Jump to content

Rumours of takeover/investment interest

eling-saint

By eling-saint,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

CityRanger

CityRanger

Posted
Posted

 

So an agreement was signed on Nov 11? Fit and Proper persons test passed? Premier League rubber stamp still required? Negotiations still ongoing though. Sounds like quite a lot in place .

If I've interpreted the translation correctly?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
So an agreement was signed on Nov 11? Fit and Proper persons test passed? Premier League rubber stamp still required? Negotiations still ongoing though. Sounds like quite a lot in place .

If I've interpreted the translation correctly?!

 

I think it was previously suggested that the period of exclusivity was signed 11th November. Lander have previously released a statement (in January) which was premature. Can this be relied on ? But if taken at face value it does look to be advanced.

 

Disappointed that the unproven Lander Group will be the dominant owner if they're taking 80%, don't see KL will have much influence in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EBS1980

EBS1980

Posted
Posted
I think it was previously suggested that the period of exclusivity was signed 11th November. Lander have previously released a statement (in January) which was premature. Can this be relied on ? But if taken at face value it does look to be advanced.

 

Disappointed that the unproven Lander Group will be the dominant owner if they're taking 80%, don't see KL will have much influence in this case.

 

I assume it's to ensure the run the club in the way agreed and if they do I'm sure the remaining 20% will be sold too.

 

You would think there would be investment criteria attached to the investment surely?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
I assume it's to ensure the run the club in the way agreed and if they do I'm sure the remaining 20% will be sold too.

 

You would think there would be investment criteria attached to the investment surely?!

 

And what influence or sway will KL hold with 20% ? If they start doing a SISU with 80% control she is not going to be able to put a halt to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint lard

saint lard

Posted
Posted

I'm not overly enamoured by this.....but only time will tell.

 

All the good work done thus far....it would be a travesty for it to be undone.

But,you never know it could be the injection we need to move forward....or even maintain the status quo.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EBS1980

EBS1980

Posted
Posted
And what influence or sway will KL hold with 20% ? If they start doing a SISU with 80% control she is not going to be able to put a halt to it.

 

Why only sell 80% then? What's the point of holding a small stake?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EBS1980

EBS1980

Posted
Posted

Just out of interest, why is there quite negative comments about our possible new major owner?

 

What are you basing this on? What do you know about their plan and intention for the club?

 

Do you think KL would sell to someone who would undo all her and her late dad hard work?

 

Maybe cut them some slack until we have actually heard from them and their plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
richardc

richardc

Posted
Posted
Just out of interest, why is there quite negative comments about our possible new major owner?

 

What are you basing this on? What do you know about their plan and intention for the club?

 

Do you think KL would sell to someone who would undo all her and her late dad hard work?

 

Maybe cut them some slack until we have actually heard from them and their plans.

 

because they are struggling to fund the purchase of the club so where is the extra investment going to come form

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevy777_x

stevy777_x

Posted
Posted
because they are struggling to fund the purchase of the club so where is the extra investment going to come form

 

Who exactly said they were struggling to find the funds?

I ve seen this nowhere. People are probably sceptical because China is an unknown quantity here and some Asian owners haven t exactly set the tone. (Cardiff comes to mind)

 

Let s just wait and see. I don t think Kat would sell to someone without ambition. If you recall her last statement she talked about a partnership that was needed if we wanted to compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Certainly doesn't appear overly attractive for us. Not every club is fortunate enough to get Everton size investment but Lander on the face of it seems a very risky option and quite hard to see the benefits.

 

What evidence do you have in regard to the size of the investment or the attractiveness of the deal from a Saints perspective?

 

We know extremely little as to their intentions, unless you have a good source it appears you and others are jumping to conclusions to write off Lander as a bad thing.

 

As so little is known, the best thing to do is remain on the fence until we have good evidence of what is happening and if it is a good thing or not.

 

because they are struggling to fund the purchase of the club so where is the extra investment going to come form

 

What evidence do you have that they are "struggling to purchase the club"? In a business negotiation, it is in the buyers interest to try and make the purchase as cheap as possible, that doesn't mean they are struggling to do the purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
What evidence do you have in regard to the size of the investment or the attractiveness of the deal from a Saints perspective?

 

We know extremely little as to their intentions, unless you have a good source it appears you and others are jumping to conclusions to write off Lander as a bad thing.

 

As so little is known, the best thing to do is remain on the fence until we have good evidence of what is happening and if it is a good thing or not.

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that they are "struggling to purchase the club"? In a business negotiation, it is in the buyers interest to try and make the purchase as cheap as possible, that doesn't mean they are struggling to do the purchase.

 

So what's your interpretation of events?

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
You know what Lander's total assets are? You know what percentage of those assets are liabilities?

 

Why have you asked me that in responce to my post? I was asking those Dusic and richardc the questions; I don't know what Lander's intentions are or how much or little they plan to invest.

 

Until we do... it is best to stay neutral and not get excited or write them off as a disaster for the club.

 

Some people in this thread have been far too quick to write them off as a disaster! Best to stay neutral until more good evidence arrives about their intentions and level/type of investment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cartman

Cartman

Posted
Posted
What evidence do you have in regard to the size of the investment or the attractiveness of the deal from a Saints perspective?

 

We know extremely little as to their intentions, unless you have a good source it appears you and others are jumping to conclusions to write off Lander as a bad thing.

 

As so little is known, the best thing to do is remain on the fence until we have good evidence of what is happening and if it is a good thing or not.

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that they are "struggling to purchase the club"? In a business negotiation, it is in the buyers interest to try and make the purchase as cheap as possible, that doesn't mean they are struggling to do the purchase.

 

Maybe the fact that they are planning to finance 70% the purchase through M&A loans and only 30% through their own funds, and that the 6 month period of exclusivity came and went because the chinese government is concerned with the level of corporate debt and has made it more difficult to secure those loans.

Having to borrow heavily in order to purchase the club doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their ability to invest in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Why have you asked me that in responce to my post? I was asking those Dusic and richardc the questions; I don't know what Lander's intentions are or how much or little they plan to invest.

 

Until we do... it is best to stay neutral and not get excited or write them off as a disaster for the club.

 

Some people in this thread have been far too quick to write them off as a disaster! Best to stay neutral until more good evidence arrives about their intentions and level/type of investment!

 

Some of the previous reporting by Reuters is ambiguous, giving the impression that the regulatory clampdown is just football related.

 

For context, the Chinese government is very worried about the build-up of debt in Chinese companies, a mountain of unpaid loans and bonds that could ultimately pose a challenge to the stability of the economy.

 

This concern has spread to foreign mergers and acquisitions. Much of this funding, to date, has come from the state or local government. Since many of these companies doing M&A are already highly indebted, it's hard to see how they would secure this financing on a purely commercial basis.

 

There are some real eyebrow-raisers: it finally looks like ChemChina will purchase Sygenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, even though it's debt is 9.5x annual earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

 

A further symptom is that many deals have gone wrong: nearly one quarter of all outward Chinese deals has hit problems -whether due to lengthy delays, cost overruns or failure.

 

The Chinese government isn't saying no to foreign acquisitions - indeed in principle it's very supportive of them as a means to create global champions and access valuable know-how and technology (of course this says nothing about the subsequent ability of Chinese companies to manage large, innovative and specialised assets like a football club).

 

However it is saying no to Lander-type deals: note Lander proposed to fund our acquisition with 70% debt, it is closely associated with the Zhejiang provincial government and it attempted to do so through a shell company -rather than the parent company which is closer to revenues and so can provide guarantees for any loans.

 

This begs the question why Lander structured the deal in this way -and whether it has the commercial clout to structure it in a way that doesn't set off as many regulatory alarm bells. So yes it does invite healthy scepticism.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
There when Franny scored

There when Franny scored

Posted
Posted
Some of the previous reporting by Reuters is ambiguous, giving the impression that the regulatory clampdown is just football related.

 

For context, the Chinese government is very worried about the build-up of debt in Chinese companies, a mountain of unpaid loans and bonds that could ultimately pose a challenge to the stability of the economy.

 

This concern has spread to foreign mergers and acquisitions. Much of this funding, to date, has come from the state or local government. Since many of these companies doing M&A are already highly indebted, it's hard to see how they would secure this financing on a purely commercial basis.

 

There are some real eyebrow-raisers: it finally looks like ChemChina will purchase Sygenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, even though it's debt is 9.5x annual earnings before income, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

 

A further symptom is that many deals have gone wrong: nearly one quarter of all outward Chinese deals has hit problems -whether due to lengthy delays, cost overruns or failure.

 

The Chinese government isn't saying no to foreign acquisitions - indeed in principle it's very supportive of them as a means to create global champions and access valuable know-how and technology (of course this says nothing about the subsequent ability of Chinese companies to manage large, innovative and specialised assets like a football club).

 

However it is saying no to Lander-type deals: note Lander proposed to fund our acquisition with 70% debt, it is closely associated with the Zhejiang provincial government and it attempted to do so through a shell company -rather than the parent company which is closer to revenues and so can provide guarantees for any loans.

 

This begs the question why Lander structured the deal in this way -and whether it has the commercial clout to structure it in a way that doesn't set off as many regulatory alarm bells. So yes it does invite healthy scepticism.

 

Very interesting post, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
Some of the previous reporting by Reuters is ambiguous, giving the impression that the regulatory clampdown is just football related.

 

For context, the Chinese government is very worried about the build-up of debt in Chinese companies, a mountain of unpaid loans and bonds that could ultimately pose a challenge to the stability of the economy.

 

This concern has spread to foreign mergers and acquisitions. Much of this funding, to date, has come from the state or local government. Since many of these companies doing M&A are already highly indebted, it's hard to see how they would secure this financing on a purely commercial basis.

 

There are some real eyebrow-raisers: it finally looks like ChemChina will purchase Sygenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, even though it's debt is 9.5x annual earnings before income, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

 

A further symptom is that many deals have gone wrong: nearly one quarter of all outward Chinese deals has hit problems -whether due to lengthy delays, cost overruns or failure.

 

The Chinese government isn't saying no to foreign acquisitions - indeed in principle it's very supportive of them as a means to create global champions and access valuable know-how and technology (of course this says nothing about the subsequent ability of Chinese companies to manage large, innovative and specialised assets like a football club).

 

However it is saying no to Lander-type deals: note Lander proposed to fund our acquisition with 70% debt, it is closely associated with the Zhejiang provincial government and it attempted to do so through a shell company -rather than the parent company which is closer to revenues and so can provide guarantees for any loans.

 

This begs the question why Lander structured the deal in this way -and whether it has the commercial clout to structure it in a way that doesn't set off as many regulatory alarm bells. So yes it does invite healthy scepticism.

 

Good post Shurlock. We shall wait and see - I remain skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nta786

nta786

Posted
Posted
Why have you asked me that in responce to my post? I was asking those Dusic and richardc the questions; I don't know what Lander's intentions are or how much or little they plan to invest.

 

Until we do... it is best to stay neutral and not get excited or write them off as a disaster for the club.

 

Some people in this thread have been far too quick to write them off as a disaster! Best to stay neutral until more good evidence arrives about their intentions and level/type of investment!

 

 

If everyone was neutral the word would be shi*e- different opinions generate more discussion.

But then you have blatant trolls *cough*

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Isn't the translated article dated November 2016 though?

 

It's from April 17 - see bottom of the page. The original Chinese is clearer than Google Translate's formatting.

 

The chronology seems roughly to be:

 

-Lander announce they're stopping the deal, citing regulatory uncertainty etc.

-The press reports this and it interprets it as meaning the deal is stone-cold dead.

-Lander put out this statement clarifying they still want to complete the deal, notwithstanding the earlier announcement.

 

The China Daily article on the other page is a decent summary.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
corky morris

corky morris

Posted
Posted

Exactly.

There are some real concerns outside of China too about the levels of debt.

It is not a huge leap to see how a 2008 type event could wipe out many of these individuals & companies.

I don't know enough about the structure or the people to make an informed decision, but I do know that we should be very cautious at the very least.

 

 

Some of the previous reporting by Reuters is ambiguous, giving the impression that the regulatory clampdown is just football related.

 

For context, the Chinese government is very worried about the build-up of debt in Chinese companies, a mountain of unpaid loans and bonds that could ultimately pose a challenge to the stability of the economy.

 

This concern has spread to foreign mergers and acquisitions. Much of this funding, to date, has come from the state or local government. Since many of these companies doing M&A are already highly indebted, it's hard to see how they would secure this financing on a purely commercial basis.

 

There are some real eyebrow-raisers: it finally looks like ChemChina will purchase Sygenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, even though it's debt is 9.5x annual earnings before income, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

 

A further symptom is that many deals have gone wrong: nearly one quarter of all outward Chinese deals has hit problems -whether due to lengthy delays, cost overruns or failure.

 

The Chinese government isn't saying no to foreign acquisitions - indeed in principle it's very supportive of them as a means to create global champions and access valuable know-how and technology (of course this says nothing about the subsequent ability of Chinese companies to manage large, innovative and specialised assets like a football club).

 

However it is saying no to Lander-type deals: note Lander proposed to fund our acquisition with 70% debt, it is closely associated with the Zhejiang provincial government and it attempted to do so through a shell company -rather than the parent company which is closer to revenues and so can provide guarantees for any loans.

 

This begs the question why Lander structured the deal in this way -and whether it has the commercial clout to structure it in a way that doesn't set off as many regulatory alarm bells. So yes it does invite healthy scepticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
Exactly.

There are some real concerns outside of China too about the levels of debt.

It is not a huge leap to see how a 2008 type event could wipe out many of these individuals & companies.

I don't know enough about the structure or the people to make an informed decision, but I do know that we should be very cautious at the very least.

 

Agree. Being completely minted isn't the only thing I want from a prospective new owner, but if Lander aren't flush with cash, I'm more than happy to stick with Kat.

 

I think I'd be happier if Kat stayed on & Lander came onboard to invest in stadium / surrounding area development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saints foreva

Saints foreva

Posted
Posted
Agree. Being completely minted isn't the only thing I want from a prospective new owner, but if Lander aren't flush with cash, I'm more than happy to stick with Kat.

 

I think I'd be happier if Kat stayed on & Lander came onboard to invest in stadium / surrounding area development.

 

We don't need investment for the stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
Let's just hope the current management team are kept in place, otherwise I can see a change in the way we operate (no more unearthing top talent from middle of nowhere) and possibly a slide back down the league places.

 

dont be so negative

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CanadaSaint

CanadaSaint

Posted
Posted
And what influence or sway will KL hold with 20% ? If they start doing a SISU with 80% control she is not going to be able to put a halt to it.

 

looks like Lander are on the verge of completing the purchase of an 80% state of the club...Basically, they will run SFC

 

There is a well established concept under law called "minority shareholders' rights" and it exists to protect the interests of those who could have their legitimate interests ignored or overpowered by a majority shareholder.

 

Just because Katharina would only retain 20% doesn't mean that she'll have no power. I suspect that the sale documentation is VERY detailed about how the club will be run - and what the majority shareholder's contributions and mode of operation will be.

 

Of course, the situation won't last forever but I'm sure Katharina will retain this power until she's happy enough about how the club is being run to sell the remaining 20%.

 

Lander certainly make me queasy but (whether it's them or someone else) I really do believe that Katharina means exactly what she's said - that she has the club's best interests at heart and will protect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
There are some real eyebrow-raisers: it finally looks like ChemChina will purchase Sygenta, the Swiss agricultural giant, even though it's debt is 9.5x annual earnings before income, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

Is this some top secret ratio that only top notch expert consultants know about?

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...