Post by Macmoish on Apr 9, 2011 8:41:27 GMT
STILL a chance, Gianni...Do it for your son...Go out on a high 
SToke Sentinel
Port Vale: Consortium in bid to buy Valiants
PORT Vale are in advanced talks with an English-based consortium who want to take control of the club, chairman Bill Bratt has revealed.
He refused to identify the group – one of two the club are talking to – but insists they would be willing to match Mo Chaudry's bid to gain a 51 per cent controlling stake in the club at a cost of £1.21m.
Bratt, pictured right, said: "We're in talks with two prospective investors who are talking about offering substantial investment.
"We're a long way down the line with one English-based group that has proposed to put money into the club on the basis of gaining a majority stake.
"They said they would be willing to at least match Mo Chaudry's offer if they came in.But there are no guarantees, and a formal offer has not been forthcoming, although we remain hopeful.
"They are football people who know how football works and we're hoping to hold more talks."
Bratt said the second consortium was made up of English and foreign businessmen.
However, they are not proposing to buy more than the maximum £282,000 stake investors are currently allowed to own under the club's 24.9 per cent limit on individual shareholdings.
Should the initial group submit a formal offer for the club that meets the board's demands, it is understood they would consider giving shareholders the opportunity of removing the 24.9 per cent rule.
Chaudry withdrew the terms of his initial bid last month after the board failed to meet his deadline to vote on his proposal.
The Newcastle businessman insists he still wants to take control of Vale, but Bratt has urged him to consider simply investing in the club instead.
"If Mo Chaudry is interested in the future of Port Vale why doesn't he invest up to the 24.9 per cent level and help move the club forward," said Bratt.
"If his intentions are honourable, he could put money into the club now, as an investor, but without gaining a controlling interest.
"If we then believe his intentions for the club are good, we could discuss his future position at that point.",,
www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/sport/Port-Vale-New-bid-buy-Vale/article-3429737-detail/article.html
Stoke Sentinel
Port Vale: Chairman Bill Bratt puts the record straight on investors, Vale's finances ... and Jim Gannon< Previous 1 2 3 Next >
Port Vale: Chairman Bill Bratt puts the record straight on investors, Vale's finances ... and Jim Gannon
Steve Shaw poses some of the questions fans have for Port Vale chairman Bill Bratt about the future of their club
Steve Shaw: Why aren't you in favour of scrapping the 24.9 per cent shareholding rule when doing so would allow Mo Chaudry to invest more than £1m in fresh cash into the club?
Bill Bratt: The original V2001 principles included the 24.9 per cent rule, which limits any single investor to just less than one quarter of the total share-holding.
This rule was, and still is, intended to protect the club against anyone who maybe more interested in its assets rather than the well-being of Port Vale and its supporters.
Click here for more
Vale Park and all of the club's assets will always stay within the ownership of the supporter/shareholders.
This won't change unless the majority of shareholders are convinced a would-be buyer can be trusted not to asset strip or otherwise cause damage to the long-term future of the club and its assets.
While V2001 have been in charge we have suffered just one relegation, from League One to League Two, but everyone is trying very hard to reverse this by the end of the current campaign.
In the same eight-year period I think around 26 clubs have either gone into administration or have dropped out of the Football League – for example, Luton and Wrexham, or, in the case of Chester City, have gone out of existence altogether.
But we're in our best financial position since taking over in 2003 and there is a good prospect of us at least breaking even this financial year.
I know that doesn't sound exciting, but there are less than a handful of clubs who can say that.
As the board are ardent and life-long Vale supporters we will never allow the club to go into administration.
We're protecting the club and our main bank balance shows we're £13,000 in credit. In other words, we're not overdrawn and trading solvently.
SS: What steps must Mo Chaudry take before the board are able to vote on his bid offer?
BB: There is no bid on the table because Mo Chaudry, pictured right, has withdrawn it.
We had a letter from Mr Chaudry's solicitor saying he has withdrawn his bid. We can't get beyond that at the moment.
We received Mr Chaudry's letter after he set a deadline for the board to vote on his bid last month. We didn't meet the deadline because we are running the club, not Mr Chaudry. He can't dictate what we do.
SS: Why does Chaudry's bid conflict with the original Valiant 2001 principles? Are you concerned he will attempt to strip the club of its assets or split them up?
BB: We're concerned he will try to get us promoted and then sell the club to make a profit for himself and shareholders. While that is laudable, this is football and there isn't more than a handful of clubs making a profit in the country.
The board believes this is just a business venture to him. I think it's very dangerous for somebody to own a controlling 51 per cent stake of the shares because they can then do what they want with the club.
SS: The club's two-year capital repayment holiday window on the £2.25m loan you took out with Stoke-on-Trent City Council is now over. What is the exact cost of the extra monthly payments and how will this affect the club's financial picture during the repayment period?
BB: The end of the holiday payment window means we will be paying an extra £10,691 per month, which has been budgeted for.
Mr Chaudry recently claimed that for the past two years we have not been able to afford our payments to the council. This is not true.
Vale have never missed any payment to the council or been late in making a payment.
This demonstrates we have always been able to afford the repayments.
We're always talking with the council and they will always help the club if they can.
SS: You claim to have commissioned an independent valuation of Vale Park which valued the ground at £5.1m when Chaudry's own independent evaluation valued it at a lesser £3.4m. Can you explain the discrepancy?
BB: The club commissioned a full and independent valuation in February 2011 which took into account all factors. I believe that valuation report attributed a much more realistic valuation figure of £5.1 million – any shareholder can see the report on request.
You have to bear in mind the amount of money that has been spent on the ground and the income we receive from our 20 enterprise units. These revenue streams are not irrelevant because they raise up to £100,000 per year for the club.
SS: Chaudry claims the club's debt stands at around £3.5m. What's the truth?
BB: The current debt does not stand at £3.5m. The club's debts are public knowledge and are stated in full in the audited accounts which are regularly provided to all shareholders.
We borrowed £2.25m from Stoke-on-Trent City Council in 2006 which now stands at around £1.9m. That is our mortgage debt.
We also took out an interest-free and open-ended loan of £125,000 with the club's first-team shirt sponsor, Harlequin Property.
Then there is our loan from a brewery which stands at £65,000, and we make monthly payments on that.
We also negotiated a loan of £98,000 with the Carbon Trust in December. This is an interest-free loan to be paid back over four years, and the money has been used to replace things like our central heating, air conditioning and water heating systems.
But that loan is repaid with quantifiable savings achieved on our energy bills and is therefore self-financing.
So a simple addition shows the total amount of debt stands at £2,188,000 – against a valuation of £ 5.1 million.
We have no other debts apart from normal trading ones – we pay our bills on time and we've never been behind on paying VAT.
SS: Chaudry continues to insist the club are close to going to the wall? What do you say the true position is?
BB: We're not going to the wall, we're not going into administration. If we were going to the wall there would be creditors queuing up to serve us with writs, but that isn't the case because we pay our bills.
SS: Does it concern the board that Chaudry is not a Vale fan? What do you think his motives are for wanting to take control the club?
BB: By his own admission Mo Chaudry is not a Port Vale fan, so what is his interest in Port Vale Football Club? He invests in companies, but football is not a profitable business.
He knows this. Most clubs, even some of those in the Premier League, are struggling and are in debt. If you look at the Championship, the minimum players' wage bill is £9m and goes up to £39m. Where is Mr Chaudry going to get that sort of money? So my concern is that what Mr Chaudry is talking about is not achievable unless somebody with a lot more money than him is willing to invest.
SS: But why is Vale better off with the current regime when Chaudry is proposing to invest at least £1.21m of fresh cash into the club? Do you not concede Chaudry has the financial muscle to take the club forward as opposed to the current board who can only promise to keep it afloat?
BB: Mr Chaudry may be proposing investment, but he can conjure any figure he wants. When he has control, he could then sell the ground or do anything else he likes. That concerns the board.
Absolute power in one man's hands is not healthy. It's not so much the money, it's about the intentions behind the investment.
SS: Why is it important Chaudry submits a business plan to the board? Is this normal practice?
BB: This is important – we believe Mr Chaudry will not have the foresight in relation to running a football club.
Football is a very different business to anything Mr Chaudry has seen before.
We want to see detailed proposals over how he intends to fund his plan as words are cheap. Our perception is Mr Chaudry is a businessman who is interested in his own financial future, and not the future of Port Vale as a club.
Mr Chaudry has said he has a business plan for the club for the next five years. We have asked for a copy of this plan and been refused – what is there to hide?
Football has changed dramatically in the last 10 years with 92 per cent of all TV money now going to the Premier League and only eight per cent for the other divisions. The Bosman ruling on players' freedom of contract has also killed off many transfers for substantial fees, and this former income stream will not come back.
SS: Do you think the majority of fans back your stance? Have you lost the moral high ground?
BB: We want what's best for the club. The Black and Gold Until It's Sold fans have the right to have their say unless this involves criminal activity. We understand their concerns, but we believe that much of the information Mr Chaudry is giving out is inaccurate.
SS: What was your reaction to former directors Mike Thompstone and Dave Smith, plus the likes of Phil Taylor, backing Chaudry's bid?
BB: They have their own opinion and they are entitled to it.
SS: You have appointed a new chief executive, even though Chaudry has his own candidate lined up? Does this suggest you will not accept Chaudry's bid?
BB: It is not relevant that Mr Chaudry has lined up his own chief executive – he is not running the club.
SS: What happened to the Texas-based consortium? Didn't they want to buy the club before the turn of the year?
BB: They didn't propose to buy the club. They were talking about investment but we never received an actual offer of any description.
Instead, we received a 30-page letter outlining their general interest of how they were going to split the club up.
We didn't think they submitted a viable plan and they haven't come back to us. We didn't waste their time. We hosted their consortium, looked after them, gave them every bit of information they asked for and they went away very happy and impressed with the club – but their plan did not work.
SS: Rumours abound that the board have been back in contact with Mike Newton regarding investment. Is there any truth in this and, if so, what makes him a more viable investor now as opposed to six months ago?
BB: There is no truth in the rumour and we would not consider going back to him on the basis of his previous offer.
SS: Given that the bids of Mike Newton, pictured below, the American consortium and Chaudry have all been rejected, can you outline what criteria a potential investor must meet to be considered viable?
BB: The business is already stable, with solid foundations and with a realistic budget on the playing side.
The board accepts, and has always accepted, that new money and new blood is needed to take the club further.
The board continues to seek out such investment.
However, new investors would also have to buy into the supporter-orientated and community-orientated principles on which the club is run.
SS: When do you intend to conduct your shareholders' poll, and what proposals or questions will be put to the shareholders?
BB: The poll was going to be based on whether to accept Mr Chaudry's bid offer. But because that offer has now been withdrawn we aren't allowed to refer to it in the poll document, so we have had to revise it.
Three out of the four questions were going to be about Mr Chaudry's bid, but we can't write the document on that basis because his solicitors say we can't include the information in his original bid.
The document will go out in the very near future, and it will ask about changing the 24.9 per cent share rule.
SS: Are you preparing to call an Extraordinary General Meeting? Why are you doing this and what will be proposed to shareholders and what voting system will be in operation?
BB: An EGM will go ahead after we have received the correspondences from our shareholders' poll. As is normal business practice, voting will be based on the number of shares each individual owns. That is the only fair way.
Why would a shareholder with 1,000 shares have the same vote as a shareholder with 50,000 shares?
SS: Robbie Williams says he will abstain from any vote on the future ownership and running of the club. Will the board respect his decision or persuade him to rethink his stance? Have you used his proxy vote in the past?
BB: We respect and accept Robbie's decision. We have only ever used his proxy once, a long time ago, and he gave us written permission to do that.
We would never use his proxy unless we attained written authority from him. We always send out information to him, but he would have to approach us if he wanted us to use his proxy. We haven't approached him to use his proxy on these issues.
SS: What are your thoughts on the Black and Gold anti-board campaign?
BB: The fans are entitled to their views and whom they listen to, but the club's future is at stake. If we get this wrong, it could be the end of the club. We're asking fans to trust us.
SS: How concerned are you by the Starve 'Em Out campaign, which encourages fans not to buy season tickets in a bid to bring about regime change? Could this lead to the club going into administration?
BB: This campaign will not put the club into administration if we can help it. We're in negotiations with potential investors and hopefully that will come good.
I think the majority of supporters will buy season tickets, especially while they are on sale at the discounted "early-bird" price this month.
If we lost more than £300,000 in season-ticket revenue, I'll be perfectly honest, it would cause us difficulties.
But we would try to get over it because we are Vale supporters and we're here to support the club.
I always think you should put the club first – it's got nothing to do with the board or anything else.
SS: In a previous interview you said you intended to step down as both chairman and chief executive by the turn of the year. You've stepped down as chief executive, when do you plan to step down as chairman?
BB: We have appointed Perry Deakin as our new chief executive, and when the right investment comes in I'll be happy to step down as chairman.
I'm happy to go at any time if the right person is put in place, but that should be allied to the right investment.
If I didn't care about the club I would have walked away ages ago.
I don't see my position as holding power – I see it as looking after the club. I haven't got an ego and all I want is what's best for the club.
SS: Why do you think you got the appointment of Jim Gannon so wrong?
BB: Jim Gannon's references, including those from his former clubs, Stockport County and Peterborough United, were the best we've ever received for a prospective manager.
His vision for the club was absolutely brilliant, plus his coaching certificates and ability were beyond question.
We honestly believed he could do a good job for us, but unfortunately it didn't work out that way.
So we don't think we got the appointment wrong, unfortunately we think Mr Gannon got it wrong.
SS: Are steps being taken behind the scenes to appoint a new manager? How many applications have you received and who's in the frame?
BB: The board will discuss this issue in due course, but an appointment is not imminent.
www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/sport/Port-Vale-Chairman-Bratt-puts-record-straight-investors-Vale-s-finances-Jim-Gannon/article-3429028-detail/article.html
SToke Sentinel
Port Vale: Consortium in bid to buy Valiants
PORT Vale are in advanced talks with an English-based consortium who want to take control of the club, chairman Bill Bratt has revealed.
He refused to identify the group – one of two the club are talking to – but insists they would be willing to match Mo Chaudry's bid to gain a 51 per cent controlling stake in the club at a cost of £1.21m.
Bratt, pictured right, said: "We're in talks with two prospective investors who are talking about offering substantial investment.
"We're a long way down the line with one English-based group that has proposed to put money into the club on the basis of gaining a majority stake.
"They said they would be willing to at least match Mo Chaudry's offer if they came in.But there are no guarantees, and a formal offer has not been forthcoming, although we remain hopeful.
"They are football people who know how football works and we're hoping to hold more talks."
Bratt said the second consortium was made up of English and foreign businessmen.
However, they are not proposing to buy more than the maximum £282,000 stake investors are currently allowed to own under the club's 24.9 per cent limit on individual shareholdings.
Should the initial group submit a formal offer for the club that meets the board's demands, it is understood they would consider giving shareholders the opportunity of removing the 24.9 per cent rule.
Chaudry withdrew the terms of his initial bid last month after the board failed to meet his deadline to vote on his proposal.
The Newcastle businessman insists he still wants to take control of Vale, but Bratt has urged him to consider simply investing in the club instead.
"If Mo Chaudry is interested in the future of Port Vale why doesn't he invest up to the 24.9 per cent level and help move the club forward," said Bratt.
"If his intentions are honourable, he could put money into the club now, as an investor, but without gaining a controlling interest.
"If we then believe his intentions for the club are good, we could discuss his future position at that point.",,
www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/sport/Port-Vale-New-bid-buy-Vale/article-3429737-detail/article.html
Stoke Sentinel
Port Vale: Chairman Bill Bratt puts the record straight on investors, Vale's finances ... and Jim Gannon< Previous 1 2 3 Next >
Port Vale: Chairman Bill Bratt puts the record straight on investors, Vale's finances ... and Jim Gannon
Steve Shaw poses some of the questions fans have for Port Vale chairman Bill Bratt about the future of their club
Steve Shaw: Why aren't you in favour of scrapping the 24.9 per cent shareholding rule when doing so would allow Mo Chaudry to invest more than £1m in fresh cash into the club?
Bill Bratt: The original V2001 principles included the 24.9 per cent rule, which limits any single investor to just less than one quarter of the total share-holding.
This rule was, and still is, intended to protect the club against anyone who maybe more interested in its assets rather than the well-being of Port Vale and its supporters.
Click here for more
Vale Park and all of the club's assets will always stay within the ownership of the supporter/shareholders.
This won't change unless the majority of shareholders are convinced a would-be buyer can be trusted not to asset strip or otherwise cause damage to the long-term future of the club and its assets.
While V2001 have been in charge we have suffered just one relegation, from League One to League Two, but everyone is trying very hard to reverse this by the end of the current campaign.
In the same eight-year period I think around 26 clubs have either gone into administration or have dropped out of the Football League – for example, Luton and Wrexham, or, in the case of Chester City, have gone out of existence altogether.
But we're in our best financial position since taking over in 2003 and there is a good prospect of us at least breaking even this financial year.
I know that doesn't sound exciting, but there are less than a handful of clubs who can say that.
As the board are ardent and life-long Vale supporters we will never allow the club to go into administration.
We're protecting the club and our main bank balance shows we're £13,000 in credit. In other words, we're not overdrawn and trading solvently.
SS: What steps must Mo Chaudry take before the board are able to vote on his bid offer?
BB: There is no bid on the table because Mo Chaudry, pictured right, has withdrawn it.
We had a letter from Mr Chaudry's solicitor saying he has withdrawn his bid. We can't get beyond that at the moment.
We received Mr Chaudry's letter after he set a deadline for the board to vote on his bid last month. We didn't meet the deadline because we are running the club, not Mr Chaudry. He can't dictate what we do.
SS: Why does Chaudry's bid conflict with the original Valiant 2001 principles? Are you concerned he will attempt to strip the club of its assets or split them up?
BB: We're concerned he will try to get us promoted and then sell the club to make a profit for himself and shareholders. While that is laudable, this is football and there isn't more than a handful of clubs making a profit in the country.
The board believes this is just a business venture to him. I think it's very dangerous for somebody to own a controlling 51 per cent stake of the shares because they can then do what they want with the club.
SS: The club's two-year capital repayment holiday window on the £2.25m loan you took out with Stoke-on-Trent City Council is now over. What is the exact cost of the extra monthly payments and how will this affect the club's financial picture during the repayment period?
BB: The end of the holiday payment window means we will be paying an extra £10,691 per month, which has been budgeted for.
Mr Chaudry recently claimed that for the past two years we have not been able to afford our payments to the council. This is not true.
Vale have never missed any payment to the council or been late in making a payment.
This demonstrates we have always been able to afford the repayments.
We're always talking with the council and they will always help the club if they can.
SS: You claim to have commissioned an independent valuation of Vale Park which valued the ground at £5.1m when Chaudry's own independent evaluation valued it at a lesser £3.4m. Can you explain the discrepancy?
BB: The club commissioned a full and independent valuation in February 2011 which took into account all factors. I believe that valuation report attributed a much more realistic valuation figure of £5.1 million – any shareholder can see the report on request.
You have to bear in mind the amount of money that has been spent on the ground and the income we receive from our 20 enterprise units. These revenue streams are not irrelevant because they raise up to £100,000 per year for the club.
SS: Chaudry claims the club's debt stands at around £3.5m. What's the truth?
BB: The current debt does not stand at £3.5m. The club's debts are public knowledge and are stated in full in the audited accounts which are regularly provided to all shareholders.
We borrowed £2.25m from Stoke-on-Trent City Council in 2006 which now stands at around £1.9m. That is our mortgage debt.
We also took out an interest-free and open-ended loan of £125,000 with the club's first-team shirt sponsor, Harlequin Property.
Then there is our loan from a brewery which stands at £65,000, and we make monthly payments on that.
We also negotiated a loan of £98,000 with the Carbon Trust in December. This is an interest-free loan to be paid back over four years, and the money has been used to replace things like our central heating, air conditioning and water heating systems.
But that loan is repaid with quantifiable savings achieved on our energy bills and is therefore self-financing.
So a simple addition shows the total amount of debt stands at £2,188,000 – against a valuation of £ 5.1 million.
We have no other debts apart from normal trading ones – we pay our bills on time and we've never been behind on paying VAT.
SS: Chaudry continues to insist the club are close to going to the wall? What do you say the true position is?
BB: We're not going to the wall, we're not going into administration. If we were going to the wall there would be creditors queuing up to serve us with writs, but that isn't the case because we pay our bills.
SS: Does it concern the board that Chaudry is not a Vale fan? What do you think his motives are for wanting to take control the club?
BB: By his own admission Mo Chaudry is not a Port Vale fan, so what is his interest in Port Vale Football Club? He invests in companies, but football is not a profitable business.
He knows this. Most clubs, even some of those in the Premier League, are struggling and are in debt. If you look at the Championship, the minimum players' wage bill is £9m and goes up to £39m. Where is Mr Chaudry going to get that sort of money? So my concern is that what Mr Chaudry is talking about is not achievable unless somebody with a lot more money than him is willing to invest.
SS: But why is Vale better off with the current regime when Chaudry is proposing to invest at least £1.21m of fresh cash into the club? Do you not concede Chaudry has the financial muscle to take the club forward as opposed to the current board who can only promise to keep it afloat?
BB: Mr Chaudry may be proposing investment, but he can conjure any figure he wants. When he has control, he could then sell the ground or do anything else he likes. That concerns the board.
Absolute power in one man's hands is not healthy. It's not so much the money, it's about the intentions behind the investment.
SS: Why is it important Chaudry submits a business plan to the board? Is this normal practice?
BB: This is important – we believe Mr Chaudry will not have the foresight in relation to running a football club.
Football is a very different business to anything Mr Chaudry has seen before.
We want to see detailed proposals over how he intends to fund his plan as words are cheap. Our perception is Mr Chaudry is a businessman who is interested in his own financial future, and not the future of Port Vale as a club.
Mr Chaudry has said he has a business plan for the club for the next five years. We have asked for a copy of this plan and been refused – what is there to hide?
Football has changed dramatically in the last 10 years with 92 per cent of all TV money now going to the Premier League and only eight per cent for the other divisions. The Bosman ruling on players' freedom of contract has also killed off many transfers for substantial fees, and this former income stream will not come back.
SS: Do you think the majority of fans back your stance? Have you lost the moral high ground?
BB: We want what's best for the club. The Black and Gold Until It's Sold fans have the right to have their say unless this involves criminal activity. We understand their concerns, but we believe that much of the information Mr Chaudry is giving out is inaccurate.
SS: What was your reaction to former directors Mike Thompstone and Dave Smith, plus the likes of Phil Taylor, backing Chaudry's bid?
BB: They have their own opinion and they are entitled to it.
SS: You have appointed a new chief executive, even though Chaudry has his own candidate lined up? Does this suggest you will not accept Chaudry's bid?
BB: It is not relevant that Mr Chaudry has lined up his own chief executive – he is not running the club.
SS: What happened to the Texas-based consortium? Didn't they want to buy the club before the turn of the year?
BB: They didn't propose to buy the club. They were talking about investment but we never received an actual offer of any description.
Instead, we received a 30-page letter outlining their general interest of how they were going to split the club up.
We didn't think they submitted a viable plan and they haven't come back to us. We didn't waste their time. We hosted their consortium, looked after them, gave them every bit of information they asked for and they went away very happy and impressed with the club – but their plan did not work.
SS: Rumours abound that the board have been back in contact with Mike Newton regarding investment. Is there any truth in this and, if so, what makes him a more viable investor now as opposed to six months ago?
BB: There is no truth in the rumour and we would not consider going back to him on the basis of his previous offer.
SS: Given that the bids of Mike Newton, pictured below, the American consortium and Chaudry have all been rejected, can you outline what criteria a potential investor must meet to be considered viable?
BB: The business is already stable, with solid foundations and with a realistic budget on the playing side.
The board accepts, and has always accepted, that new money and new blood is needed to take the club further.
The board continues to seek out such investment.
However, new investors would also have to buy into the supporter-orientated and community-orientated principles on which the club is run.
SS: When do you intend to conduct your shareholders' poll, and what proposals or questions will be put to the shareholders?
BB: The poll was going to be based on whether to accept Mr Chaudry's bid offer. But because that offer has now been withdrawn we aren't allowed to refer to it in the poll document, so we have had to revise it.
Three out of the four questions were going to be about Mr Chaudry's bid, but we can't write the document on that basis because his solicitors say we can't include the information in his original bid.
The document will go out in the very near future, and it will ask about changing the 24.9 per cent share rule.
SS: Are you preparing to call an Extraordinary General Meeting? Why are you doing this and what will be proposed to shareholders and what voting system will be in operation?
BB: An EGM will go ahead after we have received the correspondences from our shareholders' poll. As is normal business practice, voting will be based on the number of shares each individual owns. That is the only fair way.
Why would a shareholder with 1,000 shares have the same vote as a shareholder with 50,000 shares?
SS: Robbie Williams says he will abstain from any vote on the future ownership and running of the club. Will the board respect his decision or persuade him to rethink his stance? Have you used his proxy vote in the past?
BB: We respect and accept Robbie's decision. We have only ever used his proxy once, a long time ago, and he gave us written permission to do that.
We would never use his proxy unless we attained written authority from him. We always send out information to him, but he would have to approach us if he wanted us to use his proxy. We haven't approached him to use his proxy on these issues.
SS: What are your thoughts on the Black and Gold anti-board campaign?
BB: The fans are entitled to their views and whom they listen to, but the club's future is at stake. If we get this wrong, it could be the end of the club. We're asking fans to trust us.
SS: How concerned are you by the Starve 'Em Out campaign, which encourages fans not to buy season tickets in a bid to bring about regime change? Could this lead to the club going into administration?
BB: This campaign will not put the club into administration if we can help it. We're in negotiations with potential investors and hopefully that will come good.
I think the majority of supporters will buy season tickets, especially while they are on sale at the discounted "early-bird" price this month.
If we lost more than £300,000 in season-ticket revenue, I'll be perfectly honest, it would cause us difficulties.
But we would try to get over it because we are Vale supporters and we're here to support the club.
I always think you should put the club first – it's got nothing to do with the board or anything else.
SS: In a previous interview you said you intended to step down as both chairman and chief executive by the turn of the year. You've stepped down as chief executive, when do you plan to step down as chairman?
BB: We have appointed Perry Deakin as our new chief executive, and when the right investment comes in I'll be happy to step down as chairman.
I'm happy to go at any time if the right person is put in place, but that should be allied to the right investment.
If I didn't care about the club I would have walked away ages ago.
I don't see my position as holding power – I see it as looking after the club. I haven't got an ego and all I want is what's best for the club.
SS: Why do you think you got the appointment of Jim Gannon so wrong?
BB: Jim Gannon's references, including those from his former clubs, Stockport County and Peterborough United, were the best we've ever received for a prospective manager.
His vision for the club was absolutely brilliant, plus his coaching certificates and ability were beyond question.
We honestly believed he could do a good job for us, but unfortunately it didn't work out that way.
So we don't think we got the appointment wrong, unfortunately we think Mr Gannon got it wrong.
SS: Are steps being taken behind the scenes to appoint a new manager? How many applications have you received and who's in the frame?
BB: The board will discuss this issue in due course, but an appointment is not imminent.
www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/sport/Port-Vale-Chairman-Bratt-puts-record-straight-investors-Vale-s-finances-Jim-Gannon/article-3429028-detail/article.html
