LFC Plc Announcement - Off the market!

[Longshanks]

If, as appears to be the case, the sale was held up by the bidders not having the clubs best interests at heart, I for one would like to thank whoever made that decision. Credit where it's due.

Perhaps the bidders had in mind a merger with Wasps

[MurphysLaw]

[quote=TigerBoy1880 post_id=738753 time=1584539667 user_id=24130]
[quote="sk 88" post_id=738750 time=1584537377 user_id=1793]
[quote=loretta post_id=738747 time=1584535463 user_id=9377]
If, as appears to be the case, the sale was held up by the bidders not having the clubs best interests at heart, I for one would like to thank whoever made that decision. Credit where it's due.
[/quote]

Or, as is far more likely it was not done because of the second half of their sentance where they say "and at a value attractive to shareholders".

Rumours elsewhere of a £40m offer, which would have seen a healthy profit for Mr.Scott (and all other shareholders), but it seems they wanted £60m which was not forth coming.
[/quote]

Well, as majority shareholders, that's their choice. If they want £60 million and no less, then that is entirely their right. If no one offered that amount, then you can't blame them for not accepting.
[/quote]

That is true, of course.
However, after trying and failing to cash in on the CVC cash injection in the hope of finding further investors , it does beg the question as to whether Messrs Scott and Tom have the appetite to further invest in the Club.

[Noggs]

Like many long standing members we are both shareholders.

Not sure what the payout would have been had we been sold for the valuation price but we are both happy for things to stay as they are.

[Dangerous4]

I do feel happy that we are no longer selling, BUT, is it viable in the long term? Personally I doubt it.

[strawclearer]

If, as appears to be the case, the sale was held up by the bidders not having the clubs best interests at heart, I for one would like to thank whoever made that decision. Credit where it's due.

I don't know but I'd guess...........Peter Tom.

[Bristol Tiger]

Gutted - I'd saved £60 to make an offer as well.

Given the uncertainty in the world, rugby and the markets (understatement in all three) it is a sensible decision. Doesn't mean the club won't be put back up for sale in a year or so's time. Let's hope we are a much more attractive proposition by then i.e. playing good rugby, winning games, and with increasing gates.

[wellstiger]

I think in the long term it may be a silver lining.
If it was because the bidders did not have the clubs interest at heart then the fans/supporters have dodged a bullet.
If it was because the cost was not met and a give a way offer was bid - then it would have been for financial profit and then a resale at a higher cost.

We are told we can survive for approx 10 yrs in the Prem on current funding
If we can build the playing squad and improve our standing within Europe competitions then that brings in more fans and TV profits and the clubs finance grows.
The I can see a sale of a commodity that will meet the required criteria.

[MurphysLaw]

[quote=wellstiger post_id=738770 time=1584600991 user_id=10493]
......
We are told we can survive for approx 10 yrs in the Prem on current funding
If we can build the playing squad and improve our standing within Europe competitions then that brings in more fans and TV profits and the clubs finance grows.
The I can see a sale of a commodity that will meet the required criteria.
[/quote]

This is the point though, isn't it?
I am not sure where your claim of survival for 10 years comes from, but even if that were true, is survival enough to improve our squad and our standing within Europe, when over recent years under the current Board, we have been palpably falling behind clubs in England, let alone Europe?
Consider why the Club was put up for sale in the first place. The Club was seeking fresh investment to take the Club forward. Without this we have the status quo, and imo, it is likely that the club will continue to struggle to keep pace with the better funded clubs - the likes of Bristol, Sale, and Exeter.
Having said all of that, of course, the current crisis has thrown a big spanner into everyone's works and the landscape might be different when it is all over.

[johnthegriff]

We have been assured on many occasions that we spend to the salary cap plus two marquee players so with the exception of the amount spent on those marquee players where is the evidence that the teams mentioned are better funded. I do not dispute that on recent seasons performance those teams have been more successful but I do not consider it due to funding levels. The Bears are spared a certain amount of costs as they share their stadium and ownership with Bristol City. Exeter are basically owned and funded by Southwest Communications under Tony Rowe and are the most expensive team in the Premiership to buy tickets from even exceeding Bath and Northampton. Sale do not own their own stadium and I wonder if current relative success mirrors their title winning year when having won they lacked the funds to retain their team and indeed their coach.
These recent troubled times are going to be a true test of a sustainable business, it will be very interesting to see which teams are actually still around when normality is resumed.
The sugar daddy system has seen Bath despite 20 plus years of professional rugby without an adequate ground or a trophy. Wasps move grounds three times and are now about 70 miles from traditional support and currently appear to b the most vulnerable team of the Premiership and of course we have seen what happens when a well meaning wealthy owner thinks he can do as he likes with his hobby club Saracens at their fourth ground in the professional era. In that same period out board under Peter Tom has seen us purchase our own ground, improving it and our training facilities beyond all recognition winning many trophies and thus far remained in the Premiership. There is still work to be done, things are not perfect and all decisions have not been correct as shown by our current position but there is no reason to suppose that we will not move forward from where we are now and eventually return to our former glories.

[MurphysLaw]

.... So why did the Board go through the (drawn out and presumably, not inexpensive) process of trying to sell?

[TomWeston]

.... So why did the Board go through the (drawn out and presumably, not inexpensive) process of trying to sell?

Perhaps because 1) Peter Tom ain’t getting any younger and 2) he probably looks at this MB.

[johnthegriff]

The CVC cash had changed circumstances and the Board explored what may be possible and if there could be a benefit to the club. It seems they have ascertained that at this moment there is nothing that will be of benefit, it maybe that the changes to the make-up of the Board signify a difference of opinion among them or it may of course could just be a way of introducing fresh thinking.

[Scott1]

Terrible news!

[Crofty]

I don't know if it is good news or not. I guess the idea outcome would to have found a buyer who shared the same vision etc. If it was £60M, divide by 18,000 (figure plucked from the air based on an approx ave attendance), then that is £3,333 each.

Me and the wife will put in £3,333 each - just 17,998 people left to find.

I like the spirt but bear in mind that none of that first £60M would go into the club's coffers, purchasers would need to put in further funds to have any tangible impact on the club. Not against the idea of fan ownership, but we might need to come up with something clever to make it really kick on...

[Tiglon]

Well they're hardly going to say "there were some bids from people who would have been great for the club, but we turned them all down because we wanted another £5m each so we could buy bigger yachts".

Try not to be quite so gullible...