Why is everybody angry at Jimmy?

I think JR would give us money if he controlled the club

 

You could see things this way:

JR didn't want to be the provider when not in charge. He wanted others to help finance the club.

By taking things as far as he did he managed to bring Ashcroft to the table, made Ashcroft dip into his kitty and loan the club the money.

JR loaned the club money to safeguard his own investment as it would be worthless had the club gone into admin/receivership. He reached a point where he couldn't keep loaning the club money so he took the steps he did to ensure Ashcroft came to the party.

So Ashcroft seemingly won control of the club but Jimmy has ensured that - at least for now - his 30% shareholding is safe as Ashcroft has a lot more riding on the club surviving than he had before - and with Ashcroft in charge (of the majority share holding) I am pretty sure the shares will rise slowly.

I think JR saw 3 outcomes of this.

Either

1. he'd get power and control to safeguard his investment the way he saw fit.
   
2. Ashcroft got power and thereby safeguarding JRs investment.
   
3. The club went under.

He made a calculated gamble which paid off. It was high stakes and high risk - but he kept his cool and Ashcroft folded, paid JR and with the rights issue takes control of the club. Something that I think will reflect positively on our share value.

 

Russo has shown bad faith

*******************************
"I thought that was a disgraceful comment," said Russo, after Taylor called him a "bad man".

"He should have been more selective with his words.

"How can somebody who has rescued the club four times, have a contribution of £9m in the club, never been paid a penny ... become a bad man?

"I think Graham should apologise for that comment. I think that was totally out of order, and I don't think I deserved that.

"He should really look at that again and pick up the phone - if he's big enough."

*************************************
He previously indicated he was talking with the other shareholders - and then admitted he wasn`t.

I doubt his £1 million a month `burn figure`, and although I don`t rate Simpson - it was Ashton who caused more grief than anyone else.

In spite of the bad press that Lord Ashcroft has - so far he is the only person pledging close on £20 million of risk capital, without taking a dividend

 

Thanks for this! Very well boiled down.

This too!

 

So the net effect of all this that happened over the last week is:
A)
The Russo's loan to the club of 4.8 million backed by using the ground as collateral is replaced by a like investment by Lord Ashcroft, without any strings*.

B)
Jimmy Russo's position of Chairman is given up, replaced by Graham Taylor on an 'acting' basis.

The ownership percentages of all the players remain identical to what they were when the whole thing started. The ground is more secure since it is not hinged as collateral anywhere*. The Russo's position towards obtaining complete control over the club is considerably weakened, since VGS's stringed investment is gone and Jimmy's Chairmanship has been given up. The tenuous financial standing of 'Watford Leisure PLC' is firmed up thanks to the unconditional* investment of Lord Ashcroft.

*= Is Lord Ashcroft's investment truly unconditional or is it also backed by the ground as collateral, simply substituting VGS's for his own with the same terms?

 

when the management team came on the pitch v derby last game of the season in may i thought. "short ass mothers.dont like them" how right i was. yes rodgers was with the other two shorties.