There is no reason for a new owner to pay $1 to terry in this current situation where it looks like the vultures are circling.
Why buy off terry when the league owns all the IP and when he leaves/goes belly up the license reverts to the league anyway? At that point, a new owner merely has to negotiate with the NZF and the FFA to be the preferred new owner.
(They can these invest this cash in the business, rather than have given it to terry)
Why buy off terry when the league owns all the IP and when he leaves/goes belly up the license reverts to the league anyway? At that point, a new owner merely has to negotiate with the NZF and the FFA to be the preferred new owner.
(They can these invest this cash in the business, rather than have given it to terry)
If you want to take over the club you go to terry and agree to take it off his hands. If you intend to honour existing contracts and carry on running the existing entity, i.e. Wellington Phoenox FC then that's the way to do it. IP etc may be with the FFA but all player and staff contracts, sponsors etc are with the current entity. The phoenix may have negatve cash flow but it does have assets, kit balls trainign equipment etc etc. You want that stuff.
If the licence goes back to the FFA then there will be a period when anyone can bid, you may not be selected.
$1 is nominal consideration to allow transfer of the rights and obligations. You are not paying Terry anything. He walks away and you assume the obligation to finance the current 400k a month or whatever it costs to run the club. This is not unusual, people buy businesses for nominal consideration all the time and assume debt. You buy the club for the value of the debt. In this case you buy the club for present the value of the future negative cash flow
james dean2011-04-19 21:42:53