The more begging emails and articles saying please invest in a bond (where your security is no higher than an ordinary creditor and we've got a £3m hole which we think is only £1.7m but we won't know for sure until bonds mature in a few months) the worse it makes us look. Competent investors are not stupid. Will a bit more money in a bond materially effect negotiating strength for either party? The £1m bank facility (which I presume is an unsecured RCF) we have is not enough to cover the likely shortfall. That's the issue. A competent and forward thinking DTB would have taken steps to negotiate a fall back position with a lender in case they can't find a minority investor on their terms (which was always likely). You may have to pay a bit for a larger RCF but at least it's there when you need it and security would only kick in when you draw down on it. They've based their whole financial strategy on a vague flakey high level survey and have nowhere to go. If the leaked Bertrand deal is what is under exclusivity then we'd be better off going into administration and be done with it.

Interesting interview in the Guardian with a doctor who works in football about pseudoscience in the sport. (e.g. the gaffer tape stuff you see on players' legs sometimes). Can't link from my phone but worth a search.

Clear commercial experience says that when three people, who can change every year or even during the year, can overrule your plans on a whim, don't go near the deal. I'm fascinated to hear how people think you can overcome that.

Exiled [Link]

Any one got a link to the email ? I’m a member but I haven’t received it

Yes Lyle Taylor is in the Montserrat squad whether a Chelmsford player aged about 40 is still good enough to start is another matter

If Bertrand is making his money from ai then he can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

Was just writing something along the same lines only not as well, nicander. Members are going to have to think very hard about whether the proposed deal (if and when it becomes a proposal) is accurate and believable. There will naturally be a bias towards voting for a deal because we all know something needs to happen we can’t carry on as we are. The deal won’t look bad by design but members need to be able to ask questions in order to ascertain whether they can trust the information they’ve been given.

Hear what people are saying about waiting to see what's on the table - of course. But Bertrand is an AI tech guy, that's well-established and has been his bag for a few years. On another note, this is when it becomes clear how important it is going to be to have the right people representing the Trust's interests on the plc board and the right mechanisms for members to instruct/challenge/change them. Unfortunately I think at least the latter of those ships has now sailed. The DTB have been in a charmed place the last few years where boards are largely on the same page, have the same goals etc. That may/will not be the case if these investors have a specific agenda to push.

WBM's last post - exactly. The more money we can raise independently the better position we are in to say 'thanks but no thanks' when Ryan Bertrand wants himself appointed first team manager and director of football. There's every chance the current negotiation will cave, we need as much runway as we can get to find the right deal.

We've had aboit £40k go into the bond since this morning's email

Is LTB playing for Montserrat?

Turks & Caicos (my old haunt) v Montserrat this evening on YouTube at 8pm in the CONCACAF Nations League for anyone wondering where all the football has gone.

OI, its more the fact we are saying the Bond is essential to securing the best deal. I totally get its importance if it falls through, but if the deal goes ahead that bond will surely be negligible and therefor feels very much like a lever. I guess the only thing I will say as I'm speculating this morning is that I guess we can negotiate better if the buyer doesn't think we are completely screwed without them!

Fully agree with nicander. Also I notice our commitment to performing below basic communication skills. This is a big announcement and no one wants to even check it. Tinpot. Can imagine the investors can see our bunch for what they are and know that they can take the cake without paying for it. We don’t need someone who’s spotted an opportunity to play football god for a few years. We need sound commercial expertise with a clear vision for the football club not just the football team.

Points on the board is great,played the worst teams has helped. But we did lose 4 -1 at Burton and expect by December we will see our true position

WBM - where have they said that? I'd think it was a matter of interest as it would show a lower level of financial competence if we suddenly have to go looking for a bank loan. The killer for me would be that it seems whatever the investors want to do, our three directors can stop it in its tracks, good or bad. If those people have looked like they aren't doing a good job financially then the investors would want to build in more safeguards.

Remember Ebsfleet - investors making footballing decisions is a recipe for disaster. We currently have twenty somethingth playing budget but are 7th in the table, so thus far JJ and team doing fine.

Yep, I'd wait and see what is actually on the table, if anything is offered, rather than a piece of speculation that nobody else has picked up on.

Nicander, i really wouldn't worry about that article at all or read anything from it about the specifics of the investment. It didn't say anything really apart from the name.

Absolutely nicander!

RIP Angry Anderson

The big Q for me is simply around the media suggestion that they want control over football matters and strategy. I'm sorry, you simply don't get that for this level of investment. Not to mention that our success as a club has been built on hiring football professionals and supporting them to do their jobs. The minute you get investors or board members sticking their fingers in is the minute we're completely fucked, frankly. We want investors to be supporting us on the commercial and infrastructure side of things, not football.

Why are we having exclusive conversations with a bidder who has basically said that their offer would materially change over whether we have to finance £1m on a 10% vs 5% interest rate? It seems pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things (£50k per year additional interest payments). Slightly worries me that the buyer is holding all the cards in this negotiation and we are getting stiffed!

Probably checking their X accounts , left wing,social justice, flip.flop wearers only:-)