BBC Article - takeover completion still seems 2 months away

[kentblues]

If this is the case then the problem is the type of people that they're hiring, not the hybrid working thing.

I am hybrid, working from home for 60% of my week, and I (and the vast majority of other people that I know who work hybrid) are infinitely more productive at home than in the office.

Hybrid/ remote doesn’t work if you have recruited badly and/or don’t measure and reward outcomes appropriately. Of course some roles require more f2f presence than others. If hybrid/ remote is sensible, but not working, it more likely a failure of leadership / management. In my experience.

 

[kentblues]

External due diligence won’t be particularly motivated to string it out. The longer it takes the longer it takes to get paid (it’s also worth remembering that the bigger the bill the more the client quibbles with it). My understanding is that work like this would most likely be if not a fixed fee at least capped anyway. If you spend ages on it it’ll just get discounted and it ruins your utilisation rate.

The hold up at months into it will likely be more to do with incomplete information being provided and then awaiting instructions on how to proceed in the absence of that information.

It will rarely be a fixed fee or capped. The issue is in part you don’t know what DD will throw up, where it will take you and the resources needed. I have never signed off on a fixed fee or capped proposal unless a punitive level of contingency is built in. Maybe that applies here- who knows (Note: I am talking larger more complex engagements- after all, things like conveyancing are, of course fixed fee, but are also pretty transactional)

Your last point is very valid but also is a reason why fixed and capped fees are generally not feasible.

Whether firms “string things out” or not I think more is driven by the fact that if you want repeat work, or to build a good reputation including through referrals, then it’s good business to be seen to be fair and efficient.

Payment is another thing again depending on how long the engagement is expected to last - billing can be periodic, stage based or at the end.

I hasten to add, as I have mentioned before, I have little experience of public sector as it’s an area I have avoided by choice.

Anyway my experience- for what it’s worth..

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

It will rarely be a fixed fee or capped. The issue is in part you don’t know what DD will throw up, where it will take you and the resources needed. I have never signed off on a fixed fee or capped proposal unless a punitive level of contingency is built in. Maybe that applies here- who knows (Note: I am talking larger more complex engagements- after all, things like conveyancing are, of course fixed fee, but are also pretty transactional)

Your last point is very valid but also is a reason why fixed and capped fees are generally not feasible.

Whether firms “string things out” or not I think more is driven by the fact that if you want repeat work, or to build a good reputation including through referrals, then it’s good business to be seen to be fair and efficient.

Payment is another thing again depending on how long the engagement is expected to last - billing can be periodic, stage based or at the end.

I hasten to add, as I have mentioned before, I have little experience of public sector as it’s an area I have avoided by choice.

Anyway my experience- for what it’s worth..

The cap can be either a hard cap or a soft cap. It obviously depends how easy it is to define what exactly is and isn’t in scope. My understanding is that this wouldn’t be a M&A style DD exercise but like you I have limited public sector experience.

The point is though that it’s unlikely that it’s the lawyers stringing it out. It is likely that the documents they received to review were incomplete and waiting for them and for answers to queries raised is what is stringing things out.

 

[* ORM *]

Hybrid/ remote doesn’t work if you have recruited badly and/or don’t measure and reward outcomes appropriately. Of course some roles require more f2f presence than others. If hybrid/ remote is sensible, but not working, it more likely a failure of leadership / management. In my experience.

This an interesting debate which should be the subject of its own thread. FWIW I am infinitely better structured and provided better output under hybrid. It enabled me to restructure my working week, taking breaks when it suited me while not impacting he work.

We were actually discussing this in the pub last night. Hybrid does not work for a young/new workforce where the personal and professional contact suffers and the work/ personal satisfaction over time gives bad results.

I don’t think that’s what the CEO’s were thinking when they all clamoured for a return to office. That was largely a visibility matter with office space paid for but unused. Something to think about for those in a supervisory or managerial capacity.

One of our guys from Singapore organises his large team so that no one has their own desk and nobody can sit on the same set of desks or with the same people on consecutive days. It’s worked tremendously well.

 

[Holy Joe]

The cap can be either a hard cap or a soft cap. It obviously depends how easy it is to define what exactly is and isn’t in scope. My understanding is that this wouldn’t be a M&A style DD exercise but like you I have limited public sector experience.

The point is though that it’s unlikely that it’s the lawyers stringing it out. It is likely that the documents they received to review were incomplete and waiting for them and for answers to queries raised is what is stringing things out.

And that brings us full circle to why it might be constructive to protest outside Martin's palace - it's a viable scenario that he is causing delays, by withholding info or moving goal posts.

As I said before an official statement is needed

 

[kentblues]

The cap can be either a hard cap or a soft cap. It obviously depends how easy it is to define what exactly is and isn’t in scope. My understanding is that this wouldn’t be a M&A style DD exercise but like you I have limited public sector experience.

The point is though that it’s unlikely that it’s the lawyers stringing it out. It is likely that the documents they received to review were incomplete and waiting for them and for answers to queries raised is what is stringing things out.

I agree it's unlikely and I assume they are using a trusted supplier. The other option is just that its a very complicated transaction, was always going to run broadly to this timeframes, and it might just be poor communication/expectation setting by the parties. I sense not but its also possible,

 

[kentblues]

And that brings us full circle to why it might be constructive to protest outside Martin's palace - it's a viable scenario that he is causing delays, by withholding info or moving goal posts.

As I said before an official statement is needed

This is fine but make sure you stop off at the council offices on the way there or back- its their DD and as far as I know from the consortium there is no suggestion the Martins are holding anything up. Of course an ITK may have reliable information that suggests something has changed.

 

[Holy Joe]

This is fine but make sure you stop off at the council offices on the way there or back- its their DD and as far as I know from the consortium there is no suggestion the Martins are holding anything up. Of course an ITK may have reliable information that suggests something has changed.

Actually the gist of my post is that we don't know what is the hold up and it might be a opportune time for an official statement from one or more of the parties involved

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

This is fine but make sure you stop off at the council offices on the way there or back- its their DD and as far as I know from the consortium there is no suggestion the Martins are holding anything up. Of course an ITK may have reliable information that suggests something has changed.

If it’s not Martin’s fault he’ll be quick to let us know.

His whole history is that things take longer than they should.

 

[Holy Joe]

If it’s not Martin’s fault he’ll be quick to let us know.

His whole history is that things take longer than they should.

Also of course it is Martin that has made it a condition of the sale - he is free to sell the club to the consortium anytime he chooses.


I understand that it is entirely within reason that he is looking to protect his investment, but it remains the case he could, if he wanted, sell the club right now

 

[undercovershrimper]

More likely by legals who get paid by the hour…

Most law firms bill in blocks of 6 mins these days, hours are long gone!

 

[annie1954]

This is fine but make sure you stop off at the council offices on the way there or back- its their DD and as far as I know from the consortium there is no suggestion the Martins are holding anything up. Of course an ITK may have reliable information that suggests something has changed.

Did hear one rumour that Ron wants some of the new houses changed to flats hopefully it’s not going to drag on for weeks & weeks, I’m sure some of the consortium guys are not going to wait forever

 

[Smiffy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775183723920584808

 

[Cricko]

This thread is now closed but continued here,

Breaking News - Latest news on the sale of the club.

Here we go again...

www.shrimperzone.com