Jump to content

Handsome_Devil

Gold Members
  • Posts

    2,329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Handsome_Devil

  1. It would be but even then you've no idea what we're worth in six years. The value of our club is much more dependent on general rather than specific details...if we're relegated we're worth much less. Alternatively, we finally get a proper TV deal, proper collective marketing, maybe there's more through UEFA and we're worth a lot more even if we've done f**k all beyond finishing 10th for the next half decade.
  2. I believe the suggestion was it'd be newly issued shares with the money going into the club 'for investment'. Someone at the AGM could confirm? It's a fair question to ask whether the Society is better selling shares instead... it would mean less cash directly to spend but it would mean the fund is boosted for when it all goes wrong. Another question to ask eventually is what we're worth. Football clubs are incredibly hard to value but fortunately someone just agreed £6m for 25% for Hibs to give a first number for the back of an envelope - £24m. Very roughly, Hibs have turnover around twice ours and a net asset value roughly four and a bit times greater. Theirs is currently just over £23m...is that a fair value for the club? Yes and no... it's what you'd get in theory if you shut down tomorrow but selling those assets will be incredibly difficult and has no little reflection on potential future revenue. So within those various dubious parameters, we're worth at at an absolute minimum £6m (and I'd say that's unrealistic) with an absolutely top value around £12m (also dubious). If someone is offering a top offer of £2m over six years we shouldn't even be wasting time sending an email telling them to f**k off. That's so ridiculous I doubt it's true tbh. And the next consideration is again what's in it for them? If we're asking £3-4m for 51%, do we trust their business plan aiming for 10% ROI, or are we selling our future to a bunch of charlatans? Which would bring me back to to the everyone's a winner fantasy deal. If the local heroes stumped up a million for 15% of preferred shares with the commitment of soft low interest loans to bridge gaps, I have little doubt the Society would remain on the board and offer input, some red lines relating to bigger loans and the stadium, and fan engagement fund-raising but would happily leave the day to day to these guys. Who can then run the club and claim the dividends for having risked less of their own cash. Optimistic? Incredibly. But it's better holding out for that rare deal that we trust and we're happy with than taking a shit offer because Weir and McMahon don't recognise themselves in the new Society board.
  3. In principle you're completely right but you've no way of knowing who's happy with this, who's annoyed...if there are a couple of local boys (and Anderson is clearly a fan - he posts the sort of shite on twitter we all ramble on here) interested, it doesn't hurt their cause for it to leak a little, there will be a natural preference for their deal compared to a random.
  4. They'll absolutely have their reasons but I think the chance of getting a comically good, trustworthy offer to justify giving up control is absolutely tiny. Compared to the definite risk of floating along without direction not it's worth doing, we've basically bought a lottery ticket with a very high opportunity cost. It should only takes a brief glance at the numbers for anyone to be incredibly sceptical of outside investment. I find the notion we'll be better off with an investor taking money out the club ridiculous tbh and their other route to profit, through capital gains, only marginally less so.
  5. I've managed to muddle the double quote thing, apologies @welldaft but I think it's not great because we're now going to spend more months without a CEO or direction to then probably reject the offer. We'd be much better reinvigorating the Society, sorting the club leadership etc and taking it from there...all of that will inevitably be stalled when we negotiate a deal I imagine the majority of Society members will promptly laugh off anyway.
  6. To be fair...they were the ones who put out such woolly wording basically inviting people to listen to any offers. So I'd be surprised if they're too disappointed. What concerns me most is that: 1) we're now going to spend time dealing with people who want to take control rather than be a partner. That's just the wrong priority. 2) our negotiating position to outsiders is weakened as it's now much harder to say to potential investors you need to take a back seat. They will quite rightly ask why when the fans said they're open to it. 3) if the proposal to give up control is rejected, what have we sacrificed in the meantime with no CEO, direction etc. So while I do understand the result to an extent...not great.
  7. Ah fair enough then. For whatever reason there's an aura about some players that definitely impacts the perception of them and how the crowd reacts. Even when he was playing well last season, Butcher was good for one howling error in most games - but it came out the blue and when he's otherwise solid it's easy to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially when he made a largely winning start. Bevis on the other hand might make the same one howler a game but everyone goes to the guy next to them 'that's been coming'. Whether it's confidence , technique (lack of, in both cases), I've no idea but it's definitely something. A slow start and being pitched in to the collapse of the Robinson reign obviously didn't help first impressions either.
  8. I'd probably take that deal if possible tbh, my thoughts so far had only been on those ooc. Because as much as you can make a case for most individually, renewing all of them and having basically the same unit that's a disaster isn't viable. That's one of these comments that makes me wonder if I'm reading the same forum... has there not been near universal consensus Casey has been shite this season? I think the debate around the four is obviously just more intense because when ooc they're the easier parts to change. If Mugabi has to go despite being better than Blaney (definitely) and Casey (if only on form) to make space for the upgrade we all agree we need because he can be moved on and the others can't, that's just the harsh reality of things on our budget.
  9. I think so too...he showed when he came in the wasn't afraid to exile folk but while SOD understandably lost out to Johnston, he came off the bench for weeks. I'd also be offering Slattery another couple of years...it'd surely be hard for him to sign elsewhere before fully recovered.
  10. On a similar-ish topic, my idle mind was wandering to all those strikers we failed to get in January and while there's plenty of time for them to come good/get fit/have been unlucky etc we don't appear to have missed out on much yet. Stewart, KVV, Main and the Sunderland Guy at Hibs haven't scored yet and while Nouble got two in the cup but little in the league since deadline day. Doidge might be playing brilliantly but has one in six at Forest Green. May is still bit-part at St J and Brophy, in from the cold at county, is arguably the only one in any form.
  11. Interesting... I'd say Bevis is a walking liability and even on his good days an error is never far away. SOD has improved again out wide but I like the fact he can play rcb too...we need two out of the back three to be able to pass if that's going to work and finding those guys at the level is hard.
  12. I'm to and fro on who I'd bin from our defence...I'd definitely not renew Butcher and as likeable as he is I'd punt Bevis. I'd tend to keep McGinn, despite his recent wobble, and would renew SOD if he takes lower terms.
  13. Now that leading them to Europe is gone, I imagine he'll chuck it (mentally if not literally, how would you tell ho ho etc) if they lose in the cup. He's certainly not going to go if he's only a couple of games from a major final even if it unlikely. I still find it hard to believe Aberdeen won't scramble the points to be comfortably safe eventually but with each passing game you just begin to wonder.
  14. There's no doubt changes he's made - whether enforced or epiphanies - have helped win folk round regardless of results - which while back to ok-ish are still far from amazing. The utter refusal to play a left-footed lwb for months, use the six he himself had signed, having no idea how to use Wilkinson who he signed etc suggested fundamental problems rather than short-term quirks. Had we scrambled a draw at St Mirren and beat Livingston without addressing those, the potential redemption arc would not be swinging nearly so much.
  15. That's obviously stinking but ultimately it's a totally arbitrary number to base the judgement on. It's worth no more than cherry-picking the recent record and saying we barely lose outwith the OF aren't we great. What I think it does definitely highlight though is the fact we are, in principle, desperate not to sack anyone until we have no choice. Which is based less on results but more attitude of the squad. Hammell survived till the players chucked it, so did Alexander basically, downing tools and a dressing room barny at Morton did for Baraclough, Robinson and McCall volunteered to go (having previously been talked out of it) and in between McGhee went due to the 7-2/1-5 losses (which pre-MFCTV I didn't see but you need to imagine there was some withdrawal of labour to explain those). Over many years, we generally much say that so long as the players are on board, the devil we know is better than an expensive gamble that may not work out. Which when you look around elsewhere, is pretty hard to argue with.
  16. Financially it'd be amazing to make the top six but given we won't have a prayer of fifth, it'd be much more enjoyable sporting-wise to to take seven points from the next five and chase seventh. The bottom six, when you're safe with a semi-entertaining team, is great.
  17. This is one of the points that made me flip on him once we backed him...if we have a 17-year-old breaking into the team, literally everyone would expect him to be up and down, make mistakes, have poor spells etc but learn from them as part of the process. Is the manager fundamentally any different? We've seen for a fact all around the league that changing manager all the time has little positive impact. If we're trying to be different and find an edge, why not try letting a manager learn and develop for three-five years? There's a potential big reward and little risk - with the caveat the players back him through rough spells, as they visibly did in this case.
  18. Casey was shit there but it is notable that Miller's needless giveaway has barely been acknowledged...that one wasn't a one-man show by any means. Also interesting that Kettlewell, unprompted, sung his praises individually again post-match. You wonder if the decision has been made that summer is the best time to cash in risk/reward wise. He's fresh, playing well, two years on his contract...he might be even better next season but if he hits a slump (not unexpected in the development of a youth ofc) before sales time and has only one year left, his value could be less...
  19. It's certainly looking better than it was...but I'd say that signing two guys always injured was a stupid waste of resources and while it's great to see projects work out, if you say Davor, Bair and Gent only got going from mid-December, our being dismal without them early is what got us stuck firmly in a relegation battle. I'm hopeful he'll do better for sure and certainly when you see guys develop there's more reason to think he will...but essentially, if we're in a relegation battle come November and five more folk have contributed f**k all to that point, I think he'll be in bother.
  20. January is an odd one. He did much better, for sure, but then he generally signed more established folk. Devine was young obviously but you know what we'd get from Halliday and Nicholson, Vale has his Championship games behind him, we'd seen Montgomery etc. That's great but not necessarily the market we'll be in again in summer... he urgently needs to improve his success rate among 'punts'. As for the defence, it is a remarkable quirk that we've got so many (converted) CBs that SK hasn't signed one for us yet. The rumour we've gone for that Livingston boy does not install confidence.
  21. I really like Vale and like Gent would keep him if we can. He's under contract for another year though so doubtful. What I think will hold him back is that there are very few positions you would trust him in with modern formations. You wouldn't play him as a solo nine, he's not a winger...an old inside forward in a lopsided 4-3-3? Maybe. Not a 10. And what we've seen with various folk recently is forwards who can only play in a two have a low ceiling. But for us in our *gestures* 'that' he has quite a natural berth as a 'something' between the midfield and Bair though even then I'd still say for the moment he's better of the bench.
  22. Excellent second half, balls and quality on display in equal measure. Thoroughly deserved win in the end. The first half was not as bad as some on here claimed, though I appreciate a meh 45 after booting it into your own net is hard to defend. But the tide had been turned before the break and adding Vale up top basically meant Livingston couldn't cope with us. Fair play to SK, he rarely gets these things right but spot on there... though Vale made such a difference you can actually ask why he didn't start Virtually everyone would have taken four points from the last four and we have a gap to the bottom two and a free hit on Saturday. Had we not blown the cup...but anyway, spilt milk under the bridge, we have a shot to nothing on Saturday and then a breather before four games which give us the chance to approach safety pre-split. Crisis, what crisis?
  23. I'd assume they're injured...but if not, it's possible he looked at a good performance v county followed by shite in Morton and decided a couple of fresh legs needed this time. Tbh as grim a watch as it's been, we've not been massively worse than them. But when you combine for two hideous errors to gift the lead as we did, being only on par for the rest of an attritional half doesn't really cut it.
×
×
  • Create New...