• 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.

SUFC: The Future The Takeover - Very very close.

Our hopes and visions for the rebirth of Southend United, plus any plans published by the consortium for discussion
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the payment was an amount due to the Council, then technically the planning permission would be invalid and no properties could be sold, or leased before the S106 payments had been satisfied as there is a need to discharge the s106.

The trouble with the profit share arrangement, as has been muted is that unless you have a waterfall agreed and all the costs bottomed out, what actually is the profit on the scheme and what can be deducted as costs before the profit is determined.

For example if they can deduct management costs as a legitimate cost - who determines what is a reasonable amount to deduct?

If I was in the consortium, I would want my position secured by way of a second charge over the land and to have my own cost consultants on the scheme to make sure it is being built in accordance with the cost schedule.

However, there would be so many ways to manipulate the costs - this could end up being the square root of 10% of 20% of naff all.
Your post gives the perfect sense of why agreeing this "out of profits" is something I would firmly have resisted. But maybe this "out of profits" phrase is used loosely. And hence its not so complex after all (even if many weeks pass and it apparently is the issue...).

The building of the FF stadium was an enabling event and an up front cost. Just like the land for example. The concession should have been no more than the fact that the £20m was paid to a schedule relating to the progress of the build (i.e. over time rather than all up front with the stadium). There are times when this whole saga seems to be a case of the partially sighted leading the blind.

I must be missing something..
 
If the takeover just involved one person then things may have moved quicker. With a consortium involved there may be up to a dozen individuals who would have various ideas and opinions. For example, a draft agreement could be drawn up for the prospective buyers to scrutinise but one or two may not be happy with certain aspects. Therefore back it would go for renegotiation. This may be happening.
 
So the take over happens...........

Then the consortium have a realistic, sensible business plan not to have an on going financial deficit AND to rebuild the club, squad, ground etc.

Hyperthetically?
.
BUT to make it viable it needs either 8,000 a home gate or seats at £25, or both....maybe.

If this was the case I would pay the extra BUT how many others would or could afford to and be willing to do so?
 
So the take over happens...........

Then the consortium have a realistic, sensible business plan not to have an on going financial deficit AND to rebuild the club, squad, ground etc.

Hyperthetically?
.
BUT to make it viable it needs either 8,000 a home gate or seats at £25, or both....maybe.

If this was the case I would pay the extra BUT how many others would or could afford to and be willing to do so?
Nit after already buying st
 
My view on it, given Justin rocking up regularly and showing himself to be fully on board media wise ( would look a plank if he suddenly got cold feet at this stage) the naming of consortium and continued adding to it by people of wealth and influence leads me to the just one conclusion of the delay....and its also the one with the most historical evidence to back it up......team Rat!

I cannot be 100 percent sure but I am 99.9999999999999999999% sure the hold of this is down to Lycra bobsleigh rat and scrotal discharge rat.I think if this is not concluded in a wee or two then full pressure should be ramped back up on them, maybe adding pressure onto Ratty jnr not just ratty snr this time though
 
From what I have heard, the deal was agreed by both parties, everyone was happy with it, and now the consortium are changing what was originally agreed.

Ron will not back down on the ORIGINAL deal.

Will seek a new buyer if it doesn't progress soon.
 
If the takeover just involved one person then things may have moved quicker. With a consortium involved there may be up to a dozen individuals who would have various ideas and opinions. For example, a draft agreement could be drawn up for the prospective buyers to scrutinise but one or two may not be happy with certain aspects. Therefore back it would go for renegotiation. This may be happening.
There's no hurry. Kev can just put some cardboard cut-outs on the bench...management by committee generally leads to sub-optimal outcomes. However, I doubt this is the problem. More likely the complexity (even if unnecessary) that the parties have set themselves contractually, and the fact that Ron & son of Ron (& probably the development partners) are the other side of the discussions. Time is always working for someone and its certainly not Kev and the players..
 
From what I have heard, the deal was agreed by both parties, everyone was happy with it, and now the consortium are changing what was originally agreed.

Ron will not back down on the ORIGINAL deal.

Will seek a new buyer if it doesn't progress soon.
is that hearsay or a reliable source ? the last thing anyone wants is false rumours
 
From what I have heard, the deal was agreed by both parties, everyone was happy with it, and now the consortium are changing what was originally agreed.

Ron will not back down on the ORIGINAL deal.

Will seek a new buyer if it doesn't progress soon.
I "bloody hope not"............ unless you know something, to me it's more likely the "rat" is messing around for some reason for his gain ! ! !
 
From what I have heard, the deal was agreed by both parties, everyone was happy with it, and now the consortium are changing what was originally agreed.

Ron will not back down on the ORIGINAL deal.

Will seek a new buyer if it doesn't progress soon.
I smell a rat !. Care to elaborate on what the consortium are changing ?
 
From what I have heard, the deal was agreed by both parties, everyone was happy with it, and now the consortium are changing what was originally agreed.

Ron will not back down on the ORIGINAL deal.

Will seek a new buyer if it doesn't progress soon.
Changing= the £20M pay back is water tight so those two vile creatures can't do their usual and cheat their way out of it.
 
It’s really only the council who can pressure him. No idea whether this is feasible… but how about a campaign to make FF greenbelt again should this not be resolved by Christmas? That would bankrupt him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top