Keith Morgan Commentary on the Latest Accounts

[sneggyblubird]

Maybe it's Langstone.

[LA Bluebird]

So basically due to income relating to the Sala case we've lost slightly less than previous years but without it we'd have lost a shedload more, or is that an oversimplification? Hardly seems like a very sustainable strategy if so.

[TaffsWellThatEndsWell]

Naturally.

So we now have a situation whereby an unknown third party is apparently seeking to make a large profit by gambling millions of pounds on the outcome of a court case involving the death of a professional football player.

Could this unsavoury business get any murkier? I guess we'll find out in due course.

There were plenty of law firms who offer a "no win, no fee" guarantee wherein they offer financial support (in the form of free representation) in return for a gamble on the outcome of a case - even covering death in the workplace. There are also several companies who buy out portions of cases in order to give clients early access to the future funds (in this FYs case, it appears that the early access to the land reduces the risk for the client. Ok, this is offset by a potential reduction in the successful outcome of the csse, but it seems like a good thing for the club to be doing, given the circumstances it is in.

I can't see where the club has done anything wrong here - it's just the nature of venture capitalism. I agree, it's not a practise that I would particularly support, but that doesn't mean the club are morally wrong for having pursues it as an option. The only issue I could foresee here would be if it was being bought by someone with intimate knowledge of the case outcomes who could be sure that it was only going our way, but that seems unlikely?

[NinianKnight]

There were plenty of law firms who offer a "no win, no fee" guarantee wherein they offer financial support (in the form of free representation) in return for a gamble on the outcome of a case - even covering death in the workplace. There are also several companies who buy out portions of cases in order to give clients early access to the future funds (in this FYs case, it appears that the early access to the land reduces the risk for the client. Ok, this is offset by a potential reduction in the successful outcome of the csse, but it seems like a good thing for the club to be doing, given the circumstances it is in.

I can't see where the club has done anything wrong here - it's just the nature of venture capitalism. I agree, it's not a practise that I would particularly support, but that doesn't mean the club are morally wrong for having pursues it as an option. The only issue I could foresee here would be if it was being bought by someone with intimate knowledge of the case outcomes who could be sure that it was only going our way, but that seems unlikely?

Isn't this a bit like venture capitalism? The club have a potential lucrative product (the court case payout) so the VC has bought a % for a non refundable £12m. On the good side the club has certainly recovered 60% of the transfer fee and could possibly recover more in the future. The downside is if the club was successful in court they will give up a large % of the compensation. Sounds to me like the club have decided that a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.