: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:49 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

I understand that POV entirely. But you yourself have acknowledged (what may be) the Catch-22: can't afford to do it and can't afford not to. What's the answer? I know you don't know, and I sure don't. Does anyone?

But I now believe that need to spend money is far greater because of the dwindling support than what it would cost to replace him.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:02 pm  

redeverready wrote:

But I now believe that need to spend money is far greater because of the dwindling support than what it would cost to replace him.

A view I'm sure most on here now seem to share. But it still fails to answer the Catch-22 question of how could you replace him if you could not afford to? By which I mean you'd have to shell out cash well in advance of the improved income you expect to get, but you may not have much spare cash to shell out cos every penny is accounted for?

Its not trying to be clever - its a deathly serious question. One that many other non-sports businesses have had to contend with, as a result of first the credit crunch and then the resulting deep recession. And many who could not find the cash to take necessary actions fell, and are falling, by the wayside.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:14 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

A view I'm sure most on here now seem to share. But it still fails to answer the Catch-22 question of how could you replace him if you could not afford to? By which I mean you'd have to shell out cash well in advance of the improved income you expect to get, but you may not have much spare cash to shell out cos every penny is accounted for?

Its not trying to be clever - its a deathly serious question. One that many other non-sports businesses have had to contend with, as a result of first the credit crunch and then the resulting deep recession. And many who could not find the cash to take necessary actions fell, and are falling, by the wayside.

The money has to be found from somewhere if means the club offering some sort of share issue then so be. I know this seems drastic but if nothing changes and we go in to 2010 and we have a similar season as this year I honestly believe that we will have to get used to being a bottom half side for the foreseeable future.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:33 pm  

redeverready wrote:

The money has to be found from somewhere if means the club offering some sort of share issue then so be. I know this seems drastic but if nothing changes and we go in to 2010 and we have a similar season as this year I honestly believe that we will have to get used to being a bottom half side for the foreseeable future.

Not surprised its you who has come up with the one obvious way of breaking the Catch 22. I deliberately kept quiet on this earlier to see if there would be any appetite for such action. Yup, that's the way to do it.

But (as always, there is a but...) the existing shares will have little effective value, so in the normal course of things the investors in the new shares would expect disproportionate voting rights through e.g. issuing the new shares at a deep discount - something the existing shareholders would likely not be at all happy with, I suspect. Plenty of ways round this, PROVIDED the new investors were prepared to recognise at inception that they'd be putting money in for not a lot in return. Fans might well do this, although to raise - say - £1/4m if 1,000 people were prepared to shell out would mean £250 per head. What you reckon?

Alternatively, issue debentures (secured loans) or preference shares to fans, like some soccer clubs do. That way, no dilution of ownership of the club, but at the expense of taking on debt which has a separate set of implications. Preference shares would be ideal from the club's POV, but probably the worst of all worlds for investors.

Soccer clubs issuing debentures usually do something like "invest x and you have your own special seat for y years", don't they?

I'm sceptical that enough fans could be persuaded to part with enough cash, especially in the current economic environment and with the poor poor form, but even so you have suggested a solution where no-one else yet has.

Or we find external folk with money to invest...which is what the club has been trying to do for years, of course.

Incidentally, Stains just issued a load of new shares - mostly to McManus & Co in exchange for directors' loans to the club, but also nearly £400k in a placing of new shares. Would that we could raise £400k in that way!

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:52 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Not surprised its you who has come up with the one obvious way of breaking the Catch 22. I deliberately kept quiet on this earlier to see if there would be any appetite for such action. Yup, that's the way to do it.

But (as always, there is a but...) the existing shares will have little effective value, so in the normal course of things the investors in the new shares would expect disproportionate voting rights through e.g. issuing the new shares at a deep discount - something the existing shareholders would likely not be at all happy with, I suspect. Plenty of ways round this, PROVIDED the new investors were prepared to recognise at inception that they'd be putting money in for not a lot in return. Fans might well do this, although to raise - say - £1/4m if 1,000 people were prepared to shell out would mean £250 per head. What you reckon?

Alternatively, issue debentures (secured loans) or preference shares to fans, like some soccer clubs do. That way, no dilution of ownership of the club, but at the expense of taking on debt which has a separate set of implications. Preference shares would be ideal from the club's POV, but probably the worst of all worlds for investors.

Soccer clubs issuing debentures usually do something like "invest x and you have your own special seat for y years", don't they?

I'm sceptical that enough fans could be persuaded to part with enough cash, especially in the current economic environment and with the poor poor form, but even so you have suggested a solution where no-one else yet has.

Or we find external folk with money to invest...which is what the club has been trying to do for years, of course.

Incidentally, Stains just issued a load of new shares - mostly to McManus & Co in exchange for directors' loans to the club, but also nearly £400k in a placing of new shares. Would that we could raise £400k in that way!

I Think you'd be shocked how many fans would be willing to take up any offer from the club. Also it's doesn't cost much for the club to put a few tentative feelers out amongst the fans to gauge the interest.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:06 pm  

I personally reckon we'd struggle to get 1 in 5 season ticket holders to stump up £250 right now. I suppose nobody knows until the question is asked.. but I'd be surprised.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:57 pm  

to Adey's long and highly considered post.

On the point of how attractive or not we may be to an incoming (say) top Aussie coach - I take the points made entirely, except that the only situation I see as being possible is if we not only chose the "new coach" option (££££) but also were prepared to give the new coach options for acquiring/disposing of players (££££££££).

I wasn't suggesting that we would get a new coach in a vacuum, or that he would come, if we just said "that's yer lot, work with them, you've no budget save what you sell". I don't see any top coach buying that.

But as Adey has pointed out, there is every reason to suppose that there's no chance of being able to muster the relevant amount of £££££ to make this scenario happen and so it may be academic.

Looking on the bright side - not only have we offloaded the rest of Tame Tupou's wage - we got five hundred quid for him as well. Maybe that's hwta Mac referred to when he said it was not all doom and gloom?

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:11 am  

Off up to Darwin for ten days, so won't be on much. Wanted to put down some considered thoughts but I won't better Adey and FA's contributions. The Sack Mac camp have made some fair points over the past couple of days and there's a lot for the club to consider.

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:20 am  

af wrote:

Off up to Darwin for ten days, so won't be on much. Wanted to put down some considered thoughts but I won't better Adey and FA's contributions. The Sack Mac camp have made some fair points over the past couple of days and there's a lot for the club to consider.

Have fun.
Lets hope we win while you gone, then we can blame you.

: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:44 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Fans might well do this, although to raise - say - £1/4m if 1,000 people were prepared to shell out would mean £250 per head. What you reckon?

How about an extra 1,000 on the gate paying an average of £20 to see a better performing team?