|
Post by tarporleyblue on Jan 18, 2024 14:20:14 GMT 1
I would tend to believe in this as James Hughes is a very recent director at the club..so has Roland got the best interest for the club at heart NO he hasn't... Q. why hasn't he then sold. Answers or guesses please ! I will go for Roland's ego and covering his own incompetence over the last few years which would become apparent in a takeover Be careful out there, in the world of the internet just because someone says they are James Hughes doesn't mean they are. A big red flag is this account being set up, one tweet, and then closed. Scammers succeed because people want to believe what they say. Indeed, all stuff and nonsense which will always draw people in...
|
|
|
Post by tarporleyblue on Jan 18, 2024 14:21:42 GMT 1
I've heard this is very much true too from many sources. So if it is very much true then name your sources!
|
|
|
Post by floreatsalopia1 on Jan 18, 2024 14:23:34 GMT 1
I've heard this is very much true too from many sources. So if it is very much true then name your sources! Who names sources?!!
|
|
|
Post by floreatsalopia1 on Jan 18, 2024 14:25:24 GMT 1
Something along the lines that RW rejected £11m for himself along with £30m guaranteed investment for the club. I don't believe that for a second, absolutely no chance, he'd have ripped their hands off. The only way he would have rejected that is if it was patently obvious they hadn't got £41M and intended to put the club into serious hock to try to finance it. That Sir is just a total guess and absolutely rubbish 🗑
|
|
|
Post by Bordershrew on Jan 18, 2024 14:26:49 GMT 1
That tweet was from James Hughes and it is true.
Obviously we don’t know the full detail they’ll be more to it of course.
|
|
|
Post by tarporleyblue on Jan 18, 2024 14:28:26 GMT 1
So if it is very much true then name your sources! Who names sources?!! Of course said poster wont because it's all hogwash! People pretending to be in the know when really they haven't got the foggiest of what's going on, or not behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jan 18, 2024 14:41:17 GMT 1
That tweet was from James Hughes and it is true. Obviously we don’t know the full detail they’ll be more to it of course. funny how someone like the club post a statement on their site and people label it as lies And then a quick anonymous account knocked up , rumour posted and then the whole thing deleted And here some are taking this utterly cowardly act as gospel if that was JH and you know it was , tell himto pop it on his website , or Facebook , or meet me and I'll relay it I won't hold my breath though
|
|
|
Post by ProudSalopian on Jan 18, 2024 14:48:44 GMT 1
funny how someone like the club post a statement on their site and people label it as lies And then a quickly account knocked up , rumour posted and then the whole thing deleted And here some are taking this utterly cowardly act as gospel if that was JH and you know it was , tell himto pop it on his website , or Facebook , or meet me and I'll relay it I won't hold my breath though I'm still very sceptical that it's him. Out of interest though, why is him positing on Twitter cowardly? You've said yourself you have been told things from people at the club which we are then expected to believe as gospel. What is the difference? Arguably, his is more 'brave' as at least he's putting his name to it, rather than revealing things secretly
|
|
|
Post by Bordershrew on Jan 18, 2024 14:53:51 GMT 1
That tweet was from James Hughes and it is true. Obviously we don’t know the full detail they’ll be more to it of course. funny how someone like the club post a statement on their site and people label it as lies And then a quickly account knocked up , rumour posted and then the whole thing deleted And here some are taking this utterly cowardly act as gospel if that was JH and you know it was , tell himto pop it on his website , or Facebook , or meet me and I'll relay it I won't hold my breath though What have I labelled the club as lying about? Only think I can think is we’re still waiting on the further clarity on what happened end of season which would “all become clear in the coming weeks and months” That tweet was James Hughes and that’s what he believes the case is, he deleted it swiftly (rightly so) as well as that not the right way air such matters. As I said there’s obviously another side to the story that we don’t know, because I can’t see RW turning that down.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jan 18, 2024 15:02:19 GMT 1
funny how someone like the club post a statement on their site and people label it as lies And then a quickly account knocked up , rumour posted and then the whole thing deleted And here some are taking this utterly cowardly act as gospel if that was JH and you know it was , tell himto pop it on his website , or Facebook , or meet me and I'll relay it I won't hold my breath though What have I labelled the club as lying about? Only think I can think is we’re still waiting on the further clarity on what happened end of season which would “all become clear in the coming weeks and months” That tweet was James Hughes and that’s what he believes the case is, he deleted it swiftly (rightly so) as well as that not the right way air such matters. As I said there’s obviously another side to the story that we don’t know, because I can’t see RW turning that down. seeing as you've just repeated your last post , take mine as repeated too
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jan 18, 2024 15:05:01 GMT 1
funny how someone like the club post a statement on their site and people label it as lies And then a quickly account knocked up , rumour posted and then the whole thing deleted And here some are taking this utterly cowardly act as gospel if that was JH and you know it was , tell himto pop it on his website , or Facebook , or meet me and I'll relay it I won't hold my breath though What have I labelled the club as lying about? Only think I can think is we’re still waiting on the further clarity on what happened end of season which would “all become clear in the coming weeks and months” That tweet was James Hughes and that’s what he believes the case is, he deleted it swiftly (rightly so) as well as that not the right way air such matters. As I said there’s obviously another side to the story that we don’t know, because I can’t see RW turning that down. "He deleted it quickly as not the right thing to do".. makes no sense. He's always come across as honourable chap, not a back stabber. Maybe if true we're better of without him...It's a load of B
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Jan 18, 2024 15:32:29 GMT 1
Be careful out there, in the world of the internet just because someone says they are James Hughes doesn't mean they are. A big red flag is this account being set up, one tweet, and then closed. Scammers succeed because people want to believe what they say. Indeed, all stuff and nonsense which will always draw people in... Seems straightforward to me - if it is not James Hughes it is just gossip, if it is James Hughes then....... it is just gossip...... he has been out for so long he would not be involved personally and relying on rumour like everyone else
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 18, 2024 16:04:56 GMT 1
The only way he would have rejected that is if it was patently obvious they hadn't got £41M and intended to put the club into serious hock to try to finance it. That Sir is just a total guess and absolutely rubbish 🗑 Funny how my take on the matter is a total guess and absolute rubbish yet some fly by night posts what you want to hear and is taken as gospel?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 18, 2024 16:34:23 GMT 1
Bit of rational thinking is called for. Working backwards:
1. Is it really likely to be ex-director James Hughes tweeting himself, with a troll farm-like moniker for an account he set up and deleted on the same day, and posting something that would make him appear more like an angry fan on the Verdict after another dismal defeat?
- No, it isn't at all likely. And in the unlikely event it was him, that's pretty un-businesslike behaviour, to say the least.
2. Would Wycherley (82) really be likely to turn down £11.5m for his shareholding in a loss making company that we're told he's having to support financially?
- No, that isn't at all likely either.
3. What nobody seems to have questioned is how likely it is that anyone in their right mind would offer in the region of perhaps £15m for STFC (Wycherley doesn't own all the shares remember, so the minority shareholders might be entitled or required to sell their shares at the same time)?
- I know football's a special (ie stupid) case but you'd have to have money to burn (or an ulterior motive) to pay so much. Reminder - the club's June 2022 accounts showed it to have lost £2.5m in the previous 3 years, with an annual turnover some way short of £6m. In addition, 95% of the net value in its balance sheet (ie assets minus liabilities) was represented by the value of its freehold property - the stadium. If you paid that much for the club, the only way you'd be likely to get a financial return is if you sold the stadium. And we've been led to believe that June 2023 accounts will be no better, or even worse - and any buyer would have wanted sight of the latest figures, not just the published ones.
Which brings us to the £30m "invested into the club" suggestion. £30m invested in what? The stadium? It's hardly ever been anywhere near full as it is. New players to buy success? Not sure how the sustainability rules might impact that idea, but we didn't increase our crowds when we almost reached the Championship.
More to the point, I've never seen a seller negotiate a deal on the basis that the buyer will afterwards invest three times more than they're paying the seller. How is that attractive to the seller? They care about what they're getting, not what the buyer does afterwards. But football's different? Not that different.
That tweet seems about as credible as an estate agent selling a house in Shrewsbury with spectacular sea views.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 18, 2024 16:39:45 GMT 1
As I said 2 posts back, this fake tweet was believed because people wanted to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jan 18, 2024 16:56:15 GMT 1
I honestly think people are mixing up their rumours.
The £11.5 million with £30 million further investment I heard about a few seasons ago relating to the Greenhous / Salop Leisure rumoured offer…….
Seems it’s resurrected as an offer from James Hughes who was rumoured as our next owner before Covid but then pulled out due to a downturn in his businesses.
|
|
PHBA
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 102
|
Post by PHBA on Jan 18, 2024 17:09:20 GMT 1
Of course if Roland is bankrolling the club then we all have to be grateful for that - but I have to say I don't see how the numbers add up at all. This is a club who two years ago was sustainable and had a healthy bank balance, sure covid made a dent but if we're on our knee's how are any other clubs surviving? If we're only paying 25% of O'Brien's wage, that would just leave presumably Marosi, Dunkley, Flanagan who are on "high wages" how on earth has that put us in financial ruin??Also a quick note to appreciate anyone who attended and a thank you to MM for attending and being open and honest - exactly what the supporters needed. Although I think the season ticket hike would be a gaff of epic proportions - people are already on the fence about renewing they don't need another reason to give it a miss. I would wager the financial ruin lies firmly at the door at our former CEO he pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes, and sadly only a few could see he was a clown from the start.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 18, 2024 17:49:45 GMT 1
Bit of rational thinking is called for. Working backwards: 1. Is it really likely to be ex-director James Hughes tweeting himself, with a troll farm-like moniker for an account he set up and deleted on the same day, and posting something that would make him appear more like an angry fan on the Verdict after another dismal defeat? - No, it isn't at all likely. And in the unlikely event it was him, that's pretty un-businesslike behaviour, to say the least. 2. Would Wycherley (82) really be likely to turn down £11.5m for his shareholding in a loss making company that we're told he's having to support financially? - No, that isn't at all likely either. 3. What nobody seems to have questioned is how likely it is that anyone in their right mind would offer in the region of perhaps £15m for STFC (Wycherley doesn't own all the shares remember, so the minority shareholders might be entitled or required to sell their shares at the same time)? - I know football's a special (ie stupid) case but you'd have to have money to burn (or an ulterior motive) to pay so much. Reminder - the club's June 2022 accounts showed it to have lost £2.5m in the previous 3 years, with an annual turnover some way short of £6m. In addition, 95% of the net value in its balance sheet (ie assets minus liabilities) was represented by the value of its freehold property - the stadium. If you paid that much for the club, the only way you'd be likely to get a financial return is if you sold the stadium. And we've been led to believe that June 2023 accounts will be no better, or even worse - and any buyer would have wanted sight of the latest figures, not just the published ones. Which brings us to the £30m "invested into the club" suggestion. £30m invested in what? The stadium? It's hardly ever been anywhere near full as it is. New players to buy success? Not sure how the sustainability rules might impact that idea, but we didn't increase our crowds when we almost reached the Championship. More to the point, I've never seen a seller negotiate a deal on the basis that the buyer will afterwards invest three times more than they're paying the seller. How is that attractive to the seller? They care about what they're getting, not what the buyer does afterwards. But football's different? Not that different. That tweet seems about as credible as an estate agent selling a house in Shrewsbury with spectacular sea views. Good post you have echoed a lot of my thoughts but laid it out much better than I can Think the middle section in particular is good as the covenant and land use restrictions on the ground (in which most of the club value sits) means that it would be very hard for a new owner to sell the land for other purposes, unless they also build a new ground as we did on leaving Gay Meadow For that reason I think both the pool of potential buyers for such an asset is pretty small, and in all probability the “real” value people would pay is also a lot less than the “paper” value the seller may think it’s worth. Long term I suspect a community ownership model is how the club will run in the future, rather than as a commercial asset, but it may take a few owners and years until we get to that stage
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 18, 2024 17:52:10 GMT 1
I thought it was "investors"?
|
|
|
Post by barrynic on Jan 18, 2024 18:18:03 GMT 1
I thought it was "investors"?
I assume one investor will be the Greenhous Group and the other a Scandinavian ex Premiership footballer.
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Jan 18, 2024 18:28:07 GMT 1
I thought it was "investors"?
I assume one investor will be the Greenhous Group and the other a Scandinavian ex Premiership footballer. I was under the impression that the Greenhous people and our Chairman do not get on very well. All rumours of course.
|
|
|
Post by barrynic on Jan 18, 2024 20:11:08 GMT 1
I assume one investor will be the Greenhous Group and the other a Scandinavian ex Premiership footballer. I was under the impression that the Greenhous people and our Chairman do not get on very well. All rumours of course. True...and I believe they have made more than one offer...and they do not want RW in any role if they buy...allegedly.
|
|
|
Post by gobowenshrew on Jan 18, 2024 20:56:47 GMT 1
Lots to unpick here.
As a guesstimation, how much do people think the club would be worth to a prospective buyer?
The article I read on the Shropshire Star (now behind a paywall by the way, what the hell is that about?) implied Wycherley will only to sell to the right person who has some sort of connection with Shrewsbury and an understanding on the area.
Why then, did the heavily rumoured takeovers from business owners at Greenhous, Salop Leisure and Tuffins/Montgomery Waters never come to fruition?
You can't get more local than that.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jan 18, 2024 22:06:51 GMT 1
Bit of rational thinking is called for. Working backwards: 1. Is it really likely to be ex-director James Hughes tweeting himself, with a troll farm-like moniker for an account he set up and deleted on the same day, and posting something that would make him appear more like an angry fan on the Verdict after another dismal defeat? - No, it isn't at all likely. And in the unlikely event it was him, that's pretty un-businesslike behaviour, to say the least. 2. Would Wycherley (82) really be likely to turn down £11.5m for his shareholding in a loss making company that we're told he's having to support financially? - No, that isn't at all likely either. 3. What nobody seems to have questioned is how likely it is that anyone in their right mind would offer in the region of perhaps £15m for STFC (Wycherley doesn't own all the shares remember, so the minority shareholders might be entitled or required to sell their shares at the same time)? - I know football's a special (ie stupid) case but you'd have to have money to burn (or an ulterior motive) to pay so much. Reminder - the club's June 2022 accounts showed it to have lost £2.5m in the previous 3 years, with an annual turnover some way short of £6m. In addition, 95% of the net value in its balance sheet (ie assets minus liabilities) was represented by the value of its freehold property - the stadium. If you paid that much for the club, the only way you'd be likely to get a financial return is if you sold the stadium. And we've been led to believe that June 2023 accounts will be no better, or even worse - and any buyer would have wanted sight of the latest figures, not just the published ones. Which brings us to the £30m "invested into the club" suggestion. £30m invested in what? The stadium? It's hardly ever been anywhere near full as it is. New players to buy success? Not sure how the sustainability rules might impact that idea, but we didn't increase our crowds when we almost reached the Championship. More to the point, I've never seen a seller negotiate a deal on the basis that the buyer will afterwards invest three times more than they're paying the seller. How is that attractive to the seller? They care about what they're getting, not what the buyer does afterwards. But football's different? Not that different. That tweet seems about as credible as an estate agent selling a house in Shrewsbury with spectacular sea views. I could probably draw up a shortlist of 2 or 3 B&A members who would attempt to pull off a cowardly cheap shot like that tweet
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jan 18, 2024 22:22:10 GMT 1
The tweet is b******s, 100%.
RW would've snapped their hands off had it been serious!
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jan 19, 2024 10:05:08 GMT 1
Bit of rational thinking is called for. Working backwards: 1. Is it really likely to be ex-director James Hughes tweeting himself, with a troll farm-like moniker for an account he set up and deleted on the same day, and posting something that would make him appear more like an angry fan on the Verdict after another dismal defeat? - No, it isn't at all likely. And in the unlikely event it was him, that's pretty un-businesslike behaviour, to say the least. 2. Would Wycherley (82) really be likely to turn down £11.5m for his shareholding in a loss making company that we're told he's having to support financially? - No, that isn't at all likely either. 3. What nobody seems to have questioned is how likely it is that anyone in their right mind would offer in the region of perhaps £15m for STFC (Wycherley doesn't own all the shares remember, so the minority shareholders might be entitled or required to sell their shares at the same time)? - I know football's a special (ie stupid) case but you'd have to have money to burn (or an ulterior motive) to pay so much. Reminder - the club's June 2022 accounts showed it to have lost £2.5m in the previous 3 years, with an annual turnover some way short of £6m. In addition, 95% of the net value in its balance sheet (ie assets minus liabilities) was represented by the value of its freehold property - the stadium. If you paid that much for the club, the only way you'd be likely to get a financial return is if you sold the stadium. And we've been led to believe that June 2023 accounts will be no better, or even worse - and any buyer would have wanted sight of the latest figures, not just the published ones. Which brings us to the £30m "invested into the club" suggestion. £30m invested in what? The stadium? It's hardly ever been anywhere near full as it is. New players to buy success? Not sure how the sustainability rules might impact that idea, but we didn't increase our crowds when we almost reached the Championship. More to the point, I've never seen a seller negotiate a deal on the basis that the buyer will afterwards invest three times more than they're paying the seller. How is that attractive to the seller? They care about what they're getting, not what the buyer does afterwards. But football's different? Not that different. That tweet seems about as credible as an estate agent selling a house in Shrewsbury with spectacular sea views. I could probably draw up a shortlist of 2 or 3 B&A members who would attempt to pull off a cowardly cheap shot like that tweet Are they estate agents?
|
|
|
Post by cabanas2017 on Jan 19, 2024 10:13:59 GMT 1
The tweet is b******s, 100%. RW would've snapped their hands off had it been serious! I don’t think he would as he wants to remain involved…. Tend to agree question of tweets validity though
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jan 19, 2024 11:44:23 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by FloreatShrew on Jan 19, 2024 12:14:40 GMT 1
The tweet is b******s, 100%. RW would've snapped their hands off had it been serious! I don’t think he would as he wants to remain involved…. Tend to agree question of tweets validity though That tweet is 100% correct. Why he said no we don't know.
|
|