SUFC: The Future SUFC up for sale

[KiwiRob]

Because its not Ron's tax bill. Its the clubs tax bill.

But I thought RM owned the club...

 

[KiwiRob]

Well that's nonsense for a start. It depends on the house itself, the condition, the location and whether the buyer wants to buy it more than the seller wants to sell.

I have to agree with fbm. Many people determined to buy the house of their dreams often will quickly meet the asking price in order to secure the property in the face of anticipated competition from others for it.

Bidding under the asking price only works when there is little or no competition for the asset in question. And the 'magnificent 7' must know that about the interest of other parties in investing or buying the club.

 

[E for B and Billy Best]

Chris knows who the buyers are! It’s just NOT! That simple!

It's only not simple because RM's made it that way. I wish they would rip the rulebook up and start giving the slimy little **** some bollocks.

 

[Booma]

But I thought RM owned the club...

He does, but it’s a limited company. The company is liable for the debt not an individual. Hence why a new owner would be liable for any debts

 

[Cricko]

Because its not Ron's tax bill. Its the clubs tax bill.

He owns the club and everything associated with it. I don't get this separation you talk of. How can he be not liable for the debts of something he owns,yet when it comes to selling the club he is the only one in control and it is him who wants the selling money, partly to pay off debts that you say are not his responsibility.

He has personally benefitted from buying the club as he now owns all the land he stripped away from the club, on that basis alone he should be responsible for the debts.

 

[Cricko]

Do you honestly think SUFC is worth 6-8M?

If that figure includes the freehold of RH then yes it is.

 

[Westcliff DGS]

Imagine when you buy a house! How many times do you offer under asking price! NO ONE is offering asking price! And why would you? Because RON asks?

Ive never bought a house for the asking price, I have always paid less than the asking price and always got the inst choice we have wanted. the analogy is a good one as you always want something for less than it costs, you just need to find something that can reduce the cost

 

[Westcliff DGS]

Do you honestly think SUFC is worth 6-8M?

Does the 6-8 (if thats what Ron wants, include Roots hall, and the 2,5 million debt he bangs on about?

 

[fbm]

He owns the club and everything associated with it. I don't get this separation you talk of. How can he be not liable for the debts of something he owns,yet when it comes to selling the club he is the only one in control and it is him who wants the selling money, partly to pay off debts that you say are not his responsibility.

He has personally benefitted from buying the club as he now owns all the land he stripped away from the club, on that basis alone he should be responsible for the debts.

I think you're confusing the word responsibility with liability. He is responsible for their payment but it's not his personal liability.

If it was his liability, he can be sued for it. Similarly, if the club sold a player for £100,000, then he pockets it. Ron would have to personally register for VAT and any winding up orders would be against him.

None of that is the case because it is the club - a limited company - that receives those assets and is liable for those debts.

 

[Blue Yonder]

Sounds like we’re looking at Group 2 or 3 for salvation. Or maybe one we don’t know about. The group 1/seller relationship looks beyond the pale.

 

[Cricko]

I think you're confusing the word responsibility with liability. He is responsible for their payment but it's not his personal liability.

If it was his liability, he can be sued for it. Similarly, if the club sold a player for £100,000, then he pockets it. Ron would have to personally register for VAT and any winding up orders would be against him.

None of that is the case because it is the club - a limited company - that receives those assets and is liable for those debts.

But it is still him alone that wants to sell the club...it is not SUFC selling themselves. He benifits from selling the club, the club don't, well apart from getting rid of the rat.

He is intrinsically linked with everything.

 

[Cricko]

Well that's nonsense for a start. It depends on the house itself, the condition, the location and whether the buyer wants to buy it more than the seller wants to sell.

I don't go for this house comparison unless you know of anybody that has tried to sell a house but told the buyer. "by the way we havent paid the rates, water and electric bills etc but of course they are the houses responsbility/liability not ours"

 

[fbm]

I don't go for this house comparison unless you know of anybody that has tried to sell a house but told the buyer. "by the way we havent paid the rates, water and electric bills etc but of course they are the houses responsbility/liability not ours"

My response to @CRATE was purely regarding the fact that he said no-one pays the asking price.

I hadn't considered the debts attached to it, but if the house was in a limited company then I guess it may be possible to buy the house together with all of the unpaid debts, which in turn you would of course hope to use as leverage against the price.

But if the seller wasn't budging, then I could walk away or - depending on whether as the buyer I wanted to buy it more than he wanted to sell it - I could take that extra cost on the chin and just pay over the odds for it.

 

[Cricko]

My response to @CRATE was purely regarding the fact that he said no-one pays the asking price.

I hadn't considered the debts attached to it, but if the house was in a limited company then I guess it may be possible to buy the house together with all of the unpaid debts, which in turn you would of course hope to use as leverage against the price.

But if the seller wasn't budging, then I could walk away or - depending on whether as the buyer I wanted to buy it more than he wanted to sell it - I could take that extra cost on the chin and just pay over the odds for it.

You maybe would, but we can debate this point all day Mark about who is responsible/liable for the position the club is in now and who owes what to whom, so we best leave that now.

You say Banana i say Bannnnannnnnaaaa.

All we can hope for is something is sorted by the 23rd and we get a new owner in asap.

 

[annie1954]

But it is still him alone that wants to sell the club...it is not SUFC selling themselves. He benifits from selling the club, the club don't, well apart from getting rid of the rat.

He is intrinsically linked with everything.

I think he will still be linked with everything for sometime he will hang over roots hall like a big dark rain cloud

 

[WestyReturns]

Mate, if I had the money, I would pay double or treble what it is worth! But fact is, how many people do you know with 10-15M? Over to you!

Its more the case of people who are worth significant sums usually are shrewd with finances and football clubs are not a profitable business model in general.

I'd suggest It's very likely that any group who buy the club/any football club will be buying it to offset their profits from their other business/s. That's the model of most football clubs.

It always makes me laugh when Ron talks about how much money 'he' puts in. Its never from his personal bank account always from one of his companies. Ie its not his money. Its not your money until you've paid tax on it and it's in your personal account (that's without mentioning paying for outgoings in the business which we know he doesn't do).

 

[Booma]

He owns the club and everything associated with it. I don't get this separation you talk of. How can he be not liable for the debts of something he owns,yet when it comes to selling the club he is the only one in control and it is him who wants the selling money, partly to pay off debts that you say are not his responsibility.

He has personally benefitted from buying the club as he now owns all the land he stripped away from the club, on that basis alone he should be responsible for the debts.

I understand the frustration but that’s not how the law works.

 

[dusterman]

You maybe would, but we can debate this point all day Mark about who is responsible/liable for the position the club is in now and who owes what to whom, so we best leave that now.

You say Banana i say Bannnnannnnnaaaa.

All we can hope for is something is sorted by the 23rd and we get a new owner in asap.

Best thing about this thread is that I have a new phrase to quote to my son for the rest of my days. Thank you.

Ps. I concur with all your other statements too. It’s not like buying a house and RM is liable for the debts. Even if in law he could fold us legally and start another phoenix company DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. Only a charlatan would think otherwise.

 

[fbm]

Best thing about this thread is that I have a new phrase to quote to my son for the rest of my days. Thank you.

Ps. I concur with all your other statements too. It’s not like buying a house and RM is liable for the debts. Even if in law he could fold us legally and start another phoenix company DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. Only a charlatan would think otherwise.

I don't think anyone is saying it's right, but in order to win the battle, you have to know what the battle actually is.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I have good reason to believe it is fact.

I suppose we'll all find out on August 23rd (incidentally my younger brother's birthday not Rob Noxious's but the other one -not on SZ.