Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
Attendance 9955. Packing the park again.

 

Sorry, you're wrong.

 

You need to check your figures again - did you miss a decimal point?

 

Corpse Ho - or the PES eeedgiot - told us they had definitely sold 11k season tickets.

 

I'm no professor of maths, but 9955 is a lot less than 11k, so I'm afraid your figures can't possibly be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted

Thing is, they will still peddle the myth that they're the best fans in the world and that they're a super club.

 

 

Truth is they're no bigger than Bradford. In fact, thats an insult to Bradford. Bradford get similar/bigger attendances in a lower division on a more consistent basis. The skates have all but abandoned ship - and in record time too. No doubt there will be hundreds of excuses....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
St Jim

St Jim

Posted
Posted
Sorry, you're wrong.

 

You need to check your figures again - did you miss a decimal point?

 

Corpse Ho - or the PES eeedgiot - told us they had definitely sold 11k season tickets.

 

I'm no professor of maths, but 9955 is a lot less than 11k, so I'm afraid your figures can't possibly be right.

 

Ah, the magical Portmouth School of Mathematics & Logic strikes again :)

 

(that said I did study Maths at Uni of Portsmouth......now I work in banking - enough said!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
'Failing that don’t forget that buying a match ticket whenever you can really makes a difference. Every additional 1,000 people who attend games over a season will generate £400,000'

 

:?

 

So, 2000 people less than the weekend's game would generate £800,000 less over a season :D

 

Well, it would with an ordinary calculator, with the PDTs rose tinted calculator it probably works out at a loss of only £2.86 over four seasons.

 

I've lost track of how that will affect the £3m per home game contributed to the local economy. It's very confusing, so I guess we'll just call it £3.5m per game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
St Jim

St Jim

Posted
Posted
All over, other results mean that Pompey slip into the bottom 4. Tragic.

 

:lol:

 

-10 points? Who needs -10 points. They're managing relegation all by themselves without the assistance of the FL and I'm now starting to think the FL should 'postpone' the -10 points until next season in League 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colinjb

Colinjb

Posted
Posted

To think they laughed at us when we hit rock bottom with the 13,257 against Sheffield United towards the base of the championship. That would constitute such progress for them.

 

Have they found rock bottom yet or is the scraping around in the dirt just revealing further and further to fall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Appy

Appy

Posted
Posted
To think they laughed at us when we hit rock bottom with the 13,257 against Sheffield United towards the base of the championship. That would constitute such progress for them.

 

Have they found rock bottom yet or is the scraping around in the dirt just revealing further and further to fall?

 

To be fair that was literally one of the coldest nights ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted

Brilliant. I've just about finished laughing. My mate has been down there scouting and has been relaying texts to me throughout the game; as a neutral, he says they were really poor (and that I would have loved it and should have gone with him!).

 

So, the PDT takeover in full swing, feelgood factor on a high, and less than 10K packing the park. Shameful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted

But will he get the answers

 

 

I have just got back from a short break & have just downloaded the much anticipated trust prospectus.

 

This is a potentially momentous point in our history, and we need to proceed, as the prospectus says, as a 'Club that is transparent and accountable to its supporters'.

 

I commend the PST on their hard work, and the "glossy" nature of the prospectus.

 

However, as Mike Hall showed recently, transparency is paramount. There should be no sacred cows any longer. No more benefit of the doubt for anyone. Let's say it as it is, and like Mike says, "shine a light" into all of the potentially dark corners, just to make sure.

 

I am being asked to put in money, as the rest of us are, so it is only fit & proper to ask questions. I have a few of my own & I expect others have more too.

 

I wonder if someone from the PST would be happy to answer them?

 

 

There is a lot of anti pst stuff on the news forums...... Have they suddenly woken up

 

Q1. Page 4 claims that PST ownership will deliver "a new level of appeal to sponsors, increasing attendances and match day spend". What % increase in each of these core revenue streams has been built into the budget? (See Q10 below)

 

Q2. Page 6 says that "The majority of the PST Board are elected by the membership". Why not fully elected? Is this to be the case going forward?

 

Q3. Page 6 says "We want to recognise the individuals who purchase shares by giving them benefits at the club." What "benefits" do you envisage? If these are discounts, have they been built into the financial model? E.g. if 20% discount on season tickets, then has 20% been taken off 2,000 season tickets?

 

Q4. Page 6 indicates that it is possible that the club will be majority owned by "the Presidents". How could such a scenario be described as a "community club"? Isn't this just a consortium of local businessmen purchasing the majority shareholding with the PST simply helping them to get the keys to the boardroom?

 

Q5. Page 7 says that the sale & leaseback arrangement contains a "secure option allowing the club to buy-back the stadium in the next five years." What does the contract say if the 5 years elapse? It is conceivable that funding won't be available within 5 years to purchase outright, as lenders may be reluctant to lend against a football ground (ultimately it isn't a very liquid asset).

 

Q6. Page 7 says that "The ethos of 'one member, one vote' will remain at the core of PST's activities." How can this be the case when the business model is that c.50% of the equity & a minimum of 50% of the seats on the board are being given away to wealthy people?

 

Q7. Page 7 says that the Presidents will have 3 seats on the board of the acquisition company (Portsmouth Community Football Club Ltd), plus a seat for anyone putting in more than £200k. Page 10 says that PST (i.e. the £1,000 brigade) get to elect 3 seats on the board. So the best the £1,000 brigade can hope for is 50% of the seats on the board, but more likely, less than 50%. If the Presidents are as altruistic as we are lead to believe (to quote Mike Hall - "they are saving your club") then why do they need a seat on the board?

 

Q8. Based on the answer to Q7, page 10 says that the board can allow for more shares to be sold to the Presidents. If the board is more than 50% controlled by the Presidents, then would the PST not agree that it has very limited power to actually regulate this process, and the Presidents could quickly, and relatively cheaply dilute the PST? The PST would not have funds to do anything about this as it would need to match the money going in to retain % shareholding.

 

Q9. "Shares can not be transferred or sold". Presumably this is shares in PST, not in PCFC Ltd? I.e. the Presidents are still able to do what they like with their shareholding, but not the £1,000 brigade?

 

Q10. Page 8 shows a 19% growth in revenues between the 2013/14 & 2014/15 seasons. What is driving this growth? Considering that it is likely that we will be playing in League Two, with no guarantees of promotion back to League One, how is it considered prudent to show such growth?

 

Q11. Following on from Q10, if the revenues were to stay the same as they are in 2013/14 for the next 3 seasons in the model, then revenue would be a total of £2.97m lower across the 3 years. Taking the margin of 10.2% shown for 2014/15, then this would mean cash would be £300k lower overall. Indeed, it would mean that the model runs out of cash in 2015/16 (£100k lower in 2014/15 & £100k lower in 2015/16 means negative cash at end of 2015/16). This means that the assumptions behind this strong revenue growth need to be clearly understood.

 

Q12. Page 9 says "More detailed financial analysis can be found on

www.communitypompey.co.uk.". I don't seem able to find it? And the FAQ section is being "updated". When will we get to see this?

 

Q13. What happened to the difference between having the pay the former players the £9m and the fact that the PST had only put aside c.£3m? Has this renegotiation been scrapped? If yes, how has the gap been bridged?

 

I do applaud the work done to date, but am a little "nervous" about the power that the "Presidents" have the ability to wield, and am nervous about the PST being driven out / side-lined by these chaps.

 

I have worked on enough start-ups & business deals to know that you have to make concessions, but let's be very clear. If the Presidents are "saviours" and just normal fans, then why do they need a majority of seats on the board?

 

I really want this to work, so don't want us to set-out in the wrong manner.

 

Answers very much welcome

 

Read more: http://www.portsmouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/sitepage.asp?a=300409#ixzz2Cnres3CR

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Denzil

Denzil

Posted
Posted
OK, so who's posting in the comments section, 'cos it sure ain't them!

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-v-leyton-orient-live-1-4504486

 

"Would have thought there would have been more Blues on here tonight as not many went to the Park due to the bad referee, the not very nice weather and the Champions League being on. I suppose others didn't go because of saving the pennies to try to find the pledge money they said they were going to give months and months ago, what with Christmas coming up things are tight."

 

Priceless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colinjb

Colinjb

Posted
Posted
Any attempt by the FL to waive any of the previously notified golden share conditions for one purchaser, but not the other(s) would, IMHO, leave them terribly exposed.

 

But will he get the answers

 

 

I have just got back from a short break & have just downloaded the much anticipated trust prospectus.

 

This is a potentially momentous point in our history, and we need to proceed, as the prospectus says, as a 'Club that is transparent and accountable to its supporters'.

 

I commend the PST on their hard work, and the "glossy" nature of the prospectus.

 

However, as Mike Hall showed recently, transparency is paramount. There should be no sacred cows any longer. No more benefit of the doubt for anyone. Let's say it as it is, and like Mike says, "shine a light" into all of the potentially dark corners, just to make sure.

 

I am being asked to put in money, as the rest of us are, so it is only fit & proper to ask questions. I have a few of my own & I expect others have more too.

 

I wonder if someone from the PST would be happy to answer them?

 

 

There is a lot of anti pst stuff on the news forums...... Have they suddenly woken up

 

Q1. Page 4 claims that PST ownership will deliver "a new level of appeal to sponsors, increasing attendances and match day spend". What % increase in each of these core revenue streams has been built into the budget? (See Q10 below)

 

Q2. Page 6 says that "The majority of the PST Board are elected by the membership". Why not fully elected? Is this to be the case going forward?

 

Q3. Page 6 says "We want to recognise the individuals who purchase shares by giving them benefits at the club." What "benefits" do you envisage? If these are discounts, have they been built into the financial model? E.g. if 20% discount on season tickets, then has 20% been taken off 2,000 season tickets?

 

Q4. Page 6 indicates that it is possible that the club will be majority owned by "the Presidents". How could such a scenario be described as a "community club"? Isn't this just a consortium of local businessmen purchasing the majority shareholding with the PST simply helping them to get the keys to the boardroom?

 

Q5. Page 7 says that the sale & leaseback arrangement contains a "secure option allowing the club to buy-back the stadium in the next five years." What does the contract say if the 5 years elapse? It is conceivable that funding won't be available within 5 years to purchase outright, as lenders may be reluctant to lend against a football ground (ultimately it isn't a very liquid asset).

 

Q6. Page 7 says that "The ethos of 'one member, one vote' will remain at the core of PST's activities." How can this be the case when the business model is that c.50% of the equity & a minimum of 50% of the seats on the board are being given away to wealthy people?

 

Q7. Page 7 says that the Presidents will have 3 seats on the board of the acquisition company (Portsmouth Community Football Club Ltd), plus a seat for anyone putting in more than £200k. Page 10 says that PST (i.e. the £1,000 brigade) get to elect 3 seats on the board. So the best the £1,000 brigade can hope for is 50% of the seats on the board, but more likely, less than 50%. If the Presidents are as altruistic as we are lead to believe (to quote Mike Hall - "they are saving your club") then why do they need a seat on the board?

 

Q8. Based on the answer to Q7, page 10 says that the board can allow for more shares to be sold to the Presidents. If the board is more than 50% controlled by the Presidents, then would the PST not agree that it has very limited power to actually regulate this process, and the Presidents could quickly, and relatively cheaply dilute the PST? The PST would not have funds to do anything about this as it would need to match the money going in to retain % shareholding.

 

Q9. "Shares can not be transferred or sold". Presumably this is shares in PST, not in PCFC Ltd? I.e. the Presidents are still able to do what they like with their shareholding, but not the £1,000 brigade?

 

Q10. Page 8 shows a 19% growth in revenues between the 2013/14 & 2014/15 seasons. What is driving this growth? Considering that it is likely that we will be playing in League Two, with no guarantees of promotion back to League One, how is it considered prudent to show such growth?

 

Q11. Following on from Q10, if the revenues were to stay the same as they are in 2013/14 for the next 3 seasons in the model, then revenue would be a total of £2.97m lower across the 3 years. Taking the margin of 10.2% shown for 2014/15, then this would mean cash would be £300k lower overall. Indeed, it would mean that the model runs out of cash in 2015/16 (£100k lower in 2014/15 & £100k lower in 2015/16 means negative cash at end of 2015/16). This means that the assumptions behind this strong revenue growth need to be clearly understood.

 

Q12. Page 9 says "More detailed financial analysis can be found on

www.communitypompey.co.uk.". I don't seem able to find it? And the FAQ section is being "updated". When will we get to see this?

 

Q13. What happened to the difference between having the pay the former players the £9m and the fact that the PST had only put aside c.£3m? Has this renegotiation been scrapped? If yes, how has the gap been bridged?

 

I do applaud the work done to date, but am a little "nervous" about the power that the "Presidents" have the ability to wield, and am nervous about the PST being driven out / side-lined by these chaps.

 

I have worked on enough start-ups & business deals to know that you have to make concessions, but let's be very clear. If the Presidents are "saviours" and just normal fans, then why do they need a majority of seats on the board?

 

I really want this to work, so don't want us to set-out in the wrong manner.

 

Answers very much welcome

 

Read more: http://www.portsmouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/sitepage.asp?a=300409#ixzz2Cnres3CR

 

Credit where it's due. Honorary nutjob status for that skate please........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

  I accept