Dundee United 2019/2020

[invergowrie arab]

I guess it all depends.

The conversation might have been " we will give you a soft loan of 150k but having a fiduciary duty as directors of the company we require a bag of balls as security"

Or

" We will give you the money but let's be honest you are fly by night chancers looking to turn a quick buck, we are true fans and require a 10% stake in the club"

 

[Ray Patterson]

Tbh the DUSF was formed to try and buy out Thompson/save the club should it need saved. Based off what you see on FB some of the folk involved in the Foundation seem to think a bit above their station. 

Not good for the Ogren's to air the disdain for them in the open, but I wouldn't be surprised if they deserved it.

[Aladdin]

Theres been problems with supporters groups and the board, whoever's been on it, for years.

There's too many supporters groups connected with United. None of them have been able to paint themselves as a single credible, unifying organisation. Between all of them, theres probably enough individuals to form one decent, competent supporters trust.

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, mishtergrolsch said:

Was the Supporters Group set up to gift the club the money or loan the club the money? 

I always assumed it was to give the club money when it was needed as a donation. Ogren seems to be hinting at some sort of minor power grab by the supporters group which really is a bit cheeky considering all hes done for the club.

 

47 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

I guess it all depends.

The conversation might have been " we will give you a soft loan of 150k but having a fiduciary duty as directors of the company we require a bag of balls as security"

Or

" We will give you the money but let's be honest you are fly by night chancers looking to turn a quick buck, we are true fans and require a 10% stake in the club"

 

If mistergrolsch is correct, and I think he may be, then they have no fiduciary duty to require security.

[invergowrie arab]

8 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

 

If mistergrolsch is correct, and I think he may be, then they have no fiduciary duty to require security.

It was never set up to "gift" the club money. That would be mental.

They always said that they would expect control over how that money was spent. They are a bit coy about explicitly saying they want shares but say it's one way control could be exercised that's how Foundtion of Hearts did it. 

If they want to hand over money for nothing whilst the board take the piss by offering associate directorships they could all have  just joined Arabtrust. 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by invergowrie arab

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

It was never set up to "gift" the club money. That would be mental.

They always said that they would expect control over how that money was spent. They are a bit coy about explicitly saying they want shares but say it's one way control could be exercised that's how Foundtion of Hearts did it. 

 

There’s plenty of examples of supporters’ groups gifting money to clubs.  Nothing mental about it.

[invergowrie arab]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

There’s plenty of examples of supporters’ groups gifting money to clubs.  Nothing mental about it.

5 grand for youth kits maybe. Not six figure sums 

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

5 grand for youth kits maybe. Not six figure sums 

Same principle, different amounts.  They could take it back to their members, the folk who actually put the money in.

[stumigoo]

If it was a gift, like the money they handed over for help with disabled access inside Tannadice, that would be fairly standard. This was for the entire amount that the Foundation has raised so far, which is why they would not gift the club that amount without some kind of security against it.

[Pull My Strings]

33 minutes ago, stumigoo said:

If it was a gift, like the money they handed over for help with disabled access inside Tannadice, that would be fairly standard. This was for the entire amount that the Foundation has raised so far, which is why they would not gift the club that amount without some kind of security against it.

Why would they get security for a gift?

[invergowrie arab]

33 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Same principle, different amounts.  They could take it back to their members, the folk who actually put the money in.

They were developing a proposal to take back to members as their statement above clearly states.

[stumigoo]

Just now, Pull My Strings said:

Why would they get security for a gift?

Because, as I think they might explain later in their statement, they didn't want to 'gift' an entire balance in the way they have gifted money in the past for smaller projects and donations. 

There are issues on both sides here, the Foundation have been in discussion with the club for a long time without really making significant progress and they have never balloted members on potential proposals. They contacted the club when this all kicked off and probably said - "look you can have all the money we have if you need it but we need security against it because rinsing out the entire fund in one go is very dramatic and we haven't balloted members on this". Now, what they should have done a few weeks ago was probably put a vote out to members to ask if members would be willing to release the entire fund in one go as a matter of an emergency, but they haven't done that which is why this has all happened out of the blue and taken members and fans by surprise (and could tarnish the whole thing). By United releasing it publicly it puts the Foundation on the back foot and they probably feel a bit bullied by the club for releasing information about private discussions.

Rightly or wrongly they probably didn't want their bank account emptied in one go without the prospect of getting some of it/all of it back from the club so that they could, in the future, be involved with other projects at the club without having to start from scratch.

I'm not defending the Foundation here, or the club, I can see blame on both. Either way though, none of it really matters unless we get this current situation sorted and we know where we are playing football next season.

[arab_joe]

14 hours ago, Pull My Strings said:

Perhaps because the amount of money being offered is utterly inconsequential compared to the value of the asset to be secured. Perhaps the idea was sold as a gift to the club rather than a loan. Perhaps because the Ogrens have poured a shitload of money into club in the form of soft loans and find it cheeky as f**k when a supporters group want to take a security which would see them rank as preferred creditors ahead of the Ogrens. Perhaps the individuals involved were just cheeky c***s and the Ogrens didn't like them. Perhaps the individuals involved are perfectly sound but have offended Mark Ogren for some reason in their communications. Nae idea. Thus far though on every important metric the Ogrens have been great for United. Happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, if any doubt exists.

If that is the case (and, to be clear, I know you're not saying it is), then that is a very disappointing response from the Ogrens.  Just because the Ogren family has poured a lot of money into the football club, apparently without the expectation of any return, does not mean that anyone else (including DUSF) should do so.  If I were a member of DUSF I would feel very uncomfortable giving totally unsecured loans - and it would be very unusual for any loan to be given that would rank below a soft loan to the company owner.

Have they?  They have upped our wage bill to a completely unsustainable level.  Even before this virus we were hemorrhaging cash.  Which is all very well if they have the funding behind them, but now that we have hit a bump in the road (albeit a massive, unforeseeable one) they seem to be panicking.

4 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

The conversation might have been " we will give you a soft loan of 150k but having a fiduciary duty as directors of the company we require a bag of balls as security"

Or

" We will give you the money but let's be honest you are fly by night chancers looking to turn a quick buck, we are true fans and require a 10% stake in the club"

Both fine statements, in my eyes!

[Pull My Strings]

3 hours ago, stumigoo said:

Because, as I think they might explain later in their statement, they didn't want to 'gift' an entire balance in the way they have gifted money in the past for smaller projects and donations. 

 

If they want a security then it's not a gift. 

[stumigoo]

If they want a security then it's not a gift. 

Okay so it’s not a gift.

[Pull My Strings]

11 minutes ago, arab_joe said:

If that is the case (and, to be clear, I know you're not saying it is), then that is a very disappointing response from the Ogrens.  Just because the Ogren family has poured a lot of money into the football club, apparently without the expectation of any return, does not mean that anyone else (including DUSF) should do so.  If I were a member of DUSF I would feel very uncomfortable giving totally unsecured loans - and it would be very unusual for any loan to be given that would rank below a soft loan to the company owner.

 

What do you mean by "soft loan"? It's a term that gets bandied about with various implied meanings. To be clear, the Ogrens will have made substantial loans to the Company with every right to demand repayment along with all other ordinary creditors. Anybody else coming in will sit alongside them in the event of an insolvent liquidation. That's perfectly fair and normal. What DUSF were asking for in requesting a security is the right to rank ahead of them. You'd have to be mental or desperate to agree to that. Clearly the Ogrens are neither.

Your bit in bold is simply wrong.

[CaspianChris]

Null and void should simply be declared to put an end to the farce that season 19/20 has now become.

Edited April 15, 2020 by CaspianChris

[arab_joe]

13 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

What do you mean by "soft loan"? It's a term that gets bandied about with various implied meanings. To be clear, the Ogrens will have made substantial loans to the Company with every right to demand repayment along with all other ordinary creditors. Anybody else coming in will sit alongside them in the event of an insolvent liquidation. That's perfectly fair and normal. What DUSF were asking for in requesting a security is the right to rank ahead of them. You'd have to be mental or desperate to agree to that. Clearly the Ogrens are neither.

Your bit in bold is simply wrong.

I obviously don't know the ins and outs of the relationship between Ogren and DUFC but would guess that any loans that the Ogren family have made to DUFC would be "soft loans" - in the sense that they are relatively informal, low interest rates, unsecured etc.  

In my experience, any lender giving a second loan in these circumstances (especially where the first loan is from the owner) is going to insist that they rank ahead of the original loan - no lender is going to be comfortable pouring money into a company that is desperate if they are not going to get paid first if things go belly-up.  I was merely opining that such a standpoint is not cheeky - it is sensible.

I hope that you're correct and that the Ogrens are not desperate.

[Granny Danger]

16 minutes ago, arab_joe said:

I obviously don't know the ins and outs of the relationship between Ogren and DUFC but would guess that any loans that the Ogren family have made to DUFC would be "soft loans" - in the sense that they are relatively informal, low interest rates, unsecured etc.  

In my experience, any lender giving a second loan in these circumstances (especially where the first loan is from the owner) is going to insist that they rank ahead of the original loan - no lender is going to be comfortable pouring money into a company that is desperate if they are not going to get paid first if things go belly-up.  I was merely opining that such a standpoint is not cheeky - it is sensible.

I hope that you're correct and that the Ogrens are not desperate.

That might make some sense if this was a purely commercial transaction, it’s not.  It’s a way for a supporters’ organisation to funnel funds into a club using money raised from supporters of that club.

[arab_joe]

12 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

That might make some sense if this was a purely commercial transaction, it’s not.  It’s a way for a supporters’ organisation to funnel funds into a club using money raised from supporters of that club.

You're absolutely right; and the fact that my experience is limited to purely commercial transactions means that I may well be completely wrong on this.  My main point remains - let's hope that our finances are not as bad as they sound from that statement...