• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Sale of Southend United to Justin Rees and his consortium

Status
Not open for further replies.
Couldn’t agree less, I’m afraid. Yes to alternatives, yes (huge yes) to carbon reduction - but no to anti-car busybodies who want to tax them out of existence or penalise drivers at every turn.

Cars will be needed and cars are not the problem. Emissions are the problem. We don’t need less cars, we need less emissions.
Not being anti-car but why should infrastructure be solely built for drivers - what about those that can't or don't want to drive; tough eh. As for taxing them out of existence, you're having a laugh, drivers are subsidised to the tune of billions by general tax payers. Not to mention fuel duty has been frozen for years, whilst public transport costs have gone through the roof.
 
As always the devil is in the detail.
How much is Justin demanding Ron hands over to pay for his neglect.
Is it simply the bills to n power etc al or is it x% of future FF development
Businessmen will be businessmen and always look to exploit an opportunity for the best possible deal if you leave a business fragile, as Ron has done.
 
All fair points, but as I said the original application was called in by the Secretary of State and so a planning inspector got involved with a long public enquiry. When local people could object (especially if the developer had let their beloved football club go bust because the developer was chasing his fortune).

It could take a long time before a spade in the ground is turned and I’m not sure the rat has time on his side.
I think the planning backdrop and need for housing has somewhat changed. And this is also where SCC and the MPs need to transition from hot air mode to delivery mode (I’m afraid my expectations there are trained by experience to be low). I fear the goal in some cases is to avoid blame than actually deliver anything- but they are allowed to surprise me :-)

It’s still a bit jam tomorrow
 
If that is fact, it shows 'The Rat's' football knowledge?. Having been burnt twice with 'Arry's recommendations of Bond & Moseley, he'd have learnt his lesson by now?.
I would imagine that 'Arry knows more about running a lower league football club than Justin Rees? I don't think that's a controversial statement.
 
I would imagine that 'Arry knows more about running a lower league football club than Justin Rees? I don't think that's a controversial statement.

It seems the Redknapp story might have some legs to it.

I didn’t think he could get involved though, due to his BetVictor contract? Same reason he couldn’t take the managers job a few years ago, and instead palmed it off onto Bond
 
100% agree with this. But having changed season ticket seats in the summer, the guy who is my new neighbour is really doing my head in this season because every other word is an expletive, normally shouted at the top of his voice.

I'm certainly no Mary Whitehouse and am not averse to firing off a few c-bombs when they are warranted. However, it really is tiresome when it is literally all the time.

But anyway, very off topic.
Perhaps the wrong forum but valid to bring up your concerns. It's true you'll always get offensive language at football, but if you've moved seats and it's bad to the extent as you say, I can appreciate it can be difficult, especially with a young child, and spoil your viewing. I dont think it's so simple to tell them to shut up. Naturally if they're that aggressive on a continual basis, they're not going to meet you with a polite response, which won't help your situation. You only really have 2 options. Complain about him, which likely won't change anything and perhaps make you feel vulnerable, or explain your situation to the club and request to move seats again. I'm sure that can be done. If you need help with that I can contact the relevant people if required. No one should feel they can't bring their children or be put off coming. DM me if required.
 
It’s highly unlikely that he would get a pre pack agreed in his name. The regulations enabling such transactions have been significantly tightened up and I would imagine any Administration would only agree to him buying if there wasn’t anyone else and there was clear evidence that he could fund the club and that I will agree with you is probably something he can’t afford

But I come back to a question I posed yesterday namely what would he be selling ?Simply 70+% of shares in an insolvent FC with the value he has placed on it being £1. Yes it’s possible he would sell RH for £4.5 million but without having to find the costs of running the FC wouldn’t the pressure on him be significantly reduced ?
If the club is in administration he won’t have to fund the running of the FC and sadly what would be his motivation for keeping the club afloat ?

I am certainly not itk but I would suspect that the consortium want RH for no where close to the £4.5 million and their increased offer is a marginally increased offer for the site but as some sort of exit they probably want a chunk of that purchase price to be gifted back

Sorry but RM may not have a great hand but I suspect it’s good enough
He may see the debt as stopping the buyers making a “realistic” offer for the RH site. He will see the valuation as cheap given the proven development opportunity (or even partial development opportunity). If the buyer only sees it as a dilapidated stadium then they start on entirely different pages. Not ideal.

If he can’t afford to accept less than £4.5m for the RH site because it’s heavily borrowed against it wouldn’t surprise me if he has raised the option of administration, and the debt avoided by the buyer enabling them to meet the asking price in the stadium. I could be way off.

I honestly don’t know what he does if he say owes £4m on RH and a consortium think they can buy it for £1m. He finds £3m to enable the sale? Effectively pays the consortium to take RH off his hands? The consortium would see it that way because they think about the debt they are picking up with the club and the refurb costs? What would be the way out? If the consortium knew this was the problem (and it may not be) what do they think is the way out?
Making offers way below the what is owed against the stadium will go nowhere unless someone closes the gap.

Who knows. A mess.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top