Barrow AFC.net

somehow I think this soap opera will run far longer than Dallas!

Spanner wrote:

Kieran wrote:What I don't understand is all the talk of what the board's value of the club/assets is, whether the deal is acceptable to the board or not etc. Surely it doesn't actually matter what the current board want? It's down to the members whether we are prepared to accept any proposal or not. The guy has indicated that he is prepared to hold an open meeting, so whats stopping this happening? Do it as far as I'm concerned.

I think you're right up to a point. I'm speculating a bit here, but I'd guess that the issue is that he's probably not prepared to pay enough to the current business (for the existing assets) to pay off the Directors' loans. As members I presume we could authorise the sale of the business under those terms. However the sticking point then probably becomes the transfer of the football registration to the new business which would effectively be escaping our footballing debts. The Directors would therefore first need to write off those loans for the FA to approve the transfer of the registration, hence why they probably hold the cards in practice.

Would the directors loans be classed as footballing debts though?

You may be right, but as far I can see there is nothing to stop him approaching the membership directly. Or even, what is there to stop us calling an EGM to discuss the issue and deciding to make contact with him ourselves?

Kieran wrote:

Spanner wrote: I think you're right up to a point. I'm speculating a bit here, but I'd guess that the issue is that he's probably not prepared to pay enough to the current business (for the existing assets) to pay off the Directors' loans. As members I presume we could authorise the sale of the business under those terms. However the sticking point then probably becomes the transfer of the football registration to the new business which would effectively be escaping our footballing debts. The Directors would therefore first need to write off those loans for the FA to approve the transfer of the registration, hence why they probably hold the cards in practice.

Would the directors loans be classed as footballing debts though?

You may be right, but as far I can see there is nothing to stop him approaching the membership directly. Or even, what is there to stop us calling an EGM to discuss the issue and deciding to make contact with him ourselves?

That is always an option once again the board have decided to ignore the AGM said it would be December then cancelled said it would be January but that looks unlikely now.

Kieran wrote:

Spanner wrote: I think you're right up to a point. I'm speculating a bit here, but I'd guess that the issue is that he's probably not prepared to pay enough to the current business (for the existing assets) to pay off the Directors' loans. As members I presume we could authorise the sale of the business under those terms. However the sticking point then probably becomes the transfer of the football registration to the new business which would effectively be escaping our footballing debts. The Directors would therefore first need to write off those loans for the FA to approve the transfer of the registration, hence why they probably hold the cards in practice.

Would the directors loans be classed as footballing debts though?

Pretty sure that they would be Kie.

The pressure is about to be cranked up sky high on the directors who have loaned the club money.

Some I feel sorry for and some, I don't.

Forget about loans etc., from Directors the only one that is valid is the one secured against the ground (illegally by the way if you read your debenture) to the keens company.

Would want to know more about the share scheme. The existing 500+ membership could regroup as a new BAFC supporters trust, Members fees and fundraising to buy into the share scheme and ensure some ownership in the new model. Perhaps some of the existing board would want to stay involved in this capacity.

110 trusts out there doing this.

Jonty wrote:Would want to know more about the share scheme. The existing 500+ membership could regroup as a new BAFC supporters trust, Members fees and fundraising to buy into the share scheme and ensure some ownership in the new model. Perhaps some of the existing board would want to stay involved in this capacity.
110 trusts out there doing this.

Unless the Trust itself was the largest shareholder you'd just get out-voted by the owner or other larger shareholders on any votes. I suspect we'd probably need a minimum of about half a million quid just to be the largest shareholder and I don't think there's any way we could raise this amount unless we converted into another ownership model. That would also take months to organise but the recent bidder could come back at any time.

barrowfan_chris wrote:

tictactoe wrote:To be honest can't decide if it would be good or bad. when Vaughan first came on the scene many were overjoyed but we all know how that turned out! what's to say this won't go down the same path, the guy reels us all in but at the end of the day is only after the land and a few years down the line the club are gone. On the flip side who says that won't happen if we carry on how we are at the moment. need to know more before I decide how I feel.

Like people have already wrote why would he suddenly choose to buy Holker street when he lives in America and is a Barrow fan just to put houses on it.

There's not a cat in hells chance of this being his intention IMO because why on earth would he consider it ? too much hassle without any guarantee of success.
FYI Texas is booming & has been for many a year, even the recent recession in the US was weathered better here than anywhere else in the USA, All the main the Cities are doubling and trebling in size, Example here in Austin more than 600 new residents move here every single week, this has been going on for the past 20 years and its still happening with only a slight downturn in the recession dip, but it kept on gaining momentum, Its the same in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, San Antonio, Corpus Cristie etc.

He could very easily invest his $1.5 million in a land deal just about anywhere in Texas and double his money within 5 years, So with that in mind IMO he is more benefactor than shark.

A lot of the problems seem to emanate from the present Board...

It seems that again and again their lack of drive and ambition - coupled with their reluctance to give up either their 'positions of power' and /or even one penny of the monies they feel they are owed is holding the club back .

Meanwhile ... potential investors appear to be being stalled or neglected until an offer which ensures a good return for the present directors is forthcoming . All this at a a time when it appears that the BoD are working their socks off to minimise any growing debt ( i.e. any more expense to themselves ) by going always for the cheapest option , while at the same time deferring any key information or action until , or beyond , the last possible date.

The most positive things recently appear to have come from that excellent collection of workers who have given up their own time to undertake key improvements around the ground- rather than from any actions of the BoD.

Come on guys ... you did do some good in the past , but now , it seems that everything is geared to protecting your own interests at the expense of progressing the club.

I hope I'm wrong ...

John Very Little wrote:

Jonty wrote:Would want to know more about the share scheme. The existing 500+ membership could regroup as a new BAFC supporters trust, Members fees and fundraising to buy into the share scheme and ensure some ownership in the new model. Perhaps some of the existing board would want to stay involved in this capacity.
110 trusts out there doing this.

Unless the Trust itself was the largest shareholder you'd just get out-voted by the owner or other larger shareholders on any votes. I suspect we'd probably need a minimum of about half a million quid just to be the largest shareholder and I don't think there's any way we could raise this amount unless we converted into another ownership model. That would also take months to organise but the recent bidder could come back at any time.

I don't think Jonty was suggesting that we become the largest shareholder? Thats clearly unrealistic at the present time. Doing what Jonty suggests so that we do own a share isn't though, and seems a sensible suggestion to me.

the last time the board was questioned about the investor`s cffer,the answer given was that there was a "non-disclosure agreement" and anyway nothing had really been offered and it was pretty much a non-event,by reading last night`s mail it`s pretty obvious this was not the case,and they know that if we had known then what we know now pressure would have been put on them to at least try to get to a point where a decision had to be made!

i`m sure that they (the board) hoped that the guy would lose interest and go away!

kikka wrote:A lot of the problems seem to emanate from the present Board...

It seems that again and again their lack of drive and ambition - coupled with their reluctance to give up either their 'positions of power' and /or even one penny of the monies they feel they are owed is holding the club back .

Meanwhile ... potential investors appear to be being stalled or neglected until an offer which ensures a good return for the present directors is forthcoming . All this at a a time when it appears that the BoD are working their socks off to minimise any growing debt ( i.e. any more expense to themselves ) by going always for the cheapest option , while at the same time deferring any key information or action until , or beyond , the last possible date.

The most positive things recently appear to have come from that excellent collection of workers who have given up their own time to undertake key improvements around the ground- rather than from any actions of the BoD.

Come on guys ... you did do some good in the past , but now , it seems that everything is geared to protecting your own interests at the expense of progressing the club.

I hope I'm wrong ...

blue nige wrote:the last time the board was questioned about the investor`s cffer,the answer given was that there was a "non-disclosure agreement" and anyway nothing had really been offered and it was pretty much a non-event,by reading last night`s mail it`s pretty obvious this was not the case,and they know that if we had known then what we know now pressure would have been put on them to at least try to get to a point where a decision had to be made!

i`m sure that they (the board) hoped that the guy would lose interest and go away!

Both correct - it's what is known as the Keen Conundrum.

A Keenundrum?

FWIW, I don't think any of the BoD would obstruct a takeover if it was genuinely in the best interests of the club, creditors etc etc. We've heard one side of the story, hopefully we'll hear the other side. If the offer was unacceptable (for instance if it didn't meet FA criteria) then let's hear it. Then the ball is back in Paul Casson's court if he wants to have another go at it.

It's right that people are sceptical of any investor, both after what happened with Vaughan but also with countless clubs up and down the country. Casson comes across as a good guy, and his origin from Barrow is welcome and a good sign - but that guarantees nothing.

However, the club hardly feels safe now, does it? We're at the whim of Furness Building Society who we have a good relationship with for now - but we can't guarantee that forever. Our ground has only become more out-dated over the last decade and while the current membership structure has proved capable at keeping the club ticking over hand-to-mouth in the Conference North/Premier, I'd be concerned as to what would happen if we were relegated. The Keens and colleagues will have to move on at some point in their lives anyway, and I'm not convinced that there's a gaggle of well-to-do fans or local businessmen out there who are willing to plough money into the club.

With that in mind, I'd be interested to hear a fuller response from the board (I presume that this interview cancels the non-disclosure agreement). Their duty, IMO, is to negotiate a sale which best protects the long term interests of football in Barrow. A responsible sale, with legal provisions that protect the ownership and use of the stadium, would seem on the surface to be that option.

Just out of polite interest - and please pardon my ignorance - but perhaps one of the members/someone privy to this info can answer:

1. Who exactly do we owe money to?
2. From when exactly?
3. How much do we exactly owe them?

Ta.