Jump to content

Rumours of takeover/investment interest

eling-saint

By eling-saint
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
  trousers said:
In order to put those nasty folk who doubt your ITK credentials in their place, you could always tell us what the new kit looks like....

 

it will be red, with some white in a vertical stripe sort of pattern - FACT

AR-10

AR-10

Posted
Posted

crab lungs" you have to be joking?

 

Gareth Rogers is chief executive officer of the club.

 

RE: new kit.

 

Think: 1980's. Classic. Thick white stripe. and big badge in the middle. Not in its usual position. The strip is more white than red. Actually. 3 bars.

 

Nothing like the current one.

 

Nobody has to believe a word I say but the club is a stone wall.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
  AR-10 said:

RE: new kit.

 

Think: 1980's. Classic. Thick white stripe. and big badge in the middle. Not in its usual position. The strip is more white than red. Actually. 3 bars.

 

Nothing like the current one.

 

 

Cheers :)

Saint Billy

Saint Billy

Posted
Posted
  AR-10 said:
crab lungs" you have to be joking?

 

Gareth Rogers is chief executive officer of the club.

 

RE: new kit.

 

Think: 1980's. Classic. Thick white stripe. and big badge in the middle. Not in its usual position. The strip is more white than red. Actually. 3 bars.

 

Nothing like the current one.

 

Nobody has to believe a word I say but the club is a stone wall.

 

Well thats sounds better, some good news for a change.

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
  charliemiller said:
I am told the American bidder is still lurking ......is preferred to Chinese but has not fully offered ... Perhaps we wont end up Chinese owned

 

Massive twist if it's Eisner :D

Faz

Faz

Posted
Posted
  charliemiller said:
I am told the American bidder is still lurking ......is preferred to Chinese but has not fully offered ... Perhaps we wont end up Chinese owned

 

I'm not sure being American owned has proved to be very much better than being Chinese owned may be, possibly ManU excepted.

SKD

SKD

Posted
Posted
  SuperSAINT said:
Massive twist if it's Eisner :D

 

Massive mistake if it's Eisner...

 

Ultimately he's buying Pompey because they're cheap and he sees them as an opportunity to make money... That won't be the case with us.

100%Red&White

100%Red&White

Posted
Posted
  SuperSAINT said:
Massive twist if it's Eisner :D

 

Well, he did say he wouldn't relocate them more than 15 miles, he's buying both of us aint he :uhoh: 'Southmouth FC' 'ere we come

 

243m7ux.jpg

 

#itshappening

Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted
  charliemiller said:
I am told the American bidder is still lurking ......is preferred to Chinese but has not fully offered ... Perhaps we wont end up Chinese owned
Ha HaHa...if they really knew who you were ;)
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
  Weston Saint said:
Ha HaHa...if they really knew who you were ;)

 

Hi Ron ;)

 

Have you spoken to Dave or Johnny lately? I hear Rob might be coming to the Stoke game. Ssshhhh....! ;)

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
  miserableoldgit said:
Oh dear God! #iknowsomethingthatyoudon't ?

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Hi Peter ;). I heard that Martin and Paul are down this weekend from America. Don't go spreading it about though.

Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
  Ampersound said:
*Lander / Gao is most likely going to happen over the next couple of months.

 

 

Expect next season's matchday programme to include a regular feature The Thoughts of Chairman Gao.

 

saintslongmarchon#

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
  Badger said:
Intersting article.

 

http://www.atimes.com/article/chinas-deep-state-behind-english-soccer-investment-push/

 

Not sure it adds anything new, although the suggestion of 'state sponsored' investment in football is not one I'd read before. The only comment left after the article just refers to money laundering.

 

Don't think its state sponsored in the sense that it is one centralised, joined up push to buy up football clubs and avoid premier league rules. The Chinese state is far too messy, fragmented and competitive for that degree of coordination. On the other hand, large swathes of the private sector in China have ties to government, often provincial government, so in a trivial sense, activity remains state-sponsored in one form or another.

Edited by shurlock
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted

@simonpeach: Earlier today I spoke to #SaintsFC chairman Ralph Krueger for 25 mins about Chinese investment, summer plans & Puel. Copy on @PAsport

 

@simonpeach: Ralph Krueger insists #SaintsFC will no longer be bullied in the transfer market - but the chairman wasn't so forthright about Puel's future

Pilchards

Pilchards

Posted
Posted

So basically the same people run the club with the Landers money invested in.

This gives us more transfer fees plus an extension to the current stadium.

What's in it for Landers if this is the case?

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
  Pilchards said:
So basically the same people run the club with the Landers money invested in.

This gives us more transfer fees plus an extension to the current stadium.

What's in it for Landers if this is the case?

The same as any investor in any business? i.e. a share of future profits

verlaine1979

verlaine1979

Posted
Posted
  trousers said:
The same as any investor in any business? i.e. a share of future profits

 

Since the Lander money is apparently being raised from debt, the club's accounting is unlikely to be as simple as that.

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
  Pilchards said:
So basically the same people run the club with the Landers money invested in.

This gives us more transfer fees plus an extension to the current stadium.

What's in it for Landers if this is the case?

 

 

That's not how it's been coming across in the press though. If Kat sold a 30% share but kept the majority share as owner then fine. But all the talk has been about Lander owning 90% and Kat keeping just a small share at which point I assume she would would have very little say in how the club is run.

pluto

pluto

Posted
Posted

I dont understand how the club are still talking to Lander after they failed the premier league ownership test on having the finances and someone thats been connected with corruption.

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
  pluto said:
I dont understand how the club are still talking to Lander after they failed the premier league ownership test on having the finances and someone thats been connected with corruption.

 

 

We'll I guess if you own a football club and you want to get rid for big cash your buyer options are limited. If no one else wants us I guess Kat will push hard for this one.

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
  pluto said:
I dont understand how the club are still talking to Lander after they failed the premier league ownership test on having the finances and someone thats been connected with corruption.

 

Ralph probably doesn't know either.

angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
  doddisalegend said:
We'll I guess if you own a football club and you want to get rid for big cash your buyer options are limited. If no one else wants us I guess Kat will push hard for this one.

 

Or you could drop the price and entice in more buyers. After all, there are plenty of people on this thread who have said that she won't just sell to any old highest bidder as she wants to protect her "father's legacy".

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
  angelman said:
Or you could drop the price and entice in more buyers. After all, there are plenty of people on this thread who have said that she won't just sell to any old highest bidder as she wants to protect her "father's legacy".

 

 

We'll yeah she could sell the club to a seriously rich Arab for £1 as that would be in best interests of the club...?

farawaysaint

farawaysaint

Posted
Posted
  doddisalegend said:
That's not how it's been coming across in the press though. If Kat sold a 30% share but kept the majority share as owner then fine. But all the talk has been about Lander owning 90% and Kat keeping just a small share at which point I assume she would would have very little say in how the club is run.

 

Depends, she could hold on to a golden share or she could keep enough of a shareholding to block special resolutions (which are needed for most major changes).

 

Practically speaking I feel though that this is all PR spin and the new owners will demand total control as I would imagine they would expect for a £180mi investment.

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
  farawaysaint said:
Depends, she could hold on to a golden share or she could keep enough of a shareholding to block special resolutions (which are needed for most major changes).

 

Practically speaking I feel though that this is all PR spin and the new owners will demand total control as I would imagine they would expect for a £180mi investment.

 

My understabding you can only block the passing of a special resolution if you hold more than 25% of the shares. KL would retain 20% of the club's shares if the deal goes through. As you say, hard to avoid the impression this is all PR spin

Faz

Faz

Posted
Posted
  shurlock said:
My understabding you can only block the passing of a special resolution if you hold more than 25% of the shares. KL would retain 20% of the club's shares if the deal goes through. As you say, hard to avoid the impression this is all PR spin

 

Normally so, but you can put in place a Shareholder agreement to protect the rights of the minority shareholder.

 

The memorandum of sale can also impose rights, obligations and responsibilities on parties.

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...