Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:41 pm
Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:20 pm
Ninian 72 wrote:Since 62 Asked me to put this on this MB.
My views on Monday`s fans` meeting with Peter Ridsdale
Firstly , I would say that it was well attended and well organised. I know some people say they didn`t get a chance to ask their questions , but it appeared that many did and all were answered.
Secondly(unlike what I fear happened at the similar meeting at the Brunswick)PR had no detail beforehand of the questions that I would ask him - indeed he wouldn`t have known that I was going to be there as I only knew for sure myself on the day. He would certainly have expected questions on finance from me , but had no idea of the specific points I would raise.
My first question (or waffled garbage , depending on your point of view) was to outline what I thought were the total debts of the club (about £39m), ask PR to confirm that my estimates were accurate , and then for him to explain how the debts were proposed to be dealt with. Peter sort of combined the 2 answers into 1 , firstly saying that my estimates were wrong but , in the explanation of how they were to be cleared , effectively saying they were about right , but that plans were in place to significantly reduce the biggest single part of them (the Langston debt).
PR`s analysis of what is owed of about £24m missed out the further £5m due to Langston re stadium naming rights and also assumed that the main debt of £17.5m due to them had already been reduced to £10m even though the agreement remains unsigned at present.So if you add back the £5m and the £7.5m difference , it comes back to about £37.5m which is not far from my initial figure.
The signing of the Langston terms that PR alluded to is obviously key to the prospects of the club having a hope in hell of dealing with its debt burden.PMG should look after itself from the income stream from the Premier Club , particularly with the increased revenues from January 2010 onwards from the proposed revamp of that scheme (it was good to hear PR admit at last that the scheme has been so badly managed and promoted to date)which is clearly being done for PMG`s benefit (if it gets rid of interest bearing debt , its good for the club as well).
Will the new deal with Langston actually be done? God knows!. PR was confident enough to give details of the deal to an open meeting and said the lawyers on both sides had agreed it so if it doesn`t happen now in the very near future it will be extremely embarrassing for him and might well make his position as Chairman untenable.If the hearsay through Annis is correct , it would seem that Sam Hammam is less confident , but I hope for the sake of the club that PR is right.
PR`s salary level was disclosed at £350k and he claimed that this was a fair reward for the work he does , and was based on approval from 2 non-executive directors at the club.A few points on this
a) in the period from Jan 2007 when he took over the running of the club until at leastMay 2008 , he was paid at the far higher rate of at least £500k a year.He didn`t say when it had been reduced to the lower figure (which , in my view , is still at the high end of market rate for the job , but not as ridiculously high as previously)so it might only have been recently
b)the 2 people he said set his salary through a "remuneration committee" are Alan Whitely and Keith Harris. PR agrees the fees paid by CCFC to the 2 businesses in which they are involved , so they effectively set each others` reward levels.Not a healthy obvious level of independence
c)PR also missed out the additional benefit he has received , on completion of the stadium build , on top of his salary.He said at the meeting he had received one , but not how much (I have been reliably informed that it is again in excess of £0.5m).So not quite as "lowly" a personal reward as he made it out to be for his work.
I also questionned PR about his personal shareholding in the club and the fact that he had sold himself the £500k shares given to his company WH Sports for only £20k as he told the liquidator of WH Sports that the shares were "worthless".. They could , based on his stated 40p current value of the shares , now be worth nearly £2m!! PR admitted that such a transaction had taken place , but it would appear that HMRC (who are owed £400k+ by WH Sports) and its liquidator are on to this , as PR told the meeting that he had to pay a proportion of any sale proceeds of his shares over to HMRC.I am still not exactly impressed that the transaction took place in the first place.
Some other points divulged at the meeting were quite worrying.
Its all very well for the Chairman of the club to say he was unaware that the winding up hearing would still be listed on the public record even though a repayment schedule for the £1.2m debt had apparently been agreed before the hearing date. But , for such an important matter , he should have checked especially as one of his fellow directors is a partner in a substantial local law firm - do they not speak to each other on such matters?
I also find it almost impossible to believe that the club board did not feel it necessary to inform the new Malaysian director/shareholder of the HMRC winding up petition. I can accept that "TG" is not the real force behind the potential new investors , just a link to them , but he is after all their reprsentative on the board and I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that PR said that the recent first new investment was TG`s personally.If they only found out about it through the press or Court records , it hardly inspires faith in the "transparency" and honesty of a future major business relationship. At the very least shoddy work on the part of the club`s senior management.
I asked twice , to avoid a future claim of being misquoted , whether all of the new investment money is to be by way of the issue of new shares and not either merely buying out existing shareholders (if they get the money the club doesn`t) or just new loans coming in to replace existing ones (just a deferral of a problem not a solution).PR assured the meeting that it indeed is/will be new shares. I have taken that on trust at the moment , even though another source has since advised me that the vast majority of the money put in to date is in fact a loan arranged through TG with a Far East organisation and not new shares at all.It does seem strange that someone has put in up to £2m already without even seeing a share certificate (PR said they hadn`t got one yet)or getting the Langston deal signed off (which I thought we had been told was necessary to get in any new money).
My overall view is that the meeting was worthwhile and provided some very encouraging potential news , but also some anomalies and still being subject to events which haven`t yet happened.
So I suppose my overall message is as follows
"Peter , thank you for facing up to such a meeting and advising of your plans.But what is now vital is that you follow up "talking the talk" with "walking the walk" - and quickly."
Keith
Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:36 pm
Ninian 72 wrote:Since 62 Asked me to put this on this MB.
My views on Monday`s fans` meeting with Peter Ridsdale
Firstly , I would say that it was well attended and well organised. I know some people say they didn`t get a chance to ask their questions , but it appeared that many did and all were answered.
Secondly(unlike what I fear happened at the similar meeting at the Brunswick)PR had no detail beforehand of the questions that I would ask him - indeed he wouldn`t have known that I was going to be there as I only knew for sure myself on the day. He would certainly have expected questions on finance from me , but had no idea of the specific points I would raise.
My first question (or waffled garbage , depending on your point of view) was to outline what I thought were the total debts of the club (about £39m), ask PR to confirm that my estimates were accurate , and then for him to explain how the debts were proposed to be dealt with. Peter sort of combined the 2 answers into 1 , firstly saying that my estimates were wrong but , in the explanation of how they were to be cleared , effectively saying they were about right , but that plans were in place to significantly reduce the biggest single part of them (the Langston debt).
PR`s analysis of what is owed of about £24m missed out the further £5m due to Langston re stadium naming rights and also assumed that the main debt of £17.5m due to them had already been reduced to £10m even though the agreement remains unsigned at present.So if you add back the £5m and the £7.5m difference , it comes back to about £37.5m which is not far from my initial figure.
The signing of the Langston terms that PR alluded to is obviously key to the prospects of the club having a hope in hell of dealing with its debt burden.PMG should look after itself from the income stream from the Premier Club , particularly with the increased revenues from January 2010 onwards from the proposed revamp of that scheme (it was good to hear PR admit at last that the scheme has been so badly managed and promoted to date)which is clearly being done for PMG`s benefit (if it gets rid of interest bearing debt , its good for the club as well).
Will the new deal with Langston actually be done? God knows!. PR was confident enough to give details of the deal to an open meeting and said the lawyers on both sides had agreed it so if it doesn`t happen now in the very near future it will be extremely embarrassing for him and might well make his position as Chairman untenable.If the hearsay through Annis is correct , it would seem that Sam Hammam is less confident , but I hope for the sake of the club that PR is right.
PR`s salary level was disclosed at £350k and he claimed that this was a fair reward for the work he does , and was based on approval from 2 non-executive directors at the club.A few points on this
a) in the period from Jan 2007 when he took over the running of the club until at leastMay 2008 , he was paid at the far higher rate of at least £500k a year.He didn`t say when it had been reduced to the lower figure (which , in my view , is still at the high end of market rate for the job , but not as ridiculously high as previously)so it might only have been recently
b)the 2 people he said set his salary through a "remuneration committee" are Alan Whitely and Keith Harris. PR agrees the fees paid by CCFC to the 2 businesses in which they are involved , so they effectively set each others` reward levels.Not a healthy obvious level of independence
c)PR also missed out the additional benefit he has received , on completion of the stadium build , on top of his salary.He said at the meeting he had received one , but not how much (I have been reliably informed that it is again in excess of £0.5m).So not quite as "lowly" a personal reward as he made it out to be for his work.
I also questionned PR about his personal shareholding in the club and the fact that he had sold himself the £500k shares given to his company WH Sports for only £20k as he told the liquidator of WH Sports that the shares were "worthless".. They could , based on his stated 40p current value of the shares , now be worth nearly £2m!! PR admitted that such a transaction had taken place , but it would appear that HMRC (who are owed £400k+ by WH Sports) and its liquidator are on to this , as PR told the meeting that he had to pay a proportion of any sale proceeds of his shares over to HMRC.I am still not exactly impressed that the transaction took place in the first place.
Some other points divulged at the meeting were quite worrying.
Its all very well for the Chairman of the club to say he was unaware that the winding up hearing would still be listed on the public record even though a repayment schedule for the £1.2m debt had apparently been agreed before the hearing date. But , for such an important matter , he should have checked especially as one of his fellow directors is a partner in a substantial local law firm - do they not speak to each other on such matters?
I also find it almost impossible to believe that the club board did not feel it necessary to inform the new Malaysian director/shareholder of the HMRC winding up petition. I can accept that "TG" is not the real force behind the potential new investors , just a link to them , but he is after all their reprsentative on the board and I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that PR said that the recent first new investment was TG`s personally.If they only found out about it through the press or Court records , it hardly inspires faith in the "transparency" and honesty of a future major business relationship. At the very least shoddy work on the part of the club`s senior management.
I asked twice , to avoid a future claim of being misquoted , whether all of the new investment money is to be by way of the issue of new shares and not either merely buying out existing shareholders (if they get the money the club doesn`t) or just new loans coming in to replace existing ones (just a deferral of a problem not a solution).PR assured the meeting that it indeed is/will be new shares. I have taken that on trust at the moment , even though another source has since advised me that the vast majority of the money put in to date is in fact a loan arranged through TG with a Far East organisation and not new shares at all.It does seem strange that someone has put in up to £2m already without even seeing a share certificate (PR said they hadn`t got one yet)or getting the Langston deal signed off (which I thought we had been told was necessary to get in any new money).
My overall view is that the meeting was worthwhile and provided some very encouraging potential news , but also some anomalies and still being subject to events which haven`t yet happened.
So I suppose my overall message is as follows
"Peter , thank you for facing up to such a meeting and advising of your plans.But what is now vital is that you follow up "talking the talk" with "walking the walk" - and quickly."
Keith
Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:58 pm