Uncle Val

SEASIDE2020 said:
Names

Re Newcastle, to be honest with you I wouldn't know exactly what has been campaigned for but surely you are not suggesting that the FSA have been campaigning against foreign investment in clubs from states with questionable human rights issues/problems ?

What did the Newcastle Gay Supporters Association - if there is such a thing ? - have to say about things, is everything/everybody OK because they have got rid of Ashley ?

...moving on, not a big issue but I am not sure what you meant when you said on your last line about what I said about their approach to their own supporters ?

I'm assuming that you are talking about supporters groups and/or trusts but I don't know what it was that I said about their approach to their own supporters ?
Click to expand...
The FSA (and BST thru their submission) have called for a more stringent fit and proper owners test but haven't said a dickie bird on NU, where the main international human rights groups have called it into question.
That sits alongs the FSAs own inertia on the Qatar WC where gays are persecuted along with others,workers rights are negligible but where Kevin Miles ( FSA CEO) sits on the Kick it Out committee.

It seems that if a clique gets some momentum then it starts to make it up as it goes along, and the people its supposed to represent become insignificant- a bit like politics i suppose!
Money underpins this whether its the Mo Salas getting millions per season or the fans groups with windfalls and paid expenses, and the things that need addressing get buried in social media nonsense.

Does that answer your questions?
 
foggy said:
We don't really know that. Owen took money out of Blackpool FC and into Segesta/Zabaxe and then some of that money disappeared. Whether that was season ticket money, Premier League money, or Charlie money, is impossible for us to know.
Click to expand...
Clubs doing that right now with Mel Morris still owning Pride Park despite others having to go without being paid. The Italian bloke at Leeds is renting the ground back to the club and it all mirrors the instability which lead to Bury's demise.
 
voyeur said:
I do have a very consistent approach to it. Whereas the Bifster is defending the Oystons one minute, and then making sure we know he hates them the next! 🤣

And doing something like the reverse with Val. 👍
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear to me that the FA cherry pick who is a good un who is a bad un although I'm not even sure they do that anymore. Abramovich is fine when he's spending £100m on Lukaku but not when his country of birth is at war. Qatar is a heinous country but they get the world cup and nobody truly exercises themselves about that. And why stop at football? Why not boycott China for their treatment of Uyghurs?

I'm calling a spade a spade on this thread but don't actually care and am quite enjoying football again. It's the point blank refusal from others to accept plain facts that is the dishonest bit.

If only we could strip politics out of the game altogether. It is getting daft with the kneeling, the support for Ukraine and rainbow laces but I guess that is for another thread.
 
voyeur said:
Interesting perspective. Is there a cult of ownership. More like rhyming slang where I previous owners are concerned. I think people just make comparisons between owners who generally want success for their clubs and those who use them as cash cows and ego trips.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I sang "He's one of own" on Saturday.

I'm very happy with our owner.

But in football more broadly, ownership matters more. You can't simply 'run' a club anymore. Ownership is celebrated and criticised more loudly than ever before.

I just don't like that particularly as it seems in England, we've opened the door to celebration of some very questionable people simply because they can provide funds for footballing colonialism and because their spending enables us to live a dream vicariously.

Some of the most celebrated owners also have the most questionable ethics and as the ESL shows, perhaps also have the least interest in the sport in the sense of a sporting contest.

It is what it is.

I prefer to watch footballers and managers than cheer the boardroom in general. I think we would be wise to retain some objectivity about all owners. It is footballers who we should lose our shit over, not rich people.
 
rockontommy said:
It's pretty clear to me that the FA cherry pick who is a good un who is a bad un although I'm not even sure they do that anymore. Abramovich is fine when he's spending £100m on Lukaku but not when his country of birth is at war. Qatar is a heinous country but they get the world cup and nobody truly exercises themselves about that. And why stop at football? Why not boycott China for their treatment of Uyghurs?

I'm calling a spade a spade on this thread but don't actually care and am quite enjoying football again. It's the point blank refusal from others to accept plain facts that is the dishonest bit.

If only we could strip politics out of the game altogether. It is getting daft with the kneeling, the support for Ukraine and rainbow laces but I guess that is for another thread.
Click to expand...
I agree to a point. I don't see rainbow laces as a political statement, nor taking the knee. They are statement about individual inclusion and have value outwith any ideology.

In terms of the general hypocrisy you outline about geopolitical stuff (which saying 'dont queer bash' isn't) I couldn't agree more.
 
td53 said:
Don't get me wrong, I sang "He's one of own" on Saturday.

I'm very happy with our owner.

But in football more broadly, ownership matters more. You can't simply 'run' a club anymore. Ownership is celebrated and criticised more loudly than ever before.

I just don't like that particularly as it seems in England, we've opened the door to celebration of some very questionable people simply because they can provide funds for footballing colonialism and because their spending enables us to live a dream vicariously.

Some of the most celebrated owners also have the most questionable ethics and as the ESL shows, perhaps also have the least interest in the sport in the sense of a sporting contest.

It is what it is.

I prefer to watch footballers and managers than cheer the boardroom in general. I think we would be wise to retain some objectivity about all owners. It is footballers who we should lose our shit over, not rich people.
Click to expand...
I agree. Except bad owners like OO will require a lot of attention and need booting out. Unfortunately.
 
td53 said:
I agree to a point. I don't see rainbow laces as a political statement, nor taking the knee. They are statement about individual inclusion and have value outwith any ideology.

In terms of the general hypocrisy you outline about geopolitical stuff (which saying 'dont queer bash' isn't) I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...
I was against poppies on shirts for this same reason as it's the thin end of the wedge. There is an expectation to conform and there are ramifications if you don't. I'd also say we are having too many one minutes applauses but that's me going really off piste 😜

It's all a bit performative.
 
rockontommy said:
I was against poppies on shirts for this same reason as it's the thin end of the wedge. There is an expectation to conform and there are ramifications if you don't. I'd also say we are having too many one minutes applauses but that's me going really off piste 😜

It's all a bit performative.
Click to expand...
Fair do's. I don't entirely disagree. It's difficult to pick and choose what has got some worth in making some kind of meaningful statement of solidarity or respect and what is an absurd empty gesture.

It all probably is performative but then again, there's a human need to perform things that express values or desires. That's as old as humanity. I would argue that with performative rituals on the decline, (i.e. religion, social rituals etc) possibly football is one of the few outlets for such things anymore.

But that would be getting very pretentious... and possibly suggests sooner or later there'll be ritual sacrifice prior to kick off...
 
voyeur said:
I do have a very consistent approach to it. Whereas the Bifster is defending the Oystons one minute, and then making sure we know he hates them the next! 🤣

And doing something like the reverse with Val. 👍
Click to expand...
I hope you are joking😉

I'm not defending the Oystons at all.... I just don't feel any need to pretend that Black is White in order to justify my disdain for them. They're bad enough as it is.

The same applies to VB.... I would never deny that he wasn't great for our Club and contributed significantly to the success we had, but that doesn't mean that I can't also acknowledge some issues that I have with him.

Also Ollie, he gave us one of the most amazing experiences you could ever begin to imagine, but as a bloke, I think he's a bit of an insincere tosser, who likes the sound of his own voice.

You see that's the trouble with this board (and the world in general these days) people adopt a polarised position and then constrain their own genuine opinions by virtue of whatever they believe they should think, based upon the general stance they've adopted. So (for example) Lost Seasider would feel the need to defend the Tory Party regardless... Others will make up lies or fail to acknowledge truths about Oyston regardless...

I just find it strange..
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I hope you are joking😉

I'm not defending the Oystons at all.... I just don't feel any need to pretend that Black is White in order to justify my disdain for them. They're bad enough as it is.

The same applies to VB.... I would never deny that he wasn't great for our Club and contributed significantly to the success we had, but that doesn't mean that I can't also acknowledge some issues that I have with him.

Also Ollie, he gave us one of the most amazing experiences you could ever begin to imagine, but as a bloke, I think he's a bit of an insincere tosser, who likes the sound of his own voice.

You see that's the trouble with this board (and the world in general these days) people adopt a polarised position and then constrain their own genuine opinions by virtue of whatever they believe they should think, based upon the general stance they've adopted. So (for example) Lost Seasider would feel the need to defend the Tory Party regardless... Others will make up lies or fail to acknowledge truths about Oyston regardless...

I just find it strange..
Click to expand...
I understand. I just care a bit less than you do about the failings of people who contribute huge effort, commitment and talent to fantastic periods of Blackpool's history.

I'm not arsed if Ollie is a bit of a tosser, and I actually like aspects of his personality and how he motivates and inspires people, and I acknowledge that he is quite a polarized character who was experiencing a huge amount of stress and responsibility.

With Val, I don't know enough about him tbh. He may be an absolute villain. I don't know. I can only judge what I saw him do here, which was overwhelmingly positive. He has succeeded in business in ex Soviet states, he's bound to have encountered all sorts of crap, and had to find ways to deal with them. Maybe he's evil. I dunno. He ended 30 years of misery though, 20 of which were Oyston.

I care a lot about the failings of people who shaft the club and its staff and its supporters. The Oystons pissed me off for decades. It was Belokon who brought that to an end. Twice really. The best trip, and the best court case. 👍
 
What happened to those shares the fans had, there was a rumour they were going to donate to BST to strengthen their bid but most fans wanted big money for them.
 
voyeur said:
I understand. I just care a bit less than you do about the failings of people who contribute huge effort, commitment and talent to fantastic periods of Blackpool's history.

I'm not arsed if Ollie is a bit of a tosser, and I actually like aspects of his personality and how he motivates and inspires people, and I acknowledge that he is quite a polarized character who was experiencing a huge amount of stress and responsibility.

With Val, I don't know enough about him tbh. He may be an absolute villain. I don't know. I can only judge what I saw him do here, which was overwhelmingly positive. He has succeeded in business in ex Soviet states, he's bound to have encountered all sorts of crap, and had to find ways to deal with them. Maybe he's evil. I dunno. He ended 30 years of misery though, 20 of which were Oyston.

I care a lot about the failings of people who shaft the club and its staff and its supporters. The Oystons pissed me off for decades. It was Belokon who brought that to an end. Twice really. The best trip, and the best court case. 👍
Click to expand...
I don't care a great deal about it at all... I just don't feel the need to live in a world of make believe. I'm not arsed whether Ollie is a tosser particularly (though when he's being off hand with young kids, who just want him to sign a T Shirt I am arsed) I don't need to spend any time in his company though and it doesn't mean I enjoyed his time here any less.

Like you I don't know about Val either (I have my suspicions)... Again though, I'm not that bothered particularly, I don't want to be his mate.... I'm more bothered by the bullshit as I don't see the need for it... There's no need to pretend Ollie was a lovely sincere character any more than there's any need to pretend that VB was some kind of whiter than white altruistic saviour of Blackpool... He was good for the Club, he did well out of the Club and his court case resulted in us getting rid of Oyston... he should have made a gesture with the money though.

As regards Oystons, yep... I absolutely agree with you that they're complete wankers, but I don't feel the need to tell lies about them to exaggerate their wankishness....
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don't care a great deal about it at all... I just don't feel the need to live in a world of make believe. I'm not arsed whether Ollie is a tosser particularly (though when he's being off hand with young kids, who just want him to sign a T Shirt I am arsed) I don't need to spend any time in his company though and it doesn't mean I enjoyed his time here any less.

Like you I don't know about Val either (I have my suspicions)... Again though, I'm not that bothered particularly, I don't want to be his mate.... I'm more bothered by the bullshit as I don't see the need for it... There's no need to pretend Ollie was a lovely sincere character any more than there's any need to pretend that VB was some kind of whiter than white altruistic saviour of Blackpool... He was good for the Club, he did well out of the Club and his court case resulted in us getting rid of Oyston... he should have made a gesture with the money though.

As regards Oystons, yep... I absolutely agree with you that they're complete wankers, but I don't feel the need to tell lies about them to exaggerate their wankishness....
Click to expand...
I have never pretended Ollie is a lovely sincere character? Has anybody?! We just enjoyed what he brought us and are grateful for it. Same with Val. And the opposite with the Oystons.

It's dead simple really and I'm not sure what this discussion was all about! I think you invented a new theory that nobody understands or something. 🤣
 
voyeur said:
I have never pretended Ollie is a lovely sincere character? Has anybody?! We just enjoyed what he brought us and are grateful for it. Same with Val. And the opposite with the Oystons.

It's dead simple really and I'm not sure what this discussion was all about! I think you invented a new theory that nobody understands or something. 🤣
Click to expand...
My comments aren't necessarily aimed at you directly, though you've picked me up on things a few times, so I've responded. And it's not dead simple at all... We have posters on this thread who have completely deluded themselves.
AngelBFC said:
In normal circs possibly .

But

There is no way the club was worth 10 mil at the time Val bought in and got his 20 per cent for 2.2 million .

Was surely a case of Val if you invest 2.2 mil I’ll give you 20 per cent

With Vals 20 per cent it may have been worth closer to 10 mil not without
Click to expand...
I've been trying to think of a better way to illustrate the point...

Let's assume that the Club was (as you say) worth £10M after VB's investment and we'll call the Investment £2M for simplicity.

So prior to the funds coming into the business OO had 100% share of a business worth £8M... he now has 80% of a business worth £10M (so £8M) and VB has 20% of a business worth £10M (so £2M)... If they sold the business at that point, then they would get their money back.

Now lets assume that they spend the £2M that VB has put into the business and try to advance the Club, but unfortunately that doesn't work and they end up back to square 1 with a club that's worth £8M.... Who stands the £2M Loss?

Based on their shareholding and selling the club for £8M, the distribution of funds would be £6.4M to OO (£1.6M Loss) and £1.6M to VB (£400K Loss). So to my mind, that is a shared investment with OO shouldering the bulk of the financial risk associated... VB simply brought liquidity into the business, but he didn't stand an equal loss.


Even if the business was worth £5M prior to investment, then they still share the risk...

At outset business is worth £7M... of which OO could sell for £ 5.6M Immediately and VB could sell for £1.4M, but of course, the plan is to invest the cash with a view to trying to gain promotion. So cash is invested and no promotion is achieved and the business is back to being worth £5M.... VB could then sell for £1M at that point and OO could sell for £4M (Both having lost £1M each of the cash invested)
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
My comments aren't necessarily aimed at you directly, though you've picked me up on things a few times, so I've responded. And it's not dead simple at all... We have posters on this thread who have completely deluded themselves.
Click to expand...
Our entire experience is a form of delusion so go easy on people. You're part of the mix. 🤠

And you've gone round and round the houses arguing about the square root of very little, I feel. Being frank! 🤣
 
voyeur said:
Our entire experience is a form of delusion so go easy on people. You're part of the mix. 🤠

And you've gone round and round the houses arguing about the square root of very little, I feel. Being frank! 🤣
Click to expand...
Well you’ve joined me for most of it 😂

In fairness it’s pretty tough not to reply when someone says something along the lines of “I can’t believe what I’m reading, are you for real” just because you pointed out the truth.
 
Insider said:
I can see a film from this thread on the horizon.
Life of Darren - What has Belekon ever done for us? 😀 😉
(Actually couldn't decide if it should be "Oystons".)
Click to expand...
Very funny…Though it’s just more bullshit …

It’s a shame some of you seem incapable of reading and digesting what is actually written as opposed to just making stuff up to suit.

Very much like your approach to the Oyston / Belokon situation. Blinded by your collective bias and stupidity.

If you want to shoot me down for pointing out fair enough…. Who am I to interrupt your collective delusion…😂
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Very funny…Though it’s just more bullshit …

It’s a shame some of you seem incapable of reading and digesting what is actually written as opposed to just making stuff up to suit.

Very much like your approach to the Oyston / Belokon situation. Blinded by your collective bias and stupidity.

If you want to shoot me down for pointing out fair enough…. Who am I to interrupt your collective delusion…😂
Click to expand...
Take a chill pill.
It's just a bit of banter.
I was just trying to lighten the heavy load, now we're back and singing from the stands of Bloomfield Rd.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I've been trying to think of a better way to illustrate the point...

Based on their shareholding and selling the club for £8M, the distribution of funds would be £6.4M to OO (£1.6M Loss) and £1.6M to VB (£400K Loss). So to my mind, that is a shared investment with OO shouldering the bulk of the financial risk associated... VB simply brought liquidity into the business, but he didn't stand an equal loss.
Click to expand...
Very well put and that happens a lot and of course goes towards financial fair play where it keeps a club buoyant,although the problem starts when they start including the stadia etc into it. At some point the South Stand came into it and of course the hotel but I guess the PL money blew those computations out of the water.

Somewhere EFL financial returns would the Os running the club at a loss for years which was universally accepted, so there is an argument they were entitled to take that out but of course give VB his share back. I think this gave them a mandate from some to do as they pleased which included the disposal of the Tangerine Club land, Travelodge rental and NHS tie in.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
My comments aren't necessarily aimed at you directly, though you've picked me up on things a few times, so I've responded. And it's not dead simple at all... We have posters on this thread who have completely deluded themselves.

I've been trying to think of a better way to illustrate the point...

Let's assume that the Club was (as you say) worth £10M after VB's investment and we'll call the Investment £2M for simplicity.

So prior to the funds coming into the business OO had 100% share of a business worth £8M... he now has 80% of a business worth £10M (so £8M) and VB has 20% of a business worth £10M (so £2M)... If they sold the business at that point, then they would get their money back.

Now lets assume that they spend the £2M that VB has put into the business and try to advance the Club, but unfortunately that doesn't work and they end up back to square 1 with a club that's worth £8M.... Who stands the £2M Loss?

Based on their shareholding and selling the club for £8M, the distribution of funds would be £6.4M to OO (£1.6M Loss) and £1.6M to VB (£400K Loss). So to my mind, that is a shared investment with OO shouldering the bulk of the financial risk associated... VB simply brought liquidity into the business, but he didn't stand an equal loss.


Even if the business was worth £5M prior to investment, then they still share the risk...

At outset business is worth £7M... of which OO could sell for £ 5.6M Immediately and VB could sell for £1.4M, but of course, the plan is to invest the cash with a view to trying to gain promotion. So cash is invested and no promotion is achieved and the business is back to being worth £5M.... VB could then sell for £1M at that point and OO could sell for £4M (Both having lost £1M each of the cash invested)
Click to expand...
I said that Vals £2m or whatever it was took it closer to £10m . Your second analogy is much closer but I still think that’s a tad optimistic bearing in mind what state the club was in at the time

Let’s say however for arguments sake that your second analogy is correct

Club worth £5m and VB injects £2m for 20 per cent taking it to £7m

If the club stays at £7 m and makes no progress VB loses £400k

In that scenario OO makes an actual gain of £600k

The club has to get to £10m for VB to get his money back

OO only starts losing money after the club loses more than £800k from its £7m valuation

Therefore the financial risk to VB is far far greater than that of OO right from the outset
 
I know nothing of Belokon other than what I've read....and gut instinct tbh🤷‍♂️. I think though that as foreign investors go we could have done a lot worse! Like the fan's he got shafted by the Oyston's...but ended up having the last laugh. He probably did end up making a fair few quid out of BFC, I've no doubt about that....but he was gambling, quite massively, when he originally came in....and it paid off! I don't begrudge him anything.
However, I MUCH prefer the club being in the hands of a wealthy local owner, who was a fan from boyhood. Yes he may not have the mega millions of some club owners, but you get the feeling he'll put money in where and when he can, rather than throw HUGE amounts at it....then walk away when he gets bored with his latest 'toy'! 🙄. Much better to have a Simon Sadler than some Sheikh yer fookin booty... IMHO. 🤷‍♂️
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Very funny…Though it’s just more bullshit …

It’s a shame some of you seem incapable of reading and digesting what is actually written as opposed to just making stuff up to suit.

Very much like your approach to the Oyston / Belokon situation. Blinded by your collective bias and stupidity.

If you want to shoot me down for pointing out fair enough…. Who am I to interrupt your collective delusion…😂
Click to expand...
Bloody hell man. Chill Pill! NOW! 🤣
 
AngelBFC said:
I said that Vals £2m or whatever it was took it closer to £10m . Your second analogy is much closer but I still think that’s a tad optimistic bearing in mind what state the club was in at the time

Let’s say however for arguments sake that your second analogy is correct

Club worth £5m and VB injects £2m for 20 per cent taking it to £7m

If the club stays at £7 m and makes no progress VB loses £400k

In that scenario OO makes an actual gain of £600k

The club has to get to £10m for VB to get his money back

OO only starts losing money after the club loses more than £800k from its £7m valuation

Therefore the financial risk to VB is far far greater than that of OO right from the outset
Click to expand...

As I said to Insider, Clubs are difficult to put a value on, but the point is that even if the Value were as low as I suggested it's still not as clear cut as saying that there is no investment / risk for Oyston. Between them, they would have agreed a value acceptable to them both and Belokon generally referenced it as a 'joint investment'.

There are no guarantees in any business that investment will ultimately deliver increased value into the business, but the risks are exaggerated in football.
 
voyeur said:
Bloody hell man. Chill Pill! NOW! 🤣
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t mind, but it wasn’t that long ago that both you and insider along with quite a few others were claiming that OO’s rape conviction was a set up….

It just goes to show how attitudes can shift ..
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I wouldn’t mind, but it wasn’t that long ago that both you and insider along with quite a few others were claiming that OO’s rape conviction was a set up….

It just goes to show how attitudes can shift ..
Click to expand...
What?! Now you are making stuff up. I have never said anything of the sort.

What planet are you on pal? It turns out your memory is worse than TAM's. 🤣
 
Last edited:
Tango1953 said:
Fuck me, we are at "I know you are, you said you are" stage of the argument.

Done well to get 7 pages out of this @BFC_BFC_BFC , even if 5 of them are you.
Click to expand...

The innings belongs to Herts and he declared about 3 or 4 days ago.

To be fair, he did make a request for peace when declaring but he now finds himself on an unbeaten triple ton and chasing down Brian Lara.
 
AngelBFC said:
I said that Vals £2m or whatever it was took it closer to £10m . Your second analogy is much closer but I still think that’s a tad optimistic bearing in mind what state the club was in at the time

Let’s say however for arguments sake that your second analogy is correct

Club worth £5m and VB injects £2m for 20 per cent taking it to £7m

If the club stays at £7 m and makes no progress VB loses £400k

In that scenario OO makes an actual gain of £600k

The club has to get to £10m for VB to get his money back

OO only starts losing money after the club loses more than £800k from its £7m valuation

Therefore the financial risk to VB is far far greater than that of OO right from the outset
Click to expand...
Look at it a different way…

VB is investing £2M, but his exposure is only £600K if the business stays as is. Even if the business were to return back to the pre-investment value of £5M, his exposure would only be £1M (With OO picking up the other £1M)

In fact, the only way VB would be exposed for the full £2M would be if the business itself was worthless.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Look at it a different way…

VB is investing £2M, but his exposure is only £600K if the business stays as is. Even if the business were to return back to the pre-investment value of £5M, his exposure would only be £1M (With OO picking up the other £1M)

In fact, the only way VB would be exposed for the full £2M would be if the business itself was worthless.
Click to expand...
You can look at it that way but you were saying that OO had effectively shared the risk with Val which is not the case .

The bottom line is that at 2.2 mil for 20 per cent Vals investment vastly outweighed the shareholding he was given

In short he overpaid hence the vastly increased risk exposure
 
AngelBFC said:
You can look at it that way but you were saying that OO had effectively shared the risk with Val which is not the case .

The bottom line is that at 2.2 mil for 20 per cent Vals investment vastly outweighed the shareholding he was given

In short he overpaid hence the vastly increased risk exposure
Click to expand...
It’s a shared risk though, that’s the point, Owen’s shared interest effectively de-risks Val…So not as straightforward as some have suggested….Of course, we’ve no idea what the value of the club was at that point.

In reality it would have been ridiculous to think he wouldn’t overpay, otherwise it would be OO who would be taking the biggest risk from the combined venture. He might as well have put in £2M of his own money for the sake of a 20% cost reduction.

Also you can potentially add an agreement for VB to be able to increase his shareholding to 50/50 at a pre-agreed price (of course that was subsequently reneged on).
 
Last edited:
Presumably Valeri and Owen agreed the value of the club was £9m. £1.8m for 20% shares and the 2 loans totalling £2.7m, which Valeri contended was going to be converted to shares, giving a total price for a 50% shareholding of £4.5m. There were of course some adjustments for the minority shareholders
 
Insider said:
Presumably Valeri and Owen agreed the value of the club was £9m. £1.8m for 20% shares and the 2 loans totalling £2.7m, which Valeri contended was going to be converted to shares, giving a total price for a 50% shareholding of £4.5m. There were of course some adjustments for the minority shareholders
Click to expand...
So that would mean the Club was worth £4.5M prior to VB's investment? Which is about what you would expect the value to be....That makes sense, so essentially it was a 50/50 shared investment, with VB bringing liquidity into the business to fund the squad improvements. Of course as I said above, OO eventually reneged on the deal for the second tranche of shares, having convinced VB that there was a tax benefit... Whether he intended to do that from the outset or whether he just got greedy later, is open to question.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Surely you'd always invest directly into the Club in those circumstances... ?
Click to expand...
More often than not yes.

My point is that in that instance it was never OO’s money which he then generously “reinvested” in the club as has been suggested. The money was always BFC’s. The issue is whether it was spent in the interests of the club or syphoned off to fund non footballing activities (this particular money probably was spent on the club). But the money was VB’s. It was never OO’s.

I’m not saying that OO never invested in the club over the years as he obviously did. After all there were the rumours of the behind closed doors row when KO was berating his father and telling him he wasn’t going to allow him to “piss away more of my inheritance on this football club”. Or words to that effect.

If pushed I much prefer the “Saint Valeri” narrative to the “Owen The Great Benefactor” one, but don’t sign up to either really.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’ve no doubt Foggy’s book will regurgitate the same fairy tales that everyone has invested so much into.

Not my fault that people would rather believe in fairies than confront themselves with the truth.
Click to expand...
You might be interested to read this, as may everyone else

www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk

How Not To Run A Football Club: Fascinating new book chronicles Blackpool's ruinous years of fans' boycott and court cases

Blackpool’s ruinous years of fan unrest, protests, boycotts and court cases under the despised Oyston regime have been chronicled in a fascinating new book.
www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk
 
foggy said:
You might be interested to read this, as may everyone else

www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk

How Not To Run A Football Club: Fascinating new book chronicles Blackpool's ruinous years of fans' boycott and court cases

Blackpool’s ruinous years of fan unrest, protests, boycotts and court cases under the despised Oyston regime have been chronicled in a fascinating new book.
www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk
Click to expand...
I ordered the book in November, so hopefully I’ll be in a position to read it for myself soon enough.👍
 
Mexboroseasider said:
More often than not yes.

My point is that in that instance it was never OO’s money which he then generously “reinvested” in the club as has been suggested. The money was always BFC’s. The issue is whether it was spent in the interests of the club or syphoned off to fund non footballing activities (this particular money probably was spent on the club). But the money was VB’s. It was never OO’s.

I’m not saying that OO never invested in the club over the years as he obviously did. After all there were the rumours of the behind closed doors row when KO was berating his father and telling him he wasn’t going to allow him to “piss away more of my inheritance on this football club”. Or words to that effect.

If pushed I much prefer the “Saint Valeri” narrative to the “Owen The Great Benefactor” one, but don’t sign up to either really.
Click to expand...
See my examples above… you are mistaking liquidity for ‘investment’… The arrangement was a 50/50 one with both parties investing the same amount.

Owen invested his shares in BFC (total value £4.5 M) Val invested £4.5M cash in stages fan initial 20% and then additional 30% stake.

Looking at it simplistically…

Once £4.5M is invested they each have a 50% share in a business which is now worth £9M. If they sold up at that point, they’d take £4.5 M each.

Now let’s assume that the entire £4,5M is invested, but the business does not progress and ends up back where it started… Worth £4.5M

If they then sold the business at that point, then they each come out with £2.25 M, having each lost £2.25M

It’s a shared investment and shared risk…Val just injected liquidity into the business.
 
Last edited:
foggy said:
You might be interested to read this, as may everyone else

www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk

How Not To Run A Football Club: Fascinating new book chronicles Blackpool's ruinous years of fans' boycott and court cases

Blackpool’s ruinous years of fan unrest, protests, boycotts and court cases under the despised Oyston regime have been chronicled in a fascinating new book.
www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk
Click to expand...
I must admit, I did think the book would gloss over this stuff and present the accepted (sugar-coated) version of events. Good to read that you haven't and of course, it is always nice to feel vindicated too 😉 I've just pre-ordered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top