Why the Acceptance of PR's Performance at the Meeting?
Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:38 pm
Forgive me if I happen to have missed some of the concerns voiced by others, but the general feedback from what I have seen seems to be rather accepting of PR's performance this week, even from the likes of Since 62 which is a surprise!
I have posted this on a thread elsewhere, but I have had the pleasure of speaking directly to Peter after my "Business Strategy" posts (something I have not divulged until now as I do not wish to portray myself as being in the know/knowing more than others or anything of that ilk as that is simply not the case anyway) and whilst he was a complete gentleman and a genuinely affable guy, apart from one or 2 things, such as paying off Sam for under £10m (this apparently is now £10m), operating with a player wage bill of around £10m and one or 2 other small bits of info, I was just as mystified after speaking to him as I was before I spoke to him. He talks about what he wants to, putting a positive spin on things and cleverly avoiding directly answering questions with a direct answer. Peter resembles a politician when he speaks and rarely divulges anything substantial or in an unequivocal manner, often saying things just because its what we want to hear. These meetings, from what I have gathered, are just the same in that only titbits of information are gleaned with the rest of the meeting simply a PR exercise for him to say how great he is and what a great job he has done/ is doing. Ultimately, if this investment comes in as substantially as we are led to believe, he can sing it from the roof tops with some justification, until then, the info that documents our perilous financial state does not cover him in the glory he portrays. That since he took over in 2006 the debt has risen from £27m to a conservative £40m at present, despite making a £20m profit on player sales during that time, is irrefutable evidence of this.
Until this deal with Langston is signed the debt is at least £40m, not the "£21-24m" PR quoted at the meeting. From what I understand, we owe Langston around £25m, £9m to PMG, £2m to a couple of Directors and £1m or so in tax. Added to that, the £5m we received for Johnson in the summer we have spent, so we would have made a huge operating loss last year on top too, Ridsdale himself quoting our operating losses at Ninian to be "£7m a year", along with additional costs incurred in building the stadium of which I have no estimate, so the figure is almost certainly well into the £40m's. How he can pass off our "debt as it stands" at "£21-24m" is an absolute bare faced lie.
He also said that paying off Langston would be done by "new investment or bank borrowing" leaving the very real prospect of the debt remaining, just with someone else. Also, not that I needed the latest info off Annis site to gather such a line of thought, but quite why Sam would be quite as delighted to being paid back a mere £10m of the £25m or so he is owed, with another £5m related to the stadium or promotion I think, it probably will not have him salivating at the prospect quite as much as Peter is leading us to believe. Given that the Malaysians investment is conditional on a signed agreement being reached with Langston, forgive me for not being bowled over by what has emerged from this meeting. For me, yet again, it raises far more questions than answers. The only things that have surprised me from this meeting is Keith's acceptance of the meeting (not having a go at all Keith, you know how highly I regard your thoughts, just surprised) and after looking at the photo's, the lack of any smoke and mirrors...
I have posted this on a thread elsewhere, but I have had the pleasure of speaking directly to Peter after my "Business Strategy" posts (something I have not divulged until now as I do not wish to portray myself as being in the know/knowing more than others or anything of that ilk as that is simply not the case anyway) and whilst he was a complete gentleman and a genuinely affable guy, apart from one or 2 things, such as paying off Sam for under £10m (this apparently is now £10m), operating with a player wage bill of around £10m and one or 2 other small bits of info, I was just as mystified after speaking to him as I was before I spoke to him. He talks about what he wants to, putting a positive spin on things and cleverly avoiding directly answering questions with a direct answer. Peter resembles a politician when he speaks and rarely divulges anything substantial or in an unequivocal manner, often saying things just because its what we want to hear. These meetings, from what I have gathered, are just the same in that only titbits of information are gleaned with the rest of the meeting simply a PR exercise for him to say how great he is and what a great job he has done/ is doing. Ultimately, if this investment comes in as substantially as we are led to believe, he can sing it from the roof tops with some justification, until then, the info that documents our perilous financial state does not cover him in the glory he portrays. That since he took over in 2006 the debt has risen from £27m to a conservative £40m at present, despite making a £20m profit on player sales during that time, is irrefutable evidence of this.
Until this deal with Langston is signed the debt is at least £40m, not the "£21-24m" PR quoted at the meeting. From what I understand, we owe Langston around £25m, £9m to PMG, £2m to a couple of Directors and £1m or so in tax. Added to that, the £5m we received for Johnson in the summer we have spent, so we would have made a huge operating loss last year on top too, Ridsdale himself quoting our operating losses at Ninian to be "£7m a year", along with additional costs incurred in building the stadium of which I have no estimate, so the figure is almost certainly well into the £40m's. How he can pass off our "debt as it stands" at "£21-24m" is an absolute bare faced lie.
He also said that paying off Langston would be done by "new investment or bank borrowing" leaving the very real prospect of the debt remaining, just with someone else. Also, not that I needed the latest info off Annis site to gather such a line of thought, but quite why Sam would be quite as delighted to being paid back a mere £10m of the £25m or so he is owed, with another £5m related to the stadium or promotion I think, it probably will not have him salivating at the prospect quite as much as Peter is leading us to believe. Given that the Malaysians investment is conditional on a signed agreement being reached with Langston, forgive me for not being bowled over by what has emerged from this meeting. For me, yet again, it raises far more questions than answers. The only things that have surprised me from this meeting is Keith's acceptance of the meeting (not having a go at all Keith, you know how highly I regard your thoughts, just surprised) and after looking at the photo's, the lack of any smoke and mirrors...
Re: Why the Acceptance of PR's Performance at the Meeting?
Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:02 pm
A good read that with some very valid points from what I can see. As regards Hammam/agreement It would all depend o the depth of wealth of Hammam and what risks hes prepared to take on his current investment/loan.
Re: Why the Acceptance of PR's Performance at the Meeting?
Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:35 pm
Excellent post and I'm pleased to see that we have some people out there that can see through the fog.
Re: Why the Acceptance of PR's Performance at the Meeting?
Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:39 pm
A fog as thick as on the Yorkshire Moors.
Re: Why the Acceptance of PR's Performance at the Meeting?
Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:45 pm
Cheers guys, Keith's post (Since 62) is as insightul and knowledgeable as ever, for those that read it, it's worth noting that in the past I have attempted to pull up him for being to harsh on Peter!
Re: Why the Acceptance of PR's Performance at the Meeting?
Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:29 pm
I wonder if that Terry Phillips bloke from the Echoe is still stuck up PR's arse after the recent falling out. Perhaps he have to write his own stories instead of printing PR's statements. 