Port Vale: Ameriturf ready to reconsider investment deal
THE American firm behind a failed £1.6m investment in Port Vale are ready to reconsider the deal ... but only if the club's current board are removed.
Ameriturf Global Sports announced last May they were ready to loan Vale an interest-free £100,000, fund pre-season tours for the next 10 years to the tune of £500,000 and invest £600,000 in artificial pitches at the site of the former Chatterley Whitfield Colliery sports ground.
-

The synthetic turf company were also in line to buy shares worth £400,000 in return for two seats on the board, but the deal was then usurped by their U.S. rivals, Blue Sky International.
That move prompted AGS president Tim Hollinger to threaten Vale with legal action, but he is now prepared to discuss a watered-down version of the original deal once the club's under-fire board are out of the picture.
Hollinger revealed he had already discussed the idea with former Vale chairman Bill Bratt, the man who co-signed the AGS deal last May.
"I couldn't work with the current board after what happened and losing up to $200,000 (£128,000)," he said.
"But if anybody wants to do a deal then I'd be interested in having dialogue with a new board about a new structure.
"We're doing very well right here in America and don't need to go abroad, but we still have a desire to promote our agenda with this type of programme and we are currently talking with four other English clubs.
"We liked Vale's working-class community and we could still create a good facility for people to use.
"When I start something I don't like quitting or losing, so I could be interested in getting this fixed."
The future of Vale's four-man board of Peter Miller, Perry Deakin, Mike Lloyd and Glenn Oliver is already in doubt.
Outgoing chief executive Deakin and Oliver are due to stand down at the club's March 13 annual meeting, while former chairman Miller and Lloyd are likely to face a shareholder vote on their future at a extraordinary general meeting due to be held at about the same time.
Hollinger claims Miller engineered the now collapsed Blue Sky deal, despite also representing AGS at the time.
The major change in any resurrected deal is likely to involve the buying of shares.
Hollinger added: "At this time there'd be no reason to buy shares because I'm not interested in running a football club.
"At the time we did the last deal I was told Vale would be a top-notch facility with the club talking about the Robbie Williams Suite.
"We would have had the right to use the venue to host things like dinners, a charity match and possibly a concert.
"If these facilities get built and lead to revenue sources then it would make more sense to buy shares and be part of that in the future."
Bratt stepped down from the Vale board in October after being told his exit was a condition of the Blue Sky deal.
He hopes to hold further talks with Hollinger at the American's California base in the near future.
"Tim's a decent man and I would like to see the AGS deal resurrected if it was good for the club," said Bratt, "but as a former director I have no influence at the Vale any more."
More Port Vale articles:
Port Vale: We can put paid to Shrewsbury's run, says Adams
'Our street is a car park on Port Vale matchdays'
Port Vale: Fans have their say on Vale's League Two victory over Plymouth
Port Vale: Pope's divine strike is heaven sent
Port Vale: Pope delighted to get on goal trail again
Port Vale: Would-be board member wants one man in control of Vale







54 Comments
View all
by lanternhead
Friday, February 03 2012, 5:34PM
“no one is sure about mo but he did have to restructure his finances when he bought,or bought into esporta.we all know mo is asset rich but he could use his own money to finance the vale or would he have to borrow ands do further restructuring ,that point is debateable as the last thing the club needs is financing by leveraged debt.”
by djdaz1210
Friday, February 03 2012, 3:22AM
“ive also been reading about your interest about mo chaudrey. I think that someone like this, would be a good thing. Does this man own other leisure investments? if he does, he must have good capital. I dont understand the money side of things, but could he buy Port Vale? U need to champion this and keep on at your board. But you also have to think about the other fans who just want to watch their team without the politics. Are port val in any kind of debt, if so, how much?”
by djdaz1210
Friday, February 03 2012, 2:57AM
“I agree with you vale fans. There doesn't seem to be any honest communication from your board. To be honest though, you will find it hard to get them before the courts. I think that this is what you want from your board, honest decent hard working people. But then again, people at the top, whether football clubs, government, authority have always lacked a good grasp of logic. THE REBEL CAUSE OF DISAGREEMENT WITH AUTHORITY FROM THE DECENT WORKING CLASS MAN IS THE CHANGE WITHIN GOVERNING. WILL WE GET THERE ONE DAY. MAYBE. UP THE VALE........... AND STOKE............. IM A NEUTRAL............... GOOD LUCK.”
by lanternhead
Thursday, February 02 2012, 6:42PM
“i think this topic has been done to death, ameriturf wont be seen round here, just hot air and maybe's,any interim board wouldn't dream of going down that road again after the problems (sing along if you wish) blue sky smiling at me ,nothing but blue sky do i see. never saw the sun shining so bright , nothing but blue skies from now on,,excuse the brevity,no that road is definately out of bounds.what the future holds is anyones guess,,hope my numbers come up friday but the club will survive whether they do or not, the commercial side will show a profit when all the drains on resources have left and everyone buys their season tickets because once the problems have been ousted from the boardroom all true supporters shouldn't have any gripes or reason not to buy and we may be in the play offs who knows, think positive fellow valeites, if we dont get promoted this season next season with a healthy bank balance from mega season ticket sales will allow micky to strengthen the team and go for it, think positive ,think positive, dark days at present but all the looking back should be shoved to one side and the future should become the focal point,,UTV,,”
by ValiantFosse
Thursday, February 02 2012, 6:08PM
“Oliver, Only the EGM can effect meaningful change, the AGM is a non-event.”
by oliver3742
Thursday, February 02 2012, 5:33PM
“Here's a question, if the board situation is sorted out at the AGM will the warring factions buy season tickets next season or will some of them find further excuses not to buy?”
by tisdeano
Thursday, February 02 2012, 1:50PM
“Don't bother replying to DIASALO he is obviously using this forum utilising the same tactics as other psoters did prior to the EGM last year, spreading mis-truths and lies. He is posting in a way as to lead discussions in a way to suggest what he types may have some truth, replying just helps his efforts.”
by PompeyValiant
Thursday, February 02 2012, 1:22PM
“DIASOLO - How do you know this? You seem very certain. Please provide your evidence and reasoning so that Vale fans / shareholders can see the whole story.”
by ValiantFosse
Thursday, February 02 2012, 1:21PM
“Diaslo, The first objective is to elect an Interim Board, then after the financial and contractual state of the club is known action can be taken. Whether a deal can be done with the Jackson5, or new investors including Mo, or Admin, will be determined by the shareholders. Why Morrisons would want to build on a mine-ridden plot of land, when many other plots of development land are available now around Burslem, and not designated for sports and community use, only you know, perhaps you should become a property developer, and one day be able to buy a football club.”
by warrenpark
Thursday, February 02 2012, 1:17PM
“DIASALO, as the future is inherently uncertain I use words like may and likely rather than will.
Any investment in the club has to take account of the return that is possible unless the investment is philanphropic. The club may go in to adminsitration anyway if season ticket sales collapse with the current board remaining in office. An adminsitrator may liquidate the assets in any case rather than sell as a going concern in order to maximise the payments due to employees and then creditors. Therefore a potential investor such as Mo Chaudry may only come into consideration when administration has occurred and if he comes in before then and takes the control needed to run the business he should take into account the scale of debt the club has in his offer to shareholders and his plans going forward.
As for the ground move. Well planning restrictions exist and the club must repay its mortgage. So there are barriers, but I have not looked at the local plan nor Council policies. If Vale Park could be sold as an asset and a new ground found on a viable basis I would possibly be in favour of it. Other clubs has done this, but where I think we are possibly in agreement is that supporters need to be able to trust the judgement of the new owner in doing something like this and we want an outcome that is Shrewsbury or better rather than Chester or worse.
To me the club has been run by like thinking people for sometime. They have supported so called community ownership without in fact setting up a true community interest company. They have watched losses accumulate through better times and a recession. They have watched the club drop down the league. They have become increasingly unrealiable and most recent actions have breached contracts, the company's governance and possibly the criminal law - fraud etc. Some of their desperation is to avoid their losses of investment, but they have all failed to accept their business model and positions are increasingly hopeless.
So, there I feel radical change is needed for the club to have hope of the success supporters want to see.”