Views from the Sieve

DI Mike Dashwood wrote:Mark, whether you like him or agree with him is one thing, but why would you insinuate that he doesn't have any business nous?? I would say there are a lot of arguments to suggest the opposite??

Not saying that at all.

Glenn now says he does not want a controlling interest 48%, that's fine with me and we obviously need investment and new ideas.

If all what he says is true, I have no objection. Get him onboard, one way or another it has to be sorted soon.

here here

Reg Varneys wife wrote:Glenn now says he does not want a controlling interest 48%, that's fine with me and we obviously need investment and new ideas.

If all what he says is true, I have no objection. Get him onboard, one way or another it has to be sorted soon.

He may not initially want a controlling interest but what is being put In place to ensure he, or anyone else aside from the members, cannot ever own a controlling interest.

Auntie Merge wrote:

Reg Varneys wife wrote:Glenn now says he does not want a controlling interest 48%, that's fine with me and we obviously need investment and new ideas.

If all what he says is true, I have no objection. Get him onboard, one way or another it has to be sorted soon.

He may not initially want a controlling interest but what is being put In place to ensure he, or anyone else aside from the members, cannot ever own a controlling interest.

The other shareholders- they decide whether to sell their shares to Tamplin, they're not forced to do it if he offers a good price. So if he turns out to be bad news, these other people just won't sell to him, you'd expect. You can't put something in to stop someone from having controlling interest because then if god forbid Tamplin or anyone else turns out to be good news, they aren't going to want to be pumping their money into something where they don't decide what happens to it. You have shares owned by people like the members club, Still etc. Because in the future you can trust them to make the right decision on who to sell their shares to.

Any examples of clubs that are rich men's play things turning out OK in the end?

(Wide boys done good not Arab/Russian billionaires).

Pie & Mash wrote:Any examples of clubs that are rich men's play things turning out OK in the end?

(Wide boys done good not Arab/Russian billionaires).

Fleetwood seem to be doing ok

They brought 20 fans when the came to us, despite being very near the top of the league - what long term future have they got - none - they will disappear as quickly as they arrived.

Pie & Mash wrote:Any examples of clubs that are rich men's play things turning out OK in the end?

(Wide boys done good not Arab/Russian billionaires).

Using the term "play things" automatically turns it into something about bad owners. There is nothing to conclusively say that this is a play thing for Tamplin. But clubs that were taken over and it came good- I don't know why Arab/Russians are excluded. Maybe because they prove the point best? I'm not a football historian but I'm sure there are loads more than this. But try Bournemouth before Russian Demin (include him too as he's doing great), Burton I believe, Wigan albeit a while a go, Forest Green are on the verge too. I think they are pretty good examples.

He's buying the club because he's bored. Sounds like a toy to me

NBDag wrote:

Auntie Merge wrote:

Reg Varneys wife wrote:Glenn now says he does not want a controlling interest 48%, that's fine with me and we obviously need investment and new ideas.

If all what he says is true, I have no objection. Get him onboard, one way or another it has to be sorted soon.

He may not initially want a controlling interest but what is being put In place to ensure he, or anyone else aside from the members, cannot ever own a controlling interest.

The other shareholders- they decide whether to sell their shares to Tamplin, they're not forced to do it if he offers a good price. So if he turns out to be bad news, these other people just won't sell to him, you'd expect. You can't put something in to stop someone from having controlling interest because then if god forbid Tamplin or anyone else turns out to be good news, they aren't going to want to be pumping their money into something where they don't decide what happens to it. You have shares owned by people like the members club, Still etc. Because in the future you can trust them to make the right decision on who to sell their shares to.

This is all very trusting. You can put it in the constitution about shareholders and shareholding. What is to stop Tamplin bringing in other 'shareholders' now, financing their purchase of their shares, so the shares they buy are already his in all but name and will revert to him once the sale has gone through. Nothing at all.

Pie & Mash wrote:Any examples of clubs that are rich men's play things turning out OK in the end?

(Wide boys done good not Arab/Russian billionaires).

Isn't the reality that many, if not most, football clubs are controlled by rich shareholders as their play things?

Pie & Mash wrote:Any examples of clubs that are rich men's play things turning out OK in the end?

(Wide boys done good not Arab/Russian billionaires).

Wigan seemed to do OK under Dave Whelan. Blackburn were OK for a while too.

I'd suggest like in many things you only tend to hear about the ownership of the disasters though. Everyone remembers the Titanic, but how many liners were crossing the Atlantic pre air travel?

We are surrounded by some classics though, Hornchurch being the biggy.

Pie & Mash wrote:He's buying the club because he's bored. Sounds like a toy to me

Fair enough, I can understand the thinking behind your concern. And I feel that his choice of the word bored is poor. I believe that what he means is that he wants a new challenge. His other business doesn't seem to need babysitting anymore, like most established businesses. So at the age of 40 or whatever he is, could you not understand him wanting a new challenge in his life? He is not old and I'm sure like most successful businessmen, he will believe that he still has a lot to offer to the world. That doesn't make this a toy, it makes it a project and an opportunity for him to prove to everyone what he can do. His choice of words are poor, but that doesn't necessarily mean his intentions or commitment is. Some are thinkers, some are speakers etc.

I love the references and comparisons in here - "successful businessman", comparing him to very successful men such as Dave Whelan etc. This is a man that has overseen the dissolution of at least three companies carrying a large amount of debt, and is currently the director of only one active (in terms of turnover, i.e. not dormant) company - AGP Steel Structures Limited - which as of its last accounts (30/9/15) had net assets of £183,454 and an implied profit for the year of approximately £90,000. He is absolutely nowhere near the same league as people such as Dave Whelan and I would be extremely hesitant, indeed reluctant, to use the phrase "successful businessman" when referring to him.