Sale of Southend United to Justin Rees and his consortium

[fbm]

Not quite. Money is going to debt repayment (eg the £80k tv income).

That's kind of my point. Ron isn't putting his hand in his pocket any more. It's the clubs own income streams that are paying what needs to be paid.

 

[bazzashrimper]

That's kind of my point. Ron isn't putting his hand in his pocket any more. It's the clubs own income streams that are paying what needs to be paid.

Ah. Agreed. I guess I’m just adding that it’s an uneven playing field - it’s already hampered by old debt.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Has anyone ever done a list on the zone of Ron's SUFC asset stripping?

 

[bluesfansince1952]

I’m definitely not in favour of a fan ownership model. SZ is a percentage of our fan base, and there are some on here who would do a fantastic job, and do fantastic jobs with the Trust, Junior Blues and so on, but there are so many more on here that you wouldn’t want having a say.

You say many clubs break even, many clubs make a profit, but can you provide them. You’ll get the odd one where a Club will make a profit one year through a good transfer fee, a cup run and so on, but on a standard year.

I 100% agree about the wages should be paid, shouldn’t be in court and so forth, but those and making a profit don’t always go hand in hand.

Depends what you mean by make it work. Look at Charlton. For years a top 10 Premier League Club under Curbishley. Really well ran. They then decided that wasn’t enough, they should be in Europe, and things didn’t pan out for them and look at them now.

I agree that Clubs SHOULD live within their means, so should any business, so should people too, but how many actually do.

Football is a corrupt, cesspit of a business, full of hangers on, snakes, sharks and charlatans. Football seems to play by different rules. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. The ones that suffer are US, the FANS, but a lot of the time it’s us that demand we sign him, we bring in an extra body, we break the bank. We are part of the wider problem in football.

I really love and and fully endorse the final paragraph. In our present predicament Ron has much to answer for (how dare he run out of money?) and it is indisputable that he has run the club badly, and, like all property developer football club owners, he has prioritised his commercial ambitions ahead of the Club's interests.
Unfortunately, seeing Ron off offers no guarantee that the club will not, sooner or later, fall prey to others no less unscrupulous.

Obviously all here are fixated by the fact the club's future is perilous and uncertain, but, how sustainable is the structure the club are a part of? Regardless of whether we survive or not can the present set up outside of the Premier League endure? I suspect the landscape of professional football in England might look quite different in a few years time. But who knows? Boy Wonder nails it when he says 'Football seems to play by different rules'. How long this can continue is anyone's guess.

If we do fold will it be as advance scouts for a world which is about to undergo dramatic change, or, will our demise just be a footnote in the history of a League structure that will remain unchanged until the end of the century?

 

[gpd]

Compulsory purchase of Roots Hall?

On what grounds? You have to have a legal reason to go down that route. There would be nothing in a budget that would get passed anyway.

 

[JAL]

Baffles me how this is still going.

 

[dannypav]

Whilst I fully get the 'Ron Out' sentiment by the vast majority ( myself included ) , I also worry that most don't seem to have much concern over potential replacements.
It seems to me that overriding sentiment seems to be one of 'anyone is better'.
Again I get that totally , but I'm also not convinced the future will be lead by someone focused on the club and fans.

 

[dusterman]

Whilst I fully get the 'Ron Out' sentiment by the vast majority ( myself included ) , I also worry that most don't seem to have much concern over potential replacements.
It seems to me that overriding sentiment seems to be one of 'anyone is better'.
Again I get that totally , but I'm also not convinced the future will be lead by someone focused on the club and fans.

Anyone who doesn’t treat the fans, players and staff as complete scum would be a start.

 

[overseas shrimper]

Whilst I fully get the 'Ron Out' sentiment by the vast majority ( myself included ) , I also worry that most don't seem to have much concern over potential replacements.
It seems to me that overriding sentiment seems to be one of 'anyone is better'.
Again I get that totally , but I'm also not convinced the future will be lead by someone focused on the club and fans.

If you are hanging onto a cliff edge with one hand, losing grip and facing certain death, you are going to accept any extended hand that offers to save you.

 

[Shrimper44]

The key here is that Ron isn't paying the wages... the club is. Ron has just stopped putting money into the club (apparently) so now the club has to survive on its own income, TV money, gate receipts, merchandise, etc.

Shame though, that he still takes cash out of the club!!

 

[Che's Left Foot]

Whilst I fully get the 'Ron Out' sentiment by the vast majority ( myself included ) , I also worry that most don't seem to have much concern over potential replacements.
It seems to me that overriding sentiment seems to be one of 'anyone is better'.
Again I get that totally , but I'm also not convinced the future will be lead by someone focused on the club and fans.

We've come within a cat's whisker of being wound up on multiple occasions, and in all likelihood could still be. I'd take my chances with anyone else.

 

[hlane17]

Whilst I fully get the 'Ron Out' sentiment by the vast majority ( myself included ) , I also worry that most don't seem to have much concern over potential replacements.
It seems to me that overriding sentiment seems to be one of 'anyone is better'.
Again I get that totally , but I'm also not convinced the future will be lead by someone focused on the club and fans.

Unfortunately the situation means we will have to worry about that if/once we’re ‘saved’.

We need anyone but Ron because the club cannot sustain itself in its current form without external investment/funding.

 

[Leeboy]

anyone seen Mission to Burnley? Another chairman who makes Ron the Rat look a complete embarrassment - and he's an American God botherer!

 

[fbm]

Shame though, that he still takes cash out of the club!!

I don't know what he does or when he does it. But that's a different issue. The point I made is that he certainly isn't putting any more in.

 

[Hawkwell Blue]

anyone seen Mission to Burnley? Another chairman who makes Ron the Rat look a complete embarrassment - and he's an American God botherer!

Paying £170 million for an 84% share helps. Slightly different league to us and Ron.

 

[Blue Yonder]

If you are hanging onto a cliff edge with one hand, losing grip and facing certain death, you are going to accept any extended hand that offers to save you.

The trouble is it seems none of the extended hands do save him. It seems he needs a superhero to save him from the **** he's in. He breezily talks in the court of debts of a couple of million. If he admits to that it'll no doubt be several times that. That's not just him its human nature and what every debtor does. A rich idiot hasn't come along yet to save him and the club is collateral damage.

 

[SuperBlue]

On what grounds? You have to have a legal reason to go down that route. There would be nothing in a budget that would get passed anyway.

“Compulsory purchase powers can support the delivery of a range of development, regeneration and infrastructure projects in the public interest”

I think there could be a fairly clear and concise argument for it.

Regarding budget, structured properly with a lease in place to new owners with an obligation to buy at the 10 year mark the value will be easily affordable with a decent loan. Bear in mind that councils can borrow at significantly lower rates than you or I.

Doesn’t mean they will, or have the inclination to do it. But legally and financially they could…if they wanted to.

 

[londonblue]

“Compulsory purchase powers can support the delivery of a range of development, regeneration and infrastructure projects in the public interest”

I think there could be a fairly clear and concise argument for it.

Regarding budget, structured properly with a lease in place to new owners with an obligation to buy at the 10 year mark the value will be easily affordable with a decent loan. Bear in mind that councils can borrow at significantly lower rates than you or I.

Doesn’t mean they will, or have the inclination to do it. But legally and financially they could…if they wanted to.

The problem is that it will take a really long time (years), and will no doubt be resisted by Ron, which will ensure it takes that long. There's no guarantee it will be successful, and even if it is, who is going to pay for it?

(The theory is a good one though.)

 

[basilrobbie]

I wouldn't write off the fan ownership model in the right circumstances. Exeter City are fan-owned, and have been for 20 years. Have a look at where they are.

However, it does need an unusual amount of unity of purpose in the fan base if it is to work. It wouldn't work at my club for that reason, and in my opinion it wouldn't work at yours either - at the moment.

I think your activists currently have to spend a lot of time trying to herd cats, and it does not help. Their job is hard enough, as they are trying to fight on multiple fronts :

• sorting fact from fiction
• responding to the immediate crisis
• thinking about life after October 3rd ( a huge project in its own right)
• liaising with potential influential partners like AF
• and a myriad of other things, no doubt

Given the above, I find some of the sniping at the Trust a bit disappointing. They and their partner groups seem like a resourceful and switched on bunch to me.

 

[gpd]

“Compulsory purchase powers can support the delivery of a range of development, regeneration and infrastructure projects in the public interest”

I think there could be a fairly clear and concise argument for it.

Regarding budget, structured properly with a lease in place to new owners with an obligation to buy at the 10 year mark the value will be easily affordable with a decent loan. Bear in mind that councils can borrow at significantly lower rates than you or I.

Doesn’t mean they will, or have the inclination to do it. But legally and financially they could…if they wanted to.

Bearing mind that all money Councils have is the money they get from rate payers and the ever reducing Central Govt Grant....no council in its right mind would venture into further borrowing (debt) to fund the purchase of a defunct football ground. Legally and financially anyone could borrow...but who'd lend for that purpose? Roots Hall would not qualify even under the guidelines you mention. Those are for very different purposes. eg a house being in the way of a planned highway, or public housing plan. Not just because it's a football club in financial dire straits because of poor ownership. Can you imagine trying to get that passed in a vote?