Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:14 am  

Fordy wrote:

Apparently Ted is also to blame for the credit crunch, global warming and third world famine. All of these could have been avoided if Ted had just stepped aside 5 years ago

Good response that. You carry on blindly following the club with Ted & co in charge and if and when we don't have a club anymore due to their inept management - crack another joke about it.

See the post above for the logic in what I was saying - but I suppose theres non as blind as those who cannot see.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:44 am  

Tricky2309 wrote:

Good response that. You carry on blindly following the club with Ted & co in charge and if and when we don't have a club anymore due to their inept management - crack another joke about it.

See the post above for the logic in what I was saying - but I suppose theres non as blind as those who cannot see.

Thanks, I will carry on following the club with Ted & co in charge because as yet I have still to see anyone else willing to do what he does for us.
Yes, we have had 2 HMRC indiscretions but we are still here (so far).

If Eric/Jonathan France were as interested as we keep being led to believe (which you have to admit now seems doubtful seeing as they are backing out when they have the cahnce to take control) then surely they could have just offered Ted enough to amke him leave before the banking crisis.

All I'm saying is Ted is not to blame for everything, yes we could do stuff a lot better and I'd be quite happy to get a new chairman/investor with some cash to splash but until we do then Ted is all we've got.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:14 am  

In the past there have been a few parties interested in taking over the wildcats, who have been put off by Ted's valuation of his shares. Lets hope that this does not become a stumbling block this time around!

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:35 am  

Tricky2309 wrote:

I understand logic is a strange concept to the rose tinted brigade but here goes

The logic is that pre the banking crisis people had alot more spare cash to invest in a club like ours. Ted has presided over the club getting into trouble with the tax man twice in twelve months and not having a pot to pee in - the most recent mismanagement of the club has almost certainly led to the books being worse and therefore even less attractive to a potential investor, at a time when they have less spare cash to put into something that they know will give them no financial return.

The additional tax bill is something most of the SL clubs will have. It's something the rfl have looked into on behalf of the clubs and another SL club have got lawyers involved. Of course the ability to pay additional bills is a factor when it comes to how much of a problem it is.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:36 am  

RJC wrote:

In the past there have been a few parties interested in taking over the wildcats, who have been put off by Ted's valuation of his shares. Lets hope that this does not become a stumbling block this time around!

I don't think that will be thecase this time.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:18 am  

RJC wrote:

In the past there have been a few parties interested in taking over the wildcats, who have been put off by Ted's valuation of his shares. Lets hope that this does not become a stumbling block this time around!

Thats by far, my biggest fear and suspicion. Ted's is a desperate man in financial terms and he has several members of his family employed at this club that all have to be catered for. I can't help but think it's going to be a straight choice between what best for him and his family and what best for Wakefield Trinity. Any ridiculous asking price or unreasonable conditions like provisions for all his family that work at the club will only put off any potential new investors.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:26 am  

RJC wrote:

In the past there have been a few parties interested in taking over the wildcats, who have been put off by Ted's valuation of his shares. Lets hope that this does not become a stumbling block this time around!

That is totally incorrect - if the right person/people came along (ie someone who had the best interests of WTW at heart, and the funds to secure the club's existence) Ted would GIVE them his shares tomorrow, and that has been the case for a long time.

Ted will not put the Club at risk (remember he is a supporter just like most of us on here!) - with the previous few interested parties those conditions were not met.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:02 am  

Catwoman1 wrote:

That is totally incorrect - if the right person/people came along (ie someone who had the best interests of WTW at heart, and the funds to secure the club's existence) Ted would GIVE them his shares tomorrow,

Spot on

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:31 am  

Catwoman1 wrote:

That is totally incorrect - if the right person/people came along (ie someone who had the best interests of WTW at heart, and the funds to secure the club's existence) Ted would GIVE them his shares tomorrow, and that has been the case for a long time.

Ted will not put the Club at risk (remember he is a supporter just like most of us on here!) - with the previous few interested parties those conditions were not met.

The unfortunate thing now is that Ted has a big conflict of interest, whats good for the club probably isn't good for the family. In the last 24 hours we've had a potential backer pull and been told more players are to go (according to express). We are getting deeper into by the day and that won't change while he still in charge.

Re: Wakefield 's New backer : Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:33 am  

crowt123 wrote:

wouldn't trust france at all..and for ted well .. what has he done? we are in the same situation that we have always been! backs to the wall! will we or won't we get a stadium? no money..it's been like this for 30 years..why change now?

Totally unfair mate....if it wasn't for Ted we wouldn't have a club to support !!!
For as long as I can remember, he has always said that he would be willing to step aside if someone else was prepared to come in and take over. I am not naiive enough to believe that he would be willing to give away his shares/control of the club, and that he obviously wants to do the best for his family members employed at the club, but the fact remains that in the absence of other financial investors over the past 12 years (since we got into Superleague), then Ted has single-handedly kept our club afloat on a shoestring budget.
It is desperately unfortunate for him that his finances have gone belly-up through a failed business agreement, and I genuinely feel for the guy who has always tried to do his utmost for the club.

IF IT WASN'T FOR TED WE WOULDN'T HAVE A WALL TO PUT OUR BACKS AGAINST !!!!!