Takeover

[Spandaubaggie]

Talking shite has been going on since man could talk, but the difference is the man in the pub had no clout and probably a reputation of being a bullshitter by those who got to know him.

Now though, it's so easy for that man in the pub to mask himself as an ITK big wig on social media.

Trouble is many people cannot see that and take rumours on Facebook etc as if the BBC had investigated and announced it. Misinformation spreads far quicker than Dave in the pub sounding off 30 years ago.

This is absolutely the case. The amplification of a single person's views via social media to often uncritical readers has created a world most appropriately described as 'post-truth'. It's the world exploited relentlessly by unscrupulous politicians and propagandists.

Quite simply, social media has created as many problems as it has solutions.

There are simply many people who do not deserve a voice on social media, who people in days of old could ignore. Equally there are those who were ignored that deserved their voice to be heard.

It is great and has advanced causes, but equally has also become a fantastic vehicle for misinformation and division by those with an agenda.

The amount of 'critical thinkers' who are totally unable to think critically is astounding.

All this.

Social media is toxic as fuck, but also can be used for good and to support people. It's the quintessential double edge sword, and I don't see how you'd solve the problems without limiting the benefits.

We saw the best of social media when my wife had a rare health condition and the NHS were fobbing her off. As a result of a Facebook group and the exchange of views there she got treatment, albeit a private op with a top surgeon, which has fixed the issue. She'd be on her way to an early grave and life as a cripple otherwise.

I'm sure though we will look back on this era as totally weird as social media is so unpoliced and conspiracy theorists and nutters are on a different level. Derek's thread on measles just proves this.

[Pragmatist]

I have taken this of another forum 5 minutes ago. Anyone heard anything.


ONLINE
****

« Reply #994 on: Today at 09:40:30 PM »
I don't claim to be in the know so take this information from one Albion fan just passing on what he has heard to others...

Alex Hearn on Friday told my cousin's colleague that he was celebrating because he bought West Brom.

From everything we have heard about the group he is involved in, I hope it's not true.
Log

Him and his dad are worth under £100m. How can they afford to buy us?

So when I said that Shilen Patel wasn't worth as much as we were told the new owners was going to be worth, a lot of replies were it doesn't matter about how rich they are nowadays because of FFP rules etc... Then someone worth substantially less comes into the frame and apparently it will matter now. (not sure who was saying having mega rich owners doesn't matter BTW, not saying it was you).

I remember saying it would be these Warmfront guys the other month, but I was joking and making stuff up, it'd be a very WBA thing to go and do though. I suppose they'll get their loan discounted off the price??

Really can't see it being these by the way, but nothing about our club would surprise me.

The sort of wealth needed to buy and sustain (under current FFP rules) a Championship club is probably around £200-£300m.  That’s based on buying a club for an average of £50m and being able to pump in the permitted £13m a year (£39m over 3 years).  Any wealth above that is totally irrelevant as it can’t be injected into the club (other than for ground improvements, academy etc).  So whether someone is worth £300m or £3 billion, the extra £2.7 billion can be ignored. 

I suspect that what might have happened re Hearn is that Lai hasn’t repaid the Warmfront loan by the deadline, which would have entitled Warmfront/Hearn to convert their loan into equity.  That would simply mean that instead of Lai/Yunyai owning 88% of Group via Holdings, they might now own only around 80%, meaning that Hearn/Warmfront would now be a minority shareholder in Group, as opposed to being a creditor of Holdings.  That wouldn’t affect anything other than the legal agreements re the imminent sale. 

Not saying that’s what’s happened - but it could well be the case as the Warmfront loan was due to be repaid around this time.

Not entirely correct re the wealth of a new owner, as wealthy owners can inject cash into WBA Group Ltd either as an interest free loan or equity.  This would naturally benefit cash flow and would allow WBA Group Ltd to meet all its future outgoings and to pay off the MSD loans as soon as possible to reduce interest charges which would benefit FFP.

But otherwise I agree that the wealth is irrelevant.

No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

[Duffers]

Talking shite has been going on since man could talk, but the difference is the man in the pub had no clout and probably a reputation of being a bullshitter by those who got to know him.

Now though, it's so easy for that man in the pub to mask himself as an ITK big wig on social media.

Trouble is many people cannot see that and take rumours on Facebook etc as if the BBC had investigated and announced it. Misinformation spreads far quicker than Dave in the pub sounding off 30 years ago.

This is absolutely the case. The amplification of a single person's views via social media to often uncritical readers has created a world most appropriately described as 'post-truth'. It's the world exploited relentlessly by unscrupulous politicians and propagandists.

Quite simply, social media has created as many problems as it has solutions.

There are simply many people who do not deserve a voice on social media, who people in days of old could ignore. Equally there are those who were ignored that deserved their voice to be heard.

It is great and has advanced causes, but equally has also become a fantastic vehicle for misinformation and division by those with an agenda.

The amount of 'critical thinkers' who are totally unable to think critically is astounding.

All this.

Social media is toxic as fuck, but also can be used for good and to support people. It's the quintessential double edge sword, and I don't see how you'd solve the problems without limiting the benefits.

There's a lot of people who seem to draw their sense of self worth through their online personas and the need for attention to be seen as some kind of expert in matters they really know little about. You see it both on a micro level on this dump and and macro level on the big social media platforms. 

People want other people to think they know stuff and ask them to share their knowledge as it fluffs their egos and gives them a sense of self worth. It takes different forms, such as people who speculate wildly but try to present themselves as knowledgeable to those who flat out make shit up. You can invent as much nonsense as you want as long as you're right once (that's what Ziz was always striving for).

[Pragmatist]

I think any form of ‘leveraged debt’ purchase can be excluded as you need unencumbered assets to secure the debt against, and MSD already has everything under a first charge. Unless this Hearn character has managed to raise £60m externally (unlikely) then his involvement is surely limited to a minority shareholding by virtue of his loan not being repaid.

Not if the MSD loan was repaid and their first charges released

[Birdman1811]

This is absolutely the case. The amplification of a single person's views via social media to often uncritical readers has created a world most appropriately described as 'post-truth'. It's the world exploited relentlessly by unscrupulous politicians and propagandists.

Quite simply, social media has created as many problems as it has solutions.

There are simply many people who do not deserve a voice on social media, who people in days of old could ignore. Equally there are those who were ignored that deserved their voice to be heard.

It is great and has advanced causes, but equally has also become a fantastic vehicle for misinformation and division by those with an agenda.

The amount of 'critical thinkers' who are totally unable to think critically is astounding.

All this.

Social media is toxic as fuck, but also can be used for good and to support people. It's the quintessential double edge sword, and I don't see how you'd solve the problems without limiting the benefits.

There's a lot of people who seem to draw their sense of self worth through their online personas and the need for attention to be seen as some kind of expert in matters they really know little about. You see it both on a micro level on this dump and and macro level on the big social media platforms. 

People want other people to think they know stuff and ask them to share their knowledge as it fluffs their egos and gives them a sense of self worth. It takes different forms, such as people who speculate wildly but try to present themselves as knowledgeable to those who flat out make shit up. You can invent as much nonsense as you want as long as you're right once (that's what Ziz was always striving for).

Same with weirdos doing podcasts who think it instantly makes them an expert.

[Duffers]

Quite simply, social media has created as many problems as it has solutions.

There are simply many people who do not deserve a voice on social media, who people in days of old could ignore. Equally there are those who were ignored that deserved their voice to be heard.

It is great and has advanced causes, but equally has also become a fantastic vehicle for misinformation and division by those with an agenda.

The amount of 'critical thinkers' who are totally unable to think critically is astounding.

All this.

Social media is toxic as fuck, but also can be used for good and to support people. It's the quintessential double edge sword, and I don't see how you'd solve the problems without limiting the benefits.

There's a lot of people who seem to draw their sense of self worth through their online personas and the need for attention to be seen as some kind of expert in matters they really know little about. You see it both on a micro level on this dump and and macro level on the big social media platforms. 

People want other people to think they know stuff and ask them to share their knowledge as it fluffs their egos and gives them a sense of self worth. It takes different forms, such as people who speculate wildly but try to present themselves as knowledgeable to those who flat out make shit up. You can invent as much nonsense as you want as long as you're right once (that's what Ziz was always striving for).

Same with weirdos doing podcasts who think it instantly makes them an expert.

It's everywhere online.

---

The internet has given everyone a voice.

Sadly most voices are worthless.

[Hudds1]

The amount of 'critical thinkers' who are totally unable to think critically is astounding.

All this.

Social media is toxic as fuck, but also can be used for good and to support people. It's the quintessential double edge sword, and I don't see how you'd solve the problems without limiting the benefits.

There's a lot of people who seem to draw their sense of self worth through their online personas and the need for attention to be seen as some kind of expert in matters they really know little about. You see it both on a micro level on this dump and and macro level on the big social media platforms. 

People want other people to think they know stuff and ask them to share their knowledge as it fluffs their egos and gives them a sense of self worth. It takes different forms, such as people who speculate wildly but try to present themselves as knowledgeable to those who flat out make shit up. You can invent as much nonsense as you want as long as you're right once (that's what Ziz was always striving for).

Same with weirdos doing podcasts who think it instantly makes them an expert.

It's everywhere online.

---

The internet has given everyone a voice.

Sadly most voices are worthless.

Its RIFE Frank!

[Fulham Fallout]

Him and his dad are worth under £100m. How can they afford to buy us?

So when I said that Shilen Patel wasn't worth as much as we were told the new owners was going to be worth, a lot of replies were it doesn't matter about how rich they are nowadays because of FFP rules etc... Then someone worth substantially less comes into the frame and apparently it will matter now. (not sure who was saying having mega rich owners doesn't matter BTW, not saying it was you).

I remember saying it would be these Warmfront guys the other month, but I was joking and making stuff up, it'd be a very WBA thing to go and do though. I suppose they'll get their loan discounted off the price??

Really can't see it being these by the way, but nothing about our club would surprise me.

The sort of wealth needed to buy and sustain (under current FFP rules) a Championship club is probably around £200-£300m.  That’s based on buying a club for an average of £50m and being able to pump in the permitted £13m a year (£39m over 3 years).  Any wealth above that is totally irrelevant as it can’t be injected into the club (other than for ground improvements, academy etc).  So whether someone is worth £300m or £3 billion, the extra £2.7 billion can be ignored. 

I suspect that what might have happened re Hearn is that Lai hasn’t repaid the Warmfront loan by the deadline, which would have entitled Warmfront/Hearn to convert their loan into equity.  That would simply mean that instead of Lai/Yunyai owning 88% of Group via Holdings, they might now own only around 80%, meaning that Hearn/Warmfront would now be a minority shareholder in Group, as opposed to being a creditor of Holdings.  That wouldn’t affect anything other than the legal agreements re the imminent sale. 

Not saying that’s what’s happened - but it could well be the case as the Warmfront loan was due to be repaid around this time.

Not entirely correct re the wealth of a new owner, as wealthy owners can inject cash into WBA Group Ltd either as an interest free loan or equity.  This would naturally benefit cash flow and would allow WBA Group Ltd to meet all its future outgoings and to pay off the MSD loans as soon as possible to reduce interest charges which would benefit FFP.

But otherwise I agree that the wealth is irrelevant.

No - I’ve already allowed for that in the “£39m over 3 years” permitted losses.  That sum is made up of £5m per annum of permitted losses, and owners are allowed to inject an additional £8m of equity (but not loans).  Only the losses of £5m a year can be funded by owners’ loans.

Agree, sort of.  I haven’t seen in the regs the owners aren’t allowed to inject an amount greater than that allowed in the losses calculation. I.e.  the amounts used in the calculations are as you state, but additional funds pumped into a club and not used in the FFP calculation.

[Duffers]

All this.

Social media is toxic as fuck, but also can be used for good and to support people. It's the quintessential double edge sword, and I don't see how you'd solve the problems without limiting the benefits.

There's a lot of people who seem to draw their sense of self worth through their online personas and the need for attention to be seen as some kind of expert in matters they really know little about. You see it both on a micro level on this dump and and macro level on the big social media platforms. 

People want other people to think they know stuff and ask them to share their knowledge as it fluffs their egos and gives them a sense of self worth. It takes different forms, such as people who speculate wildly but try to present themselves as knowledgeable to those who flat out make shit up. You can invent as much nonsense as you want as long as you're right once (that's what Ziz was always striving for).

Same with weirdos doing podcasts who think it instantly makes them an expert.

It's everywhere online.

---

The internet has given everyone a voice.

Sadly most voices are worthless.

Its RIFE Frank!

Billions of people hurling their worthless opinions into the void... it's like the Franksy phone in but on a global scale.

[Squid]

There's a lot of people who seem to draw their sense of self worth through their online personas and the need for attention to be seen as some kind of expert in matters they really know little about. You see it both on a micro level on this dump and and macro level on the big social media platforms. 

People want other people to think they know stuff and ask them to share their knowledge as it fluffs their egos and gives them a sense of self worth. It takes different forms, such as people who speculate wildly but try to present themselves as knowledgeable to those who flat out make shit up. You can invent as much nonsense as you want as long as you're right once (that's what Ziz was always striving for).

Same with weirdos doing podcasts who think it instantly makes them an expert.

It's everywhere online.

---

The internet has given everyone a voice.

Sadly most voices are worthless.

Its RIFE Frank!

Billions of people hurling their worthless opinions into the void... it's like the Franksy phone in but on a global scale.

Better than the alternative, which is sadly the case in far too many countries on earth.