TOPIC: The Money From Potts, Dempsey And Liverpool....

Must be around the million mark surely.

Why hasn't Jenkins taken this money or a vast part of it to pay off his loan to the club?

He hasn't done it because the debt is his and Nixons very own stranglehold over Carlisle United, proof that they just pretend to have any real plans to sell the club, they like things just as they are - we would be an even more attractive prospect to any investor if this debt is gone and Jenkins knows it.

We could have got ten million and Jenkins still wouldn't have taken back his cash.

Lapping could walk into the club then and not have to give them any equity at all and this would destroy the pair of them, especially the power greedy Nixon.

If they think we cannot see behind their way of thinking any more then they are totally deluded.

There's one for you to pose to them Claire, they cannot hide behind confidentiality clauses on this one.

They will just say there is no one suitable/interested to take over the club. But they are in talks with a you know who.
Another question for them is this Keith curle contract- why the secrecy?

Yes but Lapping was asked to stump up over a million for what they paid a pound for.

As for the Curle contract, as I mentioned in another thread I imagine this is tied in with the absence of West, maybe West wanted to take up the further years option on his contract but is obstructed from doing so because Curle has not put pen to paper.

Curle is worth an improved eighteen month contract at least in my opinion, then again we don't know what assurances and terms he has asked for.

Imagine how much backlash they would receive from that. Would fans he happy that they were using transfer funds to pay off his debt ?

Lapping wouldn't be able to just walk into the club, he would have to pay them whatever they demanded for their shares, and just because they paid £1 for them doesn't mean that's what they would want to sell them for.

If it meant ridding us of them two then I would say most would.

Might be worth a poll on that one, could make for an interesting result.

And in what other way are we supposed to pay off the debt?

Fred realised that his loan was obstructing the club moving forward so he wrote it off.

You aren't making a lot of sense in those last two posts mate. We'd all (well most) like them to sod off but it's not gonna happen. They could tell anyone else they want £50 million regardless of the level debt if they want to stay put.

DeckchairBlue wrote:
I'd fully expect them to pay off some debt when we sell players or have a good cup run.

Afternoon

Worth clarifying a couple of points re the money that was coming from me and others.

-no money was changing hands for shares.Every penny was going into the Club's balance sheet.We were not buying any shares-merely diluting them,hence the Trust vote.

-AJ was converting his personal loan into new shares at the same value as our money was going in.

-the Pioneer loan was being rescheduled to be paid out over a number of years on a fixed timetable.

The maths got us to the 45/45/10 split

With player sales and Liverpool cash,AJ would be quite within his rights to at least look at paying some of his debt down-in fact,I would support it on the basis the Club should not rely on debt.That said,the Club has typically lost around £250k pa on crowds of around 4500 and no cup runs so I would expect some cash to be held back as reserves.You will recall that the new money of £1.25m from me and others was intended to be held as a buffer against future losses and not rely on AJ though some would have been initially spent on infrastructure and investing in the back office/new MD/commercial director on the basis they would eventually cover their own costs.

None of the plans I put forward took into account player sales or Liverpool-these are windfalls which I would have used to top up the buffer to at least £1m.

Basically it's called reinvesting in the business.My plan never envisaged a sale of the Club,more an active interest in the Club's shares from locals and businesses on the basis the Club could not be controlled by one person-unhealthy in my view for both the owner and Club.

Anyway,it's not happening,at least with me on board!

Andrew

Never mind Andrew the billionaire will sort us out. At least the queues for our half time cuppas in the east stand wont be very long .

Crangon_Crangon wrote:
Did he realise it was an obstruction or did he realise money was to be made at BP in property?

Seems a bit strange to me that Fred wrote off the £1.1 and then we lock into an agreement with a contractor for blue yonder...

No official charge, that we know of, was taken over the ground but the confidentiality agreement around blue yonder may well be disguising that.

The only reason Fred wants the club to move forward is to justify a new stadium so he can swoop in and build a 300 house estate called Brunton Park.

Ironically, even if the club stagnate or move backwards, the upkeep costs on BP at present would surely justify a new stadium - perhaps smaller in this scenario.

I don't for one second think FS wrote off £1+ debt just to help the club.

Laffy - What money if any would have been added / made available for the playing side of things ?

Thanks for clearing that up Andrew, shame you didn't manage to get the deal over the line.

I would have handed that one over to the new MD and manager to produce a budget which would be presented to the Board for comment/approval.Thats how most businesses operate.If all sign up to the budget,there can be no excuses down the line.

What I can say is that wage inflation is rapidly filtering down from the PL.My business partner has just taken on the MD role at Rangers and he says Championship and First Division salaries are now way ahead of top end SPL salaries,making it difficult to recruit without risk.

The FL have provided analysis which shows there is a direct correlation between player salaries and performance/league position-with the odd exception like Carlisle last season though KC cannot be blamed for that.Its also a fact that Carlisle's costs are higher than most of our contemporaries due to geographical issues.

This wage/performance link of course encourages Clubs to take material risks to succeed-something I would not advocate having been there at Motherwell.Better to improve turnover so you can spend more on the playing side with confidence-hence my points about commercial director etc.Of course the big problems start when turnover and performance fall together-a spiral which usually sees budgets being broken to claw out of the spiral.To AJs credit,he spent above budget last season to stave off relegation when others may have buried their heads.

Laffy wrote:
Words 'Billy' and 'Paynter' leap into mind here......

It is to AJ's credit that he spent above budget last year - shame he is allowing Nixon to drag his reputation down to that of Nixon's....

So the funds that you and partners were putting in would not have effected the playing budget ? From your comments im going to assume it would have been based on clubs turnover etc and not the cash injection.

I'd like to see that analysis, I mean if you look at the likes of leyton orient their wage budget must be huge, Portsmouth is likely to be large as well. However if it's an overall squad wage that it's based on, you could have 11 players paid far more than the other 9/10. Or you could have a club paying 2/3 players massive wages compared to the rest of the squad. All interesting stuff though, bar Celtic the championship certainly has been paying better than the spl for a number of years.

Would also be interesting to see if bonuses and so forth are taken into account in the analysis

You would be amazed how many Club player budgets ignore trivia like NIC,win bonuses and signing on fees as if they were something that is magically paid out of thin air!

Best one I saw at Motherwell was an individual bonus for scoring-without excluding the obvious penalty.Every time we got a penalty,there was a fight over the ball by those who had the bonus in their contract.

We also tried to recruit a high profile ex player as manager at Motherwell.He asked what the budget was and when told,he thought this was ok-sadly he was confusing his salary with the overall playing budget!

Another issue in the PL,and highlighted by Sir Alex,was the so called 'me too'-basically this protected the highest paid players from newcomers such that their wage would go up if a new player came in on a higher wage.Even Sir Alex had it in his contract apparently.

The thing about football is the MD has to have a very strong ability to say no.

Laffy wrote:
Didn't have willie pettigrew as a grabbing b@stard

I think I was at school then-legend though at Fir Park

I've no doubt that there will be some crazy bonuses out there. I'm pretty sure a lot of players at the top level have something in their contract which says they will get a % of their transfer when sold. However if they request transfer this fee is waived.

Pretty sure Ian Stevens was on a decent goal bonus !

Sir Alex said recently he was paid higher than all of his players.

Ian Holloway was an interesting one at Blackpool where he got a % of the player transfers which I thought was actually a good idea if you had right manager in charge.

One of the worst thought out posts I've read on here for a long time from the OP. Full of conjecture, guesswork and ill informed twaddle!

franksidebottom wrote:
To be fair Frank, it brought about a very sensible insight into how Mr Lapping would have dealt with the situation.

Currently the money is vanishing into a black hole, wasted by Nixon and Jenkins throwing good money after bad for too many years has put the debt up to the level that it is.

Are you Steve Pat by any chance?

Why is it that if someone has a different opinion on the current back room situation are they immediately accused of being Steve Patt?

It only brought an insight into Lappings plans because he came on to correct what you were saying, exactly the point I was trying to make! So you're congratulating yourself on getting it wrong!!

You've just made another statement based on total guesswork. How do you know the money is vanishing into a black hole?

franksidebottom wrote:
He was saying what he personally would have done with the money, not what I said about the current board doing with the money.

They knew damn well that the sales of Potts and Dempsey were coming in.

Previous money coming in has led to us being mis-managed and further in debt.

And as you are so smart Mr Pat show me where the money is going?

You thought Lapping was going to have to hand over £1million to them to invest in the club ffs. You're absolutely clueless mate!!!

You guessed that Jenkins hasn't taken any of the recent windfalls to pay off his debts. How do you know?

You go on to say this is PROOF they don't want to sell the club? Your ill thought out guesswork is proof of nothing!

You go onto guess that West's disappearance had something to do with Curle's contract? 2+2=17 on that one!

You say the recent money has gone into a black hole? How do you think the club afforded all the new signings? Just because someone is a free transfer it doesn't mean they arrived at no cost to the club.

I could go on and on but honestly I give up

Just cutting through all the crap laffy , you make so many sensible points re the way a small club can operate and push on, why did they end your involvement? Their statement was babbling nonsense.
They have already adopted a number of proposed ideas and keep talking of letting in local business people and fans and yet they ridiculed your proposal and they suddenly found a new investor after years of saying no one was interested.
What did happen between you all that brought your proposal to an end? Why did they turn so nasty to what seemed like a very good offer and why on earth, in your opinion, do they think they can possibly rely on Aj's money forever?
Seeing as they won't talk, I may as well ask you eh ☺

franksidebottom wrote:
About one and a quarter million wasn't it that Lappings consortium had to drum up to get the deal off the ground if I remember correctly.

You are getting a bit upset about this aren't you.

I'm personally still unsure whether or not the Lapping deal was the right one for the club. I don't think anybody knows enough about what was proposed and what figures were actually available.

I have no doubt that AL is successful in buying/investing in companies when low and selling on for profit - same with property by all accounts. I just don't know if the same business logic can work for a football club. Everyone always asks for stability and no changes on the pitch, so why isn't the same sought off the field? I suppose some could say the custodians have had stability for a long time and it hasn't delivered.

One thing I do know is that the club needs change and the money from the sales should be invested where possible, in changing the set up on and off the field. That said, with dwindling crowds over a few seasons including a relegation, a huge amount of the income will surely go towards making the balance sheet nicer reading.

On a lighter note, that little cat fight has made for enjoyable reading on a Sunday....

bruntonpete wrote:
I feel suitably qualified to answer this on Laffys behalf so here goes. Because theyre a shower of twots

Waterworks wrote:
If a player is sold without putting in a transfer request then the selling club have to pay them the remainder of their contract. Hence why when bigger players move it's often a battle to get them to put a request in purely to save the club money.

Didn't Joe Garner get a % of the fee we got from him ?

Also I'm sure Redknapp was on a deal where he got a % of the profit from any player sales, which was swiftly transfered to his dog's Swiss bank account !

DeckchairBlue wrote:
Are you sure about that?

Dancingbear wrote:
Danny Murphy said it on TalkSport the other week whilst the whole John Stones thing was going on.

Said that clubs will often put pressure on players to hand in transfer requests so they don't have to pay the, and so that the fans turn against the player rather than the club.

If a player is sold without putting a transfer request in why would their contract have to be paid up?
The player still has to agree to the transfer or no deal.
Usually that will be better terms, location,level or chance of playing more from the new club.

If a player is sold then he will either get a percentage of the fee he has moved for, or he will get signing on fees throughout his new contract every year.

If a player hands in a transfer request then he does not get his signing on fees that are due to him from that point.

If a player does not want to leave, sometimes the club will say "we want to sell you so we will give you some of the fee" this will hopefully persuade them to go.

Crangon_Crangon wrote:
It's probably nearer £750k and a lot of it will be in instalments from Blackpool & Huddersfield.

Keep enough to offset the usual deficit we have on crowds of 4300 and the rest could go to Jenkins. Doesn't leave a lot extra for team investment though.

If it is instalments from Blackpool for Potts, I wonder what the chances are of them actually paying it..?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mouldy wrote:
To be fair, AL and his fellow investors were never going to be running the club day-to-day. They were bringing in an MD with experience of running a club that gained promotion to the Premier League, that would've been working alongside PK and presumably SK as well... but that never happened as the AL deal was binned.

lummy8 wrote:
This is probably what Danny Murphy was referring to.

Out of interest, if a player hands in a transfer request, but then doesn't end up moving, so retracts it, do they still forfeit the signing on fees ?

And is it common for clubs to put pressure on players to hand in transfer requests, as he suggested, to get out of paying them ?

cocaineblues wrote:
If they don't pay it then the league will give them a transfer embargo.

DeckchairBlue wrote:
Does that make it any more likely that we'll get the cash though?!

chesterviabothel wrote:
Probably, the player involved also becomes ineligible for any games. That rule only came in this season, mainly as a result of Forest being late on payments to Peterborough for Assombalonga, meaning Peterborough couldn't buy in the January window.

I dont think the Oystons are skint though so i doubt theyd have signed him if they werent gonna cough up.

nobbyblue wrote:
Don't question him nobby, you'll be accused of being Steve Patt

It's definitely around the million mark. Possibly. Maybe. At a guess.

Oooohhhh - properly got to you yesterday didn't I my Nixon loving chum.

Crangon_Crangon wrote:
Haha your wasted on here you should take over from Roger Cook.

Dancingbear wrote:
Lol - more like Roger Mellie....

Ive never heard of the selling club paying up the rest of the players contract, not saying it doesn't happen but not something that makes sense to me.

Sometimes clubs have been known to say we don't want to sell, forcing the player to hand a request in knowing fine well they will benefit financially if the player does that.

To my knowledge a lot of players who get signing on fees are often paid in installments over the course of their contract.