wanderlust wrote:Load of tosh but I will hold my hand up - like you I have no idea whatsoever how much or how little the Ordinary A shareholders have invested in the club.
Although if you are to be believed we can assume that Nick Luckock was handed a bunch of shares for free. Fortunately I've never had to take out a loan other than a mortgage when I bought my first property but if I ever did I'd be sure to give the lender shares in my business instead of a charge over the assets. Not.
And like you I have absolutely zero knowledge how the club is financing the contracts, how much they are worth or of any caveats that may or may not be contained therein.
Like you, I don't know the P&L, cashflow or current balance.
Fact is you know absolutely sweet fuck all about it but it won't stop you pontificating will it?
Well fwiw, I will take my right to reply which is as follows.
I have absolutely no idea why you think that I've somehow intimated that Luckock was given free shares in the club???
I've certain not said that or even suggested it.
Secondly have you never watched Dragons Den, as the whole basis of the show is to trade an agreed percentage of the ownership of the 'pitchers' business in return for inwards investment from the dragons.
That's what investors do, they invest.
Some investments being safer than others.
Lenders however loan money against security of the business, they eliminate their risk.
That's what Sharon, James and Luckock have done.
The biggest difference being that if the business goes into Administration then the shares of that company are immediately worthless - in other words investors have lost their money they had as shareholders and potentially some or all of any unsecured monies they have put into the club.
However if you've loaned against the security of an asset, you will be first in the queue to get your money back!
Therefore Sharon, James and Luckock haven't 'invested' in the club, (well they have in terms of holding shares, they've simply loaned the club money which is secured against the hotel, land, stadium, etc, thus knowing that no matter what they are the first in line to get their money back if all else fails from that security.
I also don't need to know about the clubs contracts to players as it is self evident that your assertion that we couldn't afford to keep Arthur Gnahoua because we didn't have the money to pay his wages next season is obviously ridiculous considering we've since brought in at least FIVE new signings since he was released.
Perhaps "Bob" should be asking his friend where Morecambe are getting all their money from given that they've just signed Gnouah who we couldn't afford to keep?
Or is that just spinning it back?
Does anyone believe Arthur was on more than the combined wages of Johnson, John, Aimson, Sheehan and Dapo???
Clearly he wasn't!
I don't need to know the details of the clubs finances to know the difference between share investment and secured loans nor that one fringe player wasn't being paid more in wages than the combined wages of five new players, two or more who are certainly intended to be first team starters.
wanderlust wrote:And the answer is a broad base of investors who are effectively betting on BWFC succeeding.
At some point the business will have to wash it's face.
And as for pontificating, you are the one who spouted off about "broad base of investors" and the club being unable to fund the wages of Gnahoua, I merely pointed out how ridiculous your claims were!