Reminder of how the Lapping Consortium takeover was terminated

The negotiations between the two sides had reached a point where somebody from the Holdings side contacted the individual members of the Lapping Consortium asking them to irrevocably commit their stated amounts of money. They refused to do so and you can ostensibly believe that the Holdings board quite reasonably instructed their legal team to formally terminate the entire matter.

But read on a bit. For a takeover to occur involving a consortium of more than 6 people those people have to be given a totally up-to-date prospectus by the consortium leader before they commit any funds. At this time Andrew Lapping was preparing this prospectus such that it was totally up to date and entirely accurate at that stage of the proceedings.

Are we to believe that none of the consortium members stated that they were waiting to receive this prospectus? Clearly both legal teams would have known that the prospectus was in the process of being created, by virtue of the time that the irrevocable commitment was asked for.

The current dog's breakfast of a governance structure we're lumbered with is the total output of this two-bit takeover effort.

The owners saw Lapping's proposal and recognised the opportunity to remove themselves from the line of fire by installing an extra layer of governance.

They also recognised they didn't need Lapping to do this. So they gave him the finger, why wouldn't you?

Why wouldn't I?

I would have sufficient common sense to accept a very good offer in terms of the club's future, with new Holdings directors who have often as a team lifted numerous companies from below mundane performance levels to very impressive performance levels. If I was a Holdings shareholder I would recognise that both the club and me would get entirely lifted out of the sh­it rather than sink ever deeper into it.

You call it two-bit without any justification whatsoever. Malicious and foul play was the only reason for the termination. These consortium people have collectively bought numerous companies. They made just the one mistake in assuming that they were dealing with men who had some slight semblance of honour

Clearly the club and the incumbent Holdings directors have reaped the rewards. The club is in debt of £3 million, £2.25 million of that to someone whose business ethics are questionable to say the least and who has no liking of The Three. In the event of Philip Day's Purepay (yes, he does control it) calling in the Personal Guarantees at least 2 of The Three would be very seriously damaged. Why would Day impose these Personal Guarantees if there was zero possibility of implementing them to some degree?

You may well take the attitude that the consortium would have failed to an even worse extent but that opinion would need quite some explanation. These men have very good business records individually and collectively. The truth is there to see.

The football fortune will not last much longer and we have to believe that none will be generated for quite some time.
Day turned the tap off 2 years ago and the club has to live off its meagre income. None of Cumbria's best businesses will contribute sponsorship, advertising or other revenue / help whilst the current regime is in place. The football budget was in the bottom 6 for the
season just ended and we know that for next season that it is being further reduced.

So, given the choice of Day plus the current Holdings incumbents or the Lapping Consortium the sensible choice is the Lapping Consortium. There can be very few people who disagree with that.

It is plain to see that in terminating the consortium offer The Three made a very bad decision for the club and for themselves personally. To deny that would be somewhat difficult. Meanwhile the folk who made the 'two-bit' takeover offer are rolling in that which they enjoy whilst the club is sinking ever deeper into that which nobody enjoys being deep in.

I don't believe you can run an English football club successfully by committee.

You need a single figurehead driving a unified vision.

Not all change is a positive and Lapping's proposal would have seen the small committee currently replaced by a larger more diverse committee. Football clubs are not democracies, the more voices you have the more confusing it gets. If you think we're wallowing in a quagmire of governance now, Lapping's proposal would have doubled or tripled the pain. Imagine trying to remove shackles like that...

Also, the bottom six budget lie is just Beech propaganda, our transfer income makes a mockery of the claim, frankly.

You do not believe that an English football club can be run by a committee. There was no suggestion that there was going to be a board consisting of more people than on an average club board. The fact that the plan was for 12 Holdings shareholders was no indication that either the Holdings or 1921 board was to consist of an overwhelming number of members.

The bottom 6 budget is from EFL statistics released to the clubs and has been acknowledged by Nigel Clibbens on several occasions including today. The 1921 Chief Executive does not tell lies.

Overall you do not address the known facts as detailed in my previous post because they demolish your argument about the well-being of the club being better catered for by the current incumbents than the consortium. The current Holdings ownership has been in place since 29th October 2009 when David Allen left. No Holdings shares have changed hands since David Allen gave his shares to Andrew Jenkins. It is a fact that the Holdings directors have performed utterly dismally. In 2015 an alternative ownership was ready. This consisted of thoroughly well-tested business people with impeccable records in terms of performance and ethics. Everything that they touch turns into gold, whereas everything that the current Holdings board members touch turns into a somewhat softer substance.

Clearly there is no proof of what sort of performance the consortium would have delivered, had it taken over. We can only presume what that performance would have been, given the formidable expertise of the consortium in a wide variety of directorship / ownership roles in a wide variety of businesses. But we do have conclusive evidence of the performance of the incumbents. Thus, weighing total abject long term failure of the incumbents against null data about the consortium's performance we have to conclude that the consortium owning the club would have been the only sensible choice not only for the club but also personally for the outgoing Holdings shareholders. When weighing the certainty of ongoing failure against the possibility of failure the better option could not be more clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Large

In 2015 an alternative ownership was ready. This consisted of thoroughly well-tested business people with impeccable records in terms of performance and ethics. Everything that they touch turns into gold, whereas everything that the current Holdings board members touch turns into a somewhat softer substance.

---

There was some dispute about whether Laffy could actually secure the amount he said he'd raise though wasn't there?

No there was not, read the first post in this thread. It was seriously unethical behaviour by the Holdings side.

Ask Laffy if the first post in this thread is an accurate description of what occurred. He is an honest man.

"The 1921 Chief Executive does not tell lies."

Comedy gold.

:)

"This consisted of thoroughly well-tested business people with impeccable records in terms of performance and ethics."

I don't agree with this either. You obviously haven't done your due diligence!