• 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

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blues4LifeDan said:
I think people really need to reign in their expectations. Nowhere has it been stated that the a figure (£2m) is there for the taking. People are spending this, as of this moment, fictional amount before it's even been agreed, if it ever does. Plenty of fans on social media overreacting and claiming 'the council have given us £2m'. It's getting peoples hopes up too soon.

It's a great step that the council are actually discussing us, but that's all that it is at the moment, discussion. Also, be cautious. Why now? We've been in perilous situations before and they didn't want to know. Let's not forget that councils have been involved in clubs before (owning land and stadium's etc.) and it hasn't gone well.
Click to expand...
By my reckoning there are just over 3 weeks to sort the mess out.
I agree it's a great step the council have made, but this does need to move quickly.

I was offering an opinion.
 
Blues4LifeDan said:
I think people really need to reign in their expectations. Nowhere has it been stated that the a figure (£2m) is there for the taking. People are spending this, as of this moment, fictional amount before it's even been agreed, if it ever does. Plenty of fans on social media overreacting and claiming 'the council have given us £2m'. It's getting peoples hopes up too soon.

It's a great step that the council are actually discussing us, but that's all that it is at the moment, discussion. Also, be cautious. Why now? We've been in perilous situations before and they didn't want to know. Let's not forget that councils have been involved in clubs before (owning land and stadium's etc.) and it hasn't gone well.
Click to expand...
This is true but the genie is out of the bottle. The key, if the ST and seller have the where with all, is to very quickly come up with a proposal that forces it to reality. Eg. JR agrees to buy stadium at £4.5m and pay off debts at £2.5m. ST is loaned £2.5 by SBC that they then loan to JR, secured on the stadium (protecting ST and SBC), at a very preferential rate. JR uses cash to pay off all debts - or better still negotiates payment plans that allows also working capital.

Agree it, get it in front of SBC. Say here we have the deal, we need loan to ST agreed no later than....BTW the loan has security. SBC would find it very, very, very difficult to row back.
 
kentblues said:
This is true but the genie is out of the bottle. The key, if the ST and seller have the where with all, is to very quickly come up with a proposal that forces it to reality. Eg. JR agrees to buy stadium at £4.5m and pay off debts at £2.5m. ST is loaned £2.5 by SBC that they then loan to JR, secured on the stadium (protecting ST and SBC), at a very preferential rate. JR uses cash to pay off all debts - or better still negotiates payment plans that allows also working capital.

Agree it, get it in front of SBC. Say here we have the deal, we need loan to ST agreed no later than....BTW the loan has security. SBC would find it very, very, very difficult to row back.
Click to expand...
Don’t think they would have difficulty, i believe thier statement said “ if they are in a position too “ they can always say they were not able to offer what was needed or none of it. It is a very carefully worded statement.

It is also contentious i would guess to some residents who may not want to see monies that could be invested into societal issues being sent to a football club that has a recent history of being in the same position time and time again. Now that could / hopefully will change with new owners but in relation to the council I do not read it s a cast iron certainty that they will invest, so treat it with caution.

As I posted earlier saw my local councillor on the way to the statin this morning and he said there had been complaints over night and people raising such issues as roads, schools and policing if they have spare money to spend.
 
IMO you can forget all talk about the council bailing us out to survive 4 October. The timescale is too short for a start. Also, this is taxpayers' money. The council will rightly face a load of heat if they are seen to be propping up an insolvent football club when there are multitude of other issues in the town.

On the other hand, the council may feel there is a long-term interest in investment at Roots Hall. That site has a lot of potential and the general feeling is Fossetts won't ever happen. The council taking part-ownership of a valuable community asset and bringing it into 21st Century, as well as creating new revenue streams that benefit the city? That might have legs. But it would be part of future ownership, not the current rat.

We do, of course, have to survive first. It's too late for a sale now. We have to rely on Ron finding the cash.
 
Westcliff DGS said:
Don’t think they would have difficulty, i believe thier statement said “ if they are in a position too “ they can always say they were not able to offer what was needed or none of it. It is a very carefully worded statement.

It is also contentious i would guess to some residents who may not want to see monies that could be invested into societal issues being sent to a football club that has a recent history of being in the same position time and time again. Now that could / hopefully will change with new owners but in relation to the council I do not read it s a cast iron certainty that they will invest, so treat it with caution.

As I posted earlier saw my local councillor on the way to the statin this morning and he said there had been complaints over night and people raising such issues as roads, schools and policing if they have spare money to spend.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think if we got to a situation where a deal was agreed to save the club, subject to SBC providing a secured loan to ST, then it would be something they would refuse.

Think about the politics of it. The Labour group would support it and if the ruling group decided no relying on their "careful wording", well I'm afraid politicians may see it as being clever, but Joe Public just see it as a commitment given but not delivered.

Imagine headlines "SBC scuppers deal to save SUFC rowing back on the offer to help", "SBC stands by and watches the club fold despite promises"...clever words are worth little in the court of public opinion.

The other issue is that Southend West, due to boundary changes, is pretty marginal. Without doubt the ruling group could hand this seat on a plate to Labour.

Forget what councillors get emailed about. Mine gets hundreds of emails about pot holes. They still don't filled. What will be far more meaningful politically is the choice between the headlines from saving the club verses killing it. And if its a loan with security, rather than just a "gift" that helps also. Also don't lose sight of SBC's interest in two rather large housing developments that the club going under won't help one little but...

Of course I could be wrong but ultimately I think I know the way the wind is blowing on this one...at least I hope so.

Of course, all this assumes there isn't a buyer who has no need of any such loans.

PS what would get me in the car to drive a couple of hours just to protest? Boy this would. I would wager 100s outside SBC offices generating headlines ....what would Firth do? Probably she would have to be outside with us protesting against her own party's decision in local government if continuing as an MP is to remain a possibility..
 
Last edited:
kentblues said:
Personally, I don't think if we got to a situation where a deal was agreed to save the club, subject to SBC providing a secured loan to ST, then it would be something they would refuse.

Think about the politics of it. The Labour group would support it and if the ruling group decided no relying on their "careful wording", well I'm afraid politicians may see it as being clever, but Joe Public just see it as a commitment given but not delivered.

Imagine headlines "SBC scuppers deal to save SUFC rowing back on the offer to help", "SBC stands by and watches the club fold despite promises"...clever words are worth little in the court of public opinion.

The other issue is that Southend West, due to boundary changes, is pretty marginal. Without doubt the ruling group could hand this seat on a plate to Labour.

Forget what councillors get emailed about. Mine gets hundreds of emails about pot holes. They still don't filled. What will be far more meaningful politically is the choice between the headlines from saving the club verses killing it. And if its a loan with security, rather than just a "gift" that helps also. Also don't lose sight of SBC's interest in two rather large housing developments that the club going under won't help one little but...

Of course I could be wrong but ultimately I think I know the way the wind is blowing on this one...at least I hope so.

Of course, all this assumes there isn't a buyer who has no need of any such loans.

PS what would get me in the car to drive a couple of hours just to protest? Boy this would. I would wager 100s outside SBC offices generating headlines ....what would Firth do? Probably she would have to be outside with us protesting against her own party's decision in local government if continuing as an MP is to remain a possibility..
Click to expand...
Al I was saying is that it was left so it wasnt a guarantee and was carefully worded to allow them not to invest. Personally I agree I think if it were close they would find it hard not to invest, however as I say it isnt a guarantee and there are criteria that need to be met as someone posted on this or another thread. Such as low maintenance a sound tenant etc

Also have to remember as well if the funds do not come from a “contingency fund” then will peoples council tax be affected they could demonstrate over that as well if that happens and they did invest

I am just seeing both sides and not building any hopes up myself as we have people say Takeovers are close it will happen, watch for the Trojan horse, Kimura this Kimura that and it all came to nothing. So as far as I am concerned what ever money is potentially going to be given is here say until done
 
Westcliff DGS said:
Al I was saying is that it was left so it wasnt a guarantee and was carefully worded to allow them not to invest. Personally I agree I think if it were close they would find it hard not to invest, however as I say it isnt a guarantee and there are criteria that need to be met as someone posted on this or another thread. Such as low maintenance a sound tenant etc

Also have to remember as well if the funds do not come from a “contingency fund” then will peoples council tax be affected they could demonstrate over that as well if that happens and they did invest

I am just seeing both sides and not building any hopes up myself as we have people say Takeovers are close it will happen, watch for the Trojan horse, Kimura this Kimura that and it all came to nothing. So as far as I am concerned what ever money is potentially going to be given is here say until done
Click to expand...
Understand. But SBC has reserves available? £90m? and someone mentioned sums not "invested re the Seaway(?) scheme? and they don't need to worry about maintenance/sound tenant etc. They are not buying the stadium (thats a non-starter) rather I'm suggesting having the RH site with planning for 502 houses as a security. There will be no risk attached to the loan. Indeed if it was on favourable terms, but nonetheless commercial terms, it would be an investment with return in the same way as would apply to other reserves (frankly safer given many a councils investment track record! I would agree we need to get away from the idea SBC will "give" the money to the club via the ST. This is not expenditure.
 
kentblues said:
Understand. But SBC has reserves available? £90m? and someone mentioned sums not "invested re the Seaway(?) scheme? and they don't need to worry about maintenance/sound tenant etc. They are not buying the stadium (thats a non-starter) rather I'm suggesting having the RH site with planning for 502 houses as a security. There will be no risk attached to the loan. Indeed if it was on favourable terms, but nonetheless commercial terms, it would be an investment with return in the same way as would apply to other reserves (frankly safer given many a councils investment track record! I would agree we need to get away from the idea SBC will "give" the money to the club via the ST. This is not expenditure.
Click to expand...
Again i do not disagree, i am just pointing out the issues, the reserves (90 million?)which they have yes but they do not meet their current commitments as it is, they have to use them each year to make the balance or cut services short. These cuts are in the like of the use of parks for Sunday football etc, roads not being fixed or pavements, cuts to those who need help the most, that is probably more important than anything. The seaway is interesting as thats what stopped the retail park around FF I believe and then it was cancelled. Some of those issues you may be aware of others you want as your in Kent but they do have some big decisions to make here.

As I say given what we have heard. In the past I temper everything with caution as it may or may not happen.
 
Last edited:
Let's put some meat on the bones If as said the council loaned the trust 2 millennium pounds there money would be safe .Now how much money has Ron Martin cost the council .Many years ago the council layer out countless thousands using money buying up property moving shops on for the club and sainsbury. And what a waste of money that was .Good old Ron it wasn't his money wasted
 
So, if SCC loan the trust £2m, it will be a secured loan against an asset that the Trust does not own? How does that work? Is that allowed? If it is, so long as the owner of the asset agrees to it, would somebody agree to their asset being put up against a 3rd party's loan?

Also, is RH really a viable security? if this loan did happen (massive IF), SCC are doing their utmost to help the club survive. If the Trust default, would SCC really be able seize the asset and sell it? Potentially damaging the club they went out their way to save?

Maybe I'm just being a bit thick.
 
overseas shrimper said:
So, if SCC loan the trust £2m, it will be a secured loan against an asset that the Trust does not own? How does that work? Is that allowed? If it is, so long as the owner of the asset agrees to it, would somebody agree to their asset being put up against a 3rd party's loan?

Also, is RH really a viable security? if this loan did happen (massive IF), SCC are doing their utmost to help the club survive. If the Trust default, would SCC really be able seize the asset and sell it? Potentially damaging the club they went out their way to save?

Maybe I'm just being a bit thick.
Click to expand...
The only risk of this money is If they lent it to The rat Martin They will probably never see that money again Can the council get there money back loaning it to the trust YES
 
I don't doubt the possibility of heavily laden off shore accounts and also I don't doubt that Kimura's Those words are banned showed up stuff that RM wanted to stay buried. And if it can be proven, then I hope Kimura either, out of vindictiveness or being duty bound by regulators, drop RM right in it. If SUFC are killed off by his totally inept and shonky management, I hope he gets locked up and gets his arse rung in the showers every day for the rest of his life.
 
Jai said:
IMO you can forget all talk about the council bailing us out to survive 4 October. The timescale is too short for a start. Also, this is taxpayers' money. The council will rightly face a load of heat if they are seen to be propping up an insolvent football club when there are multitude of other issues in the town.

On the other hand, the council may feel there is a long-term interest in investment at Roots Hall. That site has a lot of potential and the general feeling is Fossetts won't ever happen. The council taking part-ownership of a valuable community asset and bringing it into 21st Century, as well as creating new revenue streams that benefit the city? That might have legs. But it would be part of future ownership, not the current rat.

We do, of course, have to survive first. It's too late for a sale now. We have to rely on Ron finding the cash.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of precedent for councils successfully bailing out football clubs. Normally by purchasing the stadium. The sums of money are a drop in the ocean of SBC accounts. The problem for SBC will be be getting security for the loan with the RH stadium hocked up to the eyeballs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram
SUFC Exiles


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