They only lose money at the point they sell at a lower price to what they bought. Relegation doesn't impact them if they balance the books and carry on investing in the squad like previously - it's who that investment goes on that has been a car crash.
They definitely can't talk the talk. Whether they can walk the walk or not, I've no idea, but if they're a serious proposition their communication and chosen platform to present it is just plain dumb. It makes me believe it's simply not real, but I can't evidence that.
remain completely open minded, but taking all this with a massive pinch of salt and until I've seen details - an equally big slice of caution. last time I heard this type of tone, we ended up with Peter Doyle
I've read that as nonsense. As Jay says, how can you have funds in place and have no idea what the potential asking price is? Why would you have tens of millions of pounds just sat there waiting to be executed? If it was from some form of lending, why on earth would they approve something in principle without disclosure of an asking price or a willingness to sell? The transaction process has an initial stage coming to a heads of agreement. As part of the process, proof of funds will be required and from where they are derived. I don't know who's written it, but its amateur hour. Very poorly worded and the slant is more defensive than providing clarity of any form.
We can't know for sure, but this reads to me like utter baloney. Would you expect a favourable negotiation while alluding to your negotiating partners' "four years of mis-management"? What signals have there been that PMG etc want out? What interpretation can you put on PMG's objection to the title qualifications other than that their plans involve something other than football? Would a serious bidder really publicise their intent like this? Don't think so.
If you were this luke all you would need to do is google the said person/people who have come to you wanting to buy the club. Anyone who has 10million to spend on a football club would come up on a search. Hopefully it comes off get them out.
If you were going to go on the offensive you would clearly lay out what actions are being considered under four years of mismanagement. We all know what they are, but you would list them, especially if you're trying to bring supporters on the journey with you. I worry that there's an assumption the vast majority of supporters want them out. I don't believe that to be the case. From what I read and hear it's almost universal in terms of being disappointed and frustrated with the plan and the running of the club, including anger, but there's a significant number of supporters who just want them to be held accountable, apologise, and provide confidence that they'll learn. Those kind of comments are all over social media as well but not from people who want to type it out ten times a day, and the response they get can be aggressive so they just don't share that opinion again. Problem is, when you close the group to any form of discussion and censor an opposite opinion, you end up seeing and speaking to just the people who think like you.
I guess even speculative investors have their view on the value, and means to accessing that capital. in very basic terms this might be as simple as someone saying 'I think the club is worth £5m and I have the means to secure the financing for that'. doesn't necessarily mean they already have the money sat in a bank somewhere. that said, I strongly suspect that whatever 'their' value might be, it won't match the owners' current value. we'll see...
The first thing you do if you're interested in buying something is enquire if its for sale and then get into basic discussions. NDA's would need to be in place (well, for any serious discussion). Granted, it could be someone (or a group) who just don't really know what they are doing, are naïve in the extreme and haven't been involved in an acquisition before. But they should have advisors to guide them. This just doesn't feel like it rings true. And that's before getting into analysing the text and how its main line is to defend the facebook group and then saying we won't say anything else. Why would a consortium defend a facebook group, say we have the money (despite not knowing the likely bid needed) now we're not going to tell you anything else?
This Conway Out Facebook group is all a bit Amateur Hour at the moment to me, either that or it's going to rumble on like this for a few weeks.... then on the 1st April announce a Big April Fool "Gotcha!". It's all very clever
Worth pointing out, the statement was written by Luke and someone else(can’t remember his name) and was given to the potential buyers to agree to. Doesn’t change anything you have put as you’d think they would amend etc.
Doesn’t feel right. Anyone who has a genuine interest in buying the club to run better than current owners wouldn’t be washing (part of) this laundry on social media. I would also suggest any official statement would come from an official representation, typically solicited or media org managing comms. Anyone with funds and acumen to run the club will have access to both. I am confused if they support the Facebook site or not, is it driven by them or not, did they seek fan feedback and what are they acting on? I don’t know. Despite my feelings I am open minded. However I am seeing and hearing nothing that helps me make any decision on whether this will be something I would support. I’m not confident in the future of our club right now whatever happens.
But wouldn't you conclude hopefully amicable negotiations with the selling party before you attempted to get others behind you?
I don't get the angst towards the group. I've nowt against them. I won't buy it hook line and sinker but can't see the harm. It draws attention to the club. I'd have hope for some media attention (other than Chronicle) by now.
100%. I also wouldn’t be distancing myself from a Facebook group whilst also using that same Facebook group to publish my statement.