• 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.

When will the takeover go through? The Waiting Game...

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tommy2holes said:
I'm expecting the following:

SCC and the Martins confirm a deal has been struck and that the DD can be worked quicky and is almost certain to be accepted within a very short time frame.

This gives COSU the confidence to pay/make an arrangement for the winding up petition or delay it with proper evidence of payment presented.

Season cards can be released and confidence restored that we will start the season.

My concern if the winding up petition isnt paid, is that the league may impose another 10 point deduction.

If it is paid, it is highly likely several other parties owed money will ask for payment and or issue a winding up petition.

If the financials for the housing at Fossetts are less than the martins had scoped for, they may ask for less than the 20 million previously agreed to go to the club. Could be another sticking point to overcome, possibly solved by a payment up front.
Click to expand...
You would hope that cosu are in dialogue with other creditors and asking for there trust and patience. Hopefully this is the last we ever have to hear of pg ****e services
 
Shrimpergonzo said:
Hopefully @CllrDanielCowan will put out a clear statement today on both the state of the deal and the next DD steps.

His statements so far have been really clear so I have high hopes!
Click to expand...
Agree the majority have been on the whole, so fingers crossed. Just hoping it is straight forward but when he said some parts were negotiable (which is not what i took from the initial statement) it made me wonder if DD will be a little longer than we hoped.
 
Medway Blue said:
Good summary.


Please temper expectations on DD. Let's hope it's quick, but it's not guaranteed. This is a new and differently-structured deal. Even if it does have elements of previous deals from 2020/2021, market conditions are rather different, so copying homework probably wouldn't fly in its entirety. It will need to be done properly to protect the council and public money, and it takes as long as it takes, but this Administration will at least be up front about that.

I can't see the £20m figure changing in this new deal. Maybe the structuring of its payment, but even then, can't see it changing. Whether it does actually get paid is another matter of course, but I'm sure the council will try to get that as close to watertight as they possibly can.
Click to expand...
Point 2 is COSU wants a clear timeframe for the DD- so the normal public sector it will take as long as it takes won’t fly. It is entirely normal to set parameters for DD including timeframes, and for providers to ramp resources accordingly through the process. Also with escalation processes for any areas of potential delay or risk to be raised and addressed as it progresses. My take from CllrCowan’s statements is the same providers for DD have much of the information already and some of the work correlates across? (notwithstanding the areas that have changed).
I think in answer to COSU requirement 2 there will be a timeframe rather than it takes as long as it takes- given past experience I wouldn’t accept the latter?
 
kentblues said:
Point 2 is COSU wants a clear timeframe for the DD- so the normal public sector it will take as long as it takes won’t fly. It is entirely normal to set parameters for DD including timeframes, and for providers to ramp resources accordingly through the process. Also with escalation processes for any areas of potential delay or risk to be raised and addressed as it progresses. My take from CllrCowan’s statements is the same providers for DD have much of the information already and some of the work correlates across? (notwithstanding the areas that have changed).
I think in answer to COSU requirement 2 there will be a timeframe rather than it takes as long as it takes- given past experience I wouldn’t accept the latter?
Click to expand...
This is what I meant, but I used the wrong idiom. Apologies.

I think I meant "it is what it is" instead.

Clear and unambiguous parameters and timeframes should absolutely be laid out to COSU for the DD, with mitigation time built in for delays/questions/escalations. However, whether that timeframe is 2 weeks or 8 weeks, it is what it is. It can't be sped up and it needs to be allowed run its course properly.
 
I would say depend in how much was / is negotiable on the planning (as I say Cllr Cowan said there was some parts negotiable), if thats been quite a bit then DD may take longer than some would like. That may dictate the answers, say the council say 3 weeks then what happens. I doubt the council will know till they have handed everything over to those doing the DD

I have sympathy to a degree for the council as they have t ensure it isnt hitting local residents with extra outgoings, make sure the club survive and deal with the consortium as well as the Martin’s
 
Last edited:
what we don't know is whether the new deal has been structured specifically with DD in mind. so let's say that arrangement X doesn't pass, but arrangement Y does, then the contract is for arrangement Y, DD might just be checking that arrangement Y is indeed arrangement Y (and that no dirty rat ******* has added any small print saying something different)
 
Medway Blue said:
This is what I meant, but I used the wrong idiom. Apologies.

I think I meant "it is what it is" instead.

Clear and unambiguous parameters and timeframes should absolutely be laid out to COSU for the DD, with mitigation time built in for delays/questions/escalations. However, whether that timeframe is 2 weeks or 8 weeks, it is what it is. It can't be sped up and it needs to be allowed run its course properly.
Click to expand...
I think we can safely say the timeframe will be more than 2 weeks. It never reached the final stage of DD which was estimated to be 2 weeks. It’ll need to go back through the previous stages (which **should** be an expedited process) and then the final stage.

What I don’t know though is whether the deal agreed in principle is reviewed or whether Citizen need to go away and flesh out what was agreed in principle to present to the firms carrying out the DD. If the latter it could take months.
 
Medway Blue said:
This is what I meant, but I used the wrong idiom. Apologies.

I think I meant "it is what it is" instead.

Clear and unambiguous parameters and timeframes should absolutely be laid out to COSU for the DD, with mitigation time built in for delays/questions/escalations. However, whether that timeframe is 2 weeks or 8 weeks, it is what it is. It can't be sped up and it needs to be allowed run its course properly.
Click to expand...
Absolutely has to be achievable - we are in violent agreement
 
Bearded Shrimper said:
what we don't know is whether the new deal has been structured specifically with DD in mind. so let's say that arrangement X doesn't pass, but arrangement Y does, then the contract is for arrangement Y, DD might just be checking that arrangement Y is indeed arrangement Y (and that no dirty rat ******* has added any small print saying something different)
Click to expand...
Agree when it wears said it was non negotiable i think it stated that what was put to Citizen was something that would pass DD, then earlier this week Cllr Cowan said some parts were negotiable, those parts could mean it needs further looking at i guess
 
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


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