WHY HASLAM WON`T SELL FOR £3m
Why Stags owner won't sell for £3m
CHAD.co.uk, exclusive by Tim Morriss, 5 Dec 2007
MANSFIELD Town FC is almost broke, on course to lose £500,000 this year and fans fear administration and relegation loom in the background . . . owner Keith Haslam has been offered a deal worth almost £3m, but still refuses to sell the club. Why?
That is the question being asked by many fed-up Stags fans this week, not to mention the James Derry consortium of local businessmen.
Both sides refuse to talk about the details of the rejected deal — and Mr Haslam continues to decline to name his price to sell the club . . . but denies the £3m figure.
But Chad understands that the revised terms offered to the owner by the consortium two weeks ago — after they had examined the accounts at the club — and rejected on Thursday would have been worth almost £3m to him.
The offer included buying the football club — the right to trade as a football club and its players — for around £500,000. It is believed, though, that Mr Haslam would have kept many other assets currently at the club.
The deal would also have allowed Mr Haslam to retain the £500,000 he owes the club for the land at Skegby bought for a training academy in 2001.
The consortium was prepared to sort out the problem of the minority shareholdings in MTFC — including TEAM Mansfield — among other issues.
Mr Haslam would also have received more than £1.75m rent over a 10-year lease — with the club renting just the stadium and car park, but not the training pitch and five-a-side area.
However, crucially to Mr Haslam, the consortium had asked for the first six months of its ownership to be rent free — and the following two years to be at a reduced price on the £200,000 annual figure in later years of the lease.
And the £500,000 for the club would have been handed over in staggered payments — with Mr Haslam receiving nothing at the time of the sale.
It is thought that this is one of the major reasons why Mr Haslam rejected the deal.
Mr Haslam had also wanted guarantees from the consortium — and while he had received this for the buying of the shares to own the club, he also wanted written assurances over the rental agreement.