Edmonton Saint Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Anyone else watching this. Interesting as Saints were mentioned as being owned by DMWSL613 LTD which is a company owned by Markus Liebherr. He then mentioned the fact that Liebherr was dead so made the point as to who in facts owns us.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
locksheathsaint101 Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Was a ridiculous point. Everyone knows all that already. He was implying that there was something dodgy about our ownership based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. Almost libellous I would suggest the way it was filmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmonton Saint Posted 18 July, 2011 Author Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Yeah thats what I thought.. Like he was trying to make a point out of something when there was nothing to make a point out of..(if that makes sense) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyR Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Have to agree. Can't see anything untoward in what was said. ML's ownership of SFC passes to his estate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Wonder what NC will think of his comments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedArmy Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 I stopped listening when he said "Barnsley Town" Erm......who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Its a nothing story by a numpty trying for a sensational programme...can think of some far better clubs he could aim at very close by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 I thought that was a stupid point to make form the reporter even felt like complaining as it's very easy to know who owns us as it's in the legal documents. But have to say makes a mockery of the football league rules doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red And White Barmy Army Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 a sensationalist comment that I'm sure Cortese will not be happy with! there will be an appology from channel 4 coming tomorrow morning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitySaint Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 I think it was unwise, unnecessary and underhand. I don't think Cortese will let it lie, not his style. Thank god we weren't one of the clubs being offered around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 I thought that was a stupid point to make form the reporter even felt like complaining as it's very easy to know who owns us as it's in the legal documents. But have to say makes a mockery of the football league rules doesn't it. It's actually a very valid point to make in general; it was just a very poor way of making it, and holding Saints up as an example. The potential for corruption and bypassing of the fit and proper owners regulations and such like is enormous. Leeds went years without disclosing who they were actually owned by; still no-one actually knows who it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 But the shareholders of DMW123etc Ltd will be listed in its Annual Return, which will be publically available from Companies House. If you want to avoid scrutiny you use companies based in BVI etc where regulations are completely weak. Not watching the programme but it does sound like a bit of a ballsed-up way of making a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesaint Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Although I think they are wrong about Southampton I do think the owner or owner's of a football club should be clear with additional checks about where money is coming from. If this is to be done though it would may have to be run by UEFA or FIFA should they sort themselves out. I thing additional checks should be carried out and that this programme although a little over the top could be a bad vision of the future if we carry on as we are. In NC I trust COYS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Leeds went years without disclosing who they were actually owned by; still no-one actually knows who it was. Yes they do it was Ken Bates..he was 'forced' to disclose this recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 The only thing that documentary really said was that consortiums buy football clubs these days and that it is technically possible for the puppet-masters to own more than one club at a time. Well tell us something we didn't know. The programme lent heavily on the 'sensational' fact that most discussions were carried out in a bar and casino. Again, bugger me. Most business deals are solidified in bars/restaurants/clubs before going on to lawyer's offices. And that one man was bigging up his relationship with a 'celeb'. Shock! Horror! That's never happened before! I'm not sure the programme was really worth the hour of my time, to be frank. I guess when they set about making it they were hoping for something much more juicy but on the evidence presented nothing was indicated to be illegal or even shady. Just business men getting around a rule (not law) by using special purpose investment vehicles - something the City has been doing for years. It is perfectly legal. Sorry, no news here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Yes they do it was Ken Bates..he was 'forced' to disclose this recently. Only after he formally took control of affairs. He didn't actually own the club until someone needed to be made public. Incidentally, I hope that Cortese is baying for blood after that. The implication that our ownership by the estate of Markus Liebherr could be anything other then above board is nothing short of libelous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 I would not be surprised at all if Mr Cortese is writing a strongly worded letter to Dispatches at Channel 4. There statement referencing the passing of Markus Liebherr and it's delivery by the correspondant was abhorent,imo,as though something underhand was taking place. Do your stuff Nicola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 (edited) Yes they do it was Ken Bates..he was 'forced' to disclose this recently. It wasn't just Bates though; they constantly evaded disclosure by claiming that Ken Bates fronted a consortium of various individuals/groups who all owned a stake under 10% each, and therefore they were not legally obliged to disclose. They eventually disclosed as they claimed they had been bought out by Ken Bates alone. So who the previous owers were remains a complete mystery. Edit: see here for the actual ownership statement http://www.leedsunited.com/page/Ownership Edited 18 July, 2011 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 But the shareholders of DMW123etc Ltd will be listed in its Annual Return, which will be publically available from Companies House. True but if the share holder turns out to be a company registered over seas then you are back to square one. At least DMWSL are registered here in the UK, unlike all those overseas companies which don't even give the pretence of openness. But this is all academic if your shareholders are the likes of Portpin who can hide whatever they want. As an aside, I wonder if DMWSL was ML's full initials - anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 makes you wonder what NC and co will do if/when we get to the prem.......£££££££ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 True but if the share holder turns out to be a company registered over seas then you are back to square one. At least DMWSL are registered here in the UK, unlike all those overseas companies which don't even give the pretence of openness. But this is all academic if your shareholders are the likes of Portpin who can hide whatever they want. As an aside, I wonder if DMWSL was ML's full initials - anyone know? Indeed, wasn't that company SPECIFICALLY set up in the UK to ensure that the takeover could be facilitated in as clear, upfront and legitimate a way as possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 It wasn't just Bates though; they constantly evaded disclosure by claiming that Ken Bates fronted a consortium of various individuals/groups who all owned a stake under 10% each, and therefore they were not legally obliged to disclose. They eventually disclosed as they claimed they had been bought out by Ken Bates alone. So who the previous owers were remains a complete mystery. Edit: see here for the actual ownership statement http://www.leedsunited.com/page/Ownership Yeah sorry I was quoting a Leeds fan I know and from reports I had read - there are some pretty interesting stories this one made me laugh http://newsthump.com/2011/05/05/ken-bates-buys-leeds-united-from-anonymous-west-indian-based-ken-bates/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 DMWSL 613 Ltd - is the holding company of SFC and Companies House has the company's registered office as St Mary's. If you do a Companies House Webcheck (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/bc64222dee22ff622cbc1b2071034341/companysearch?disp=1&frfsh=1311020182#result you will see a lot of other companies starting with 'DMWSL xxx'. In all likelyhood ML used the same company name format to separate his many different UK business interests. This is not uncommon. Rather than have to dream up interesting names for each time you start a new venture etc it is just easier to instruct your lawyer to create a new company with the next number in the series. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if wealthy business people bulk register companies so they can get up and running in a matter of minutes. Whatever, no need to worry just because the holding company has a weird non-name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Indeed, a list of shareholders of the company was filed only two weeks ago on 3 July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 if I was a leicester or a cardiff fan..I would be very worried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 He almost makes it sound as if it's convenient that Markus died. That's pretty nasty. I'll keep my mind open on this one. I doubt there is any football club in the land that is 100% clean and I won't let my allegiance cloud my judgement. Everyone is of course innocent until proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Didn't like the implication that ML's death was convenient, sort of an aside to the ownership. Obviously, if we get to the PL our value will increase dramatically but it must be remembered that we were a L1 club having to battle our way back up again. Total faith and trust in our ownership and ambitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 watching it on +1.......what a complete let down.... most of the programme is about some bloke called Sim and how he brags about knowing Alex Ferguson whoopie do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 I don't know why people have their knickers is such a twist, if you think about it the whole situation does make the FL's flimsy checks look exactly that, flimsy. Clubs owned by faceless people, often abroad so that they cannot be properly tracked etc. And our unique situation, in which our owner passed away and as such as we all think it moved directly to his estate do we actually know that for a fact ?? Am I Bovvered ??? No I believe we are now being bankrolled by a trust fund or the family Liebherr, the one thing that annoyed me was how he made it seem underhand. A nothing statement on a nothing story really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whizzpop Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 a poor sensationlist documentary, the journalist clearly isnt a football fan. It didnt offer anything new either...always suspected Bryan Robson to be a shady character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 watching it on +1.......what a complete let down.... most of the programme is about some bloke called Sim and how he brags about knowing Alex Ferguson whoopie do Indeed and it has been heavily edited. I have a feeling this will provoke some immediate reaction, like the BBC bungs programme did, but fade away after not very long at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 He almost makes it sound as if it's convenient that Markus died. That's pretty nasty. That's putting it very, very mildly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 That's putting it very, very mildly. It is, however, the bloke can barely read a script, so I'm keeping an open mind as to if it's just his stupidity, or it might not have been what he meant. I suspect the presenter in question, I forget his name, got lumped with the job. He most likely had nothing to do with the making of the programme and was just made to front it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 good news...fergie is retiring in 3 years.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 One thing that did emerge from the programme is it seems Ferguson is to the Premiership what Murdoch was to the newspaper business...... far too powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 One thing that did emerge from the programme is it seems Ferguson is to the Premiership what Murdoch was to the newspaper business...... far too powerful. I don't think one or two men's embellished tales of the influence SAF has can be judged as evidence of anything, to be fair. Especially so when they're effectively trading on his name to make money quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Sheffield United fans' reactions Post #27 amused me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Sheffield United fans' reactions Post #27 amused me. #32 amused me more! 'even the fake investors weren't interested in us'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Originally Posted by Houso So, let's get this straight. We sack Robson, and then he tries to manage us again from afar?! No. He gets his mates Lim, Sim, Chim, Kim to buy the club off Mr McDim, whilst also buying the Pigs The curse of Robbo lives on, even from Thailand he's trying to **** us up ahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Football is such a dodgy business and this sort of thing goes on much more than people realise. This is just like dipping your little toe into the water. As was said above, Leicester is quite clearly an investment vehicle with some powerful people with ''strong'' contacts. Yakubu on loan for e.g........ I'd be worried if i was their fans, I much prefer the way we're run. In the long run we'll be stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint J 77 Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 I'm surprised pompey got off so lightly. I see arry got a mention in passing again, no surprises there. Does anyone really buy a club for the love of the game anymore? I hope NC and ML did. I'm choosing to believe they did. Our little mention felt like a pathetic attempt from the media to unsettle our club again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Let's face it, that programme was pretty feeble. Nothing earth-shattering there, just a few allegations, a few names named and denials from each of them, but nothing more. I can only see one obvious loser in this, and that's Bryan Robson. If he really has been acting as, and paid as, a Manchester United Global Ambassador (loving that title!) he won't be for much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Well it's done Leicester's transfer activity no harm. Reports suggest John Paintsil is next up on the Sven and possible illegal ownership bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 Let's face it, that programme was pretty feeble. Nothing earth-shattering there, just a few allegations, a few names named and denials from each of them, but nothing more. I can only see one obvious loser in this, and that's Bryan Robson. If he really has been acting as, and paid as, a Manchester United Global Ambassador (loving that title!) he won't be for much longer. agree....they never actually bought a club..let alone two...just captain marvel and some bloke called sim giving it the big one about knowing fergie and investing in football....that was about it... poor programme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 A nothing programme, the reference to Leibherr's death was poor. They tried to make it sound like the company was registered in the name of a dead man. Judging by the quality of the rest of the show it was probably just down to lack of research, nothing to get any knickers in a twist about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 One thing the programme did highlight was how easily - and naively - ex footballers get involved in the business side. Remember Le Tiss parading himself around in front of the cameras talking about how he was looking forward to being the Chairman of the club when the 'consortium that never was' made its 'bid'. He was made to look very stupid indeed, and if he hadn't already been a legend in our eyes he would have taken a slacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 True but if the share holder turns out to be a company registered over seas then you are back to square one. At least DMWSL are registered here in the UK, unlike all those overseas companies which don't even give the pretence of openness. But this is all academic if your shareholders are the likes of Portpin who can hide whatever they want. As an aside, I wonder if DMWSL was ML's full initials - anyone know?[/QUOTE] DMWSL 613 LImited stands for Dickson Minto WS lawyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 How the feck did we get mentioned as a concern and the Pompey fans as poor, downtrodden club-loving folk who had no idea their rotten corpse was being ATM'd by a shady owner/gang-raped by a consortium of crooks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 (edited) Two things: "We've got Harry Redknapp" and this: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8327614.Just_two_hours_for_Markus_to_fall_in_love_with_Saints/ Is that really a man who's just in for the money? Edited 18 July, 2011 by Pugwash Cos I didn't check the link.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 18 July, 2011 Share Posted 18 July, 2011 (edited) http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/contact-us Edited 18 July, 2011 by Gemmel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now