Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 To be fair Sandy Alexander has backed the club financially more than anyone else and he has never sought to be on the board despite being the major shareholder. There should be no one on the board who has not invested in the club or can bring financial support. On the last point We have three Board members with no shares. The CE, KK and the Chairman. I don't have an issue with that as they bring more to the party than those who do have shares on there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokeville Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 What backing had SA given outside his initial share purchase? The pavilion at Stirling Uni which we gave up, the stand and his names on a step! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Just now, brokeville said: The Stand ? - that costs the club rental of over 50k/season 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, TheBigYa said: Part exchange... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41002813 We'll get hee haw as per. I don't think we've ever benefited as well as we should from having add-ons as part of player sales. Kingsley will be the first to actually be sold on. By the time this deal is done we will have had thick end of £1m for him in total. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokeville Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 The Stand ? - that costs the club rental of over 50k/season We wouldn't have it without SA so if that's not investment what is? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 We wouldn't have it without SA so if that's not investment what is? We could have a mortgage on it for half the annualCost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knee jerk reaction Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 will he make a profit on the south stand then? I don't know the financial comings and goings at the club but compare someone made a huge investment (like the stand) but then got money back with fans with much less money putting money in the bairns for life or something similar not looking to get anything back just purely to help the club, what's better? if I was ever in the position of having a few million spare to build a stand, I'd like to think I'd be willing to take a loss even if I wanted most of it back! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokeville Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 We could have a mortgage on it for half the annualCost I was only answering the question on what has SA invested apart from his shares. The question of finances I will leave well alone. Perhaps AT will answer these for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, TheBigYa said: Part exchange... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41002813 We'll get hee haw as per. I don't think we've ever benefited as well as we should from having add-ons as part of player sales. 1 hour ago, Back Post Misses said: Two fees we have got money from this 1 hour ago, BountyBairn said: This been confirmed anywhere bud? Not that it matters much as it won't go on the team anyway! I believe that Clucas has already signed for Swansea and that Kinglsey is due a medical tomorrow. I don't think then that he would be the makeweight in any deal as, in the event that he failed the medical and Hull rejected him, Swansea would be £3m or so down would they not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I believe that Clucas has already signed for Swansea and that Kinglsey is due a medical tomorrow. I don't think then that he would be the makeweight in any deal as, in the event that he failed the medical and Hull rejected him, Swansea would be £3m or so down would they not? Kingsley's agent will be ensuring that two fees are involved. We will be in for a few quid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 That's it confirmed as an undisclosed fee. Shame the current squad won't see any improvement before a new stand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Fitzgerald Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 We could have a mortgage on it for half the annualCost Well if it was simple as that why didn't they do that instead then? Can't believe folk are having a go at Sandy Alexander for using his own money to buy a stand for the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANEWHOPE Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Seen it on a Falkirk Twitter feed that the fee we will receive around £300k. If it was Falkirk Business account I would call bullshit but wonder if that likely to be accurate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kircer bairn Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 53 minutes ago, gav-ffc said: That's it confirmed as an undisclosed fee. Shame the current squad won't see any improvement before a new stand. The following is an extract from a Swans fans site so can't verify if the figs being quoted are accurate but it dies back up the assertion earlier from Back Post Misses: Expected better things of him after such a promising start to his Premier League career when we won 2-1 at Arsenal - a game in which I thought he was excellent. Sadly I don't think he ever fulfilled his true potential with us. Mind you, given that we only spent £350,000 (with a £500k add-on clause if sold-on for Falkirk I believe) for him, so if the figures quoted are to be believed then the club has made a profit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Well if it was simple as that why didn't they do that instead then? Can't believe folk are having a go at Sandy Alexander for using his own money to buy a stand for the club. Oh the great Sandy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Fitzgerald Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Oh the great Sandy Answer my question, why didn't the club take out a mortgage half the cost of a soft loan if it was an option for them? This is coming across as sour grapes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Back Post Misses said: We could have a mortgage on it for half the annual Cost Explain to me how that would work. Why would any conventional funder lend money against a property when they can't exercise their security if we default? We have no other security to offer. Building the stand is not something we could debt fund, and nor is it conventional equity risk. SA provided the club with a much-needed asset that it otherwise couldn't afford, and providing him with what seems to me a modest return (any idea how much the SS cost to build? I would assume we're talking 7 figures) rather than just spunking the money - but he's taking credit risk on us as a fan. Similarly his share "investment" - or the other board members for that matter - do you think they'll ever actually see a return on that? It's a contribution, nothing more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANEWHOPE Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Oh the great Sandy Don't know the inns & outs of it all but was there a possibility of building the stand without his involvement? If there was it seems a strange business decision but with this lot it wouldn't surprise me tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Explain to me how that would work. Why would any conventional funder lend money against a property when they can't exercise their security if we default? We have no other security to offer. Building the stand is not something we could debt fund, and nor is it conventional equity risk. SA provided the club with a much-needed asset that it otherwise couldn't afford, and providing him with what seems to me a modest return (any idea how much the SS cost to build? I would assume we're talking 7 figures) rather than just spunking the money - but he's taking credit risk on us as a fan. Similarly his share "investment" - or the other board members for that matter - do you think they'll ever actually see a return on that? It's a contribution, nothing more. If someone signed a PG they could easily borrow the cash. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Don't know the inns & outs of it all but was there a possibility of building the stand without his involvement? If there was it seems a strange business decision but with this lot it wouldn't surprise me tho. It is not just about the SS.Where we are is no coincidence IMO. He and Ritchie are the best of buddies and make all the meaningful decisions at the club. They are not investing and are not going to. They are the brainchild of the Pressley experiment which merely sold players to survive not to prosper. It will get to a stage soon where it will hardly worthwhile going to see the team as all we do is sell to survive. The Kingsley money will have filled part of the gap. I think something else will have to happen before the end of the window to fill the whole gap. I hope I am wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.