fine Wine Drinker
Posts: 1,250
Posts Per Day: 0.31
Reputation: 67.36%
Rep Score: +13 / -8
Approval: +2,308
Gold Stars: 39
Quoted from pen penfras


The shares aren't really worth anything right now. Yes, they do go up and down in value, but investing in a football club to make a profit is very unlikely to happen. Unless somebody comes along and wants to buy 100% of the club, then there's unlikely to be any financial value to a small holding of shares.

You can buy new shares from the club at £100 per share along with a shareholders certificate. This is a means of funding the club, plus you also get to own a small part of your club and the right attend the AGM meeting to ask questions of the board. It is something that is a good thing to feel a bigger part of the club, but not something you should do in the hope of making a profit.

http://www.extra-gtfc.co.uk/acatalog/Commerative-Share-Certificate.html


£100 shares for £125, robbing fornicators!!! I bet Fenty didn't have to pay 25% premium.

Logged
Private Message
Reply: 48 - 100
Vance Warner
January 5, 2018, 7:19pm
Table Wine Drinker
Posts: 996
Posts Per Day: 0.18
Reputation: 78.7%
Rep Score: +18 / -5
Approval: +2,772
Gold Stars: 99
Quoted from pen penfras



The funds might have been badly spent, but that's more on the manager than the board. The board have largely backed managers with as much money as was available. Most managerial appointments made in the last 15 years were appointing the most popular candidate amongst fans for the job. The manager has then been backed with funds to the point where lack of success has caused significant losses.

Yes the board make these decisions and they have often gone badly, so ultimately they are responsible for the failure. But I don't think there's a large contingent of fans that would have done things hugely different in terms of managerial choices.


Have to disagree with this particularly in the cases of Rodger, Woods, Bignot and Slade II. As fans we don't have the inside information JF has access to. With proper due diligence I'm sure we wouldn't have backed the appointments of Newell or Rob Scott either.
Logged Offline
Private Message
Reply: 49 - 100
11 Pages Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next All Recommend Thread
Print

Fishy Forum Fishy Boards Archive › The benign debt

Back to top of page

This is not an official forum of Grimsby Town Football Club, the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors. If you see an offensive post then click "Report" on the relevant post. Posts will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators whose decision is final. Posts should abide by the Forum Rules. IP addresses of contributors together with dates and times of access are stored. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by contributors to The Fishy are their own and not necessarily those of The Fishy. The Fishy makes no claims that information dispersed through this forum is accurate or reliable. Also The Fishy cannot be held liable for any statements made by contributors of The Fishy.