Jump to content

Rumours of takeover/investment interest

eling-saint

By eling-saint
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Graffito

Graffito

Posted
Posted

 

Reported here and previously that it's KL and her team which is progressing the deal and that SFC has declined to comment. The CE has gone (sacked?). I do wonder the extent to which club officials have a handle on any of this, which is a worry. The team needs an overhaul. It's all very well saying no players will be sold (The Times) but what about acquisitions? What's the position with the manager? A lot of unanswered questions.

GGalpin

GGalpin

Posted
Posted
Reported here and previously that it's KL and her team which is progressing the deal and that SFC has declined to comment. The CE has gone (sacked?). I do wonder the extent to which club officials have a handle on any of this, which is a worry. The team needs an overhaul. It's all very well saying no players will be sold (The Times) but what about acquisitions? What's the position with the manager? A lot of unanswered questions.

 

It's exactly the same as usual. Reed and Wilson will handle both players being bought and the manager, partnership or no partnership.

Graffito

Graffito

Posted
Posted
It's exactly the same as usual. Reed and Wilson will handle both players being bought and the manager, partnership or no partnership.

 

Well you may know this. I couldn't possibly say, there is too much uncertainty. My guess is that nothing significant will happen on the coaching and playing side until ownership arrangements are clear, and this is being driven by Liebherr not by club officials.

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
It's exactly the same as usual. Reed and Wilson will handle both players being bought and the manager, partnership or no partnership.

 

Yeah but recruitment is harder if you don't know who the owner is going to be. Its pretty common for new owners to bring in a new manager when they take over. So its a much harder sell for Les when he can't guarantee the new guy he won't be replaced a few months down the line or tell any new recruits what the plans of the new owners might be.

Cartman

Cartman

Posted
Posted
Yeah but recruitment is harder if you don't know who the owner is going to be. Its pretty common for new owners to bring in a new manager when they take over. So its a much harder sell for Les when he can't guarantee the new guy he won't be replaced a few months down the line or tell any new recruits what the plans of the new owners might be.

 

As far as I am aware, Les would be staying on in his current role as a condition of the takeover and hiring and firing the head coach is his responsibility. They would have to replace Les in order to bring in their own handpicked coach. We are not run like a traditional (backward) english club, there won't be any "bringing their own man in" who in turn "brings his own players in" nonsense.

doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
As far as I am aware, Les would be staying on in his current role as a condition of the takeover and hiring and firing the head coach is his responsibility. They would have to replace Les in order to bring in their own handpicked coach. We are not run like a traditional (backward) english club, there won't be any "bringing their own man in" who in turn "brings his own players in" nonsense.

 

Once they own 90% of the club the new owners can do what they like, including going back on promises, and no one can stop them. I'm not saying they will replace a manager, Les or Ralph but they could and that breeds uncertainty because they are an unknown quantity. Anyone looking at joining our club at the moment has no idea how things are going to pan out and that can only making recruiting harder imo.

farawaysaint

farawaysaint

Posted
Posted

So let me get this straight.

 

Our takeover is so shady the PL have voted for a rule change on ownership but we are still forging ahead with the glorious revolution?

 

This... is not exactly filling me with confidence.

ericb

ericb

Posted
Posted
So let me get this straight.

 

Our takeover is so shady the PL have voted for a rule change on ownership but we are still forging ahead with the glorious revolution?

 

This... is not exactly filling me with confidence.

 

As i've said elsewhere i'm genuinely concerned about this take, in my view it's NOT a good thing for the club.

Convict Colony

Convict Colony

Posted
Posted

Just to add some perspective we would of happily taken Lander when we were about to go under, I think KL has the right to decide when to leave and who to sell to with us in the the premier league etc.

 

I think her and her family had discharged whatever obligations they felt they had after her father died.

Saint Billy

Saint Billy

Posted
Posted
As i've said elsewhere i'm genuinely concerned about this take, in my view it's NOT a good thing for the club.

 

On the over side, it seems that the present owner does not have the funds to take the club forward so we are caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

It's a shame no other potential buyer has stepped up, with that in mind we can only hope that Lander has the financial clout and business plan to allay our fears.

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
So let me get this straight.

 

Our takeover is so shady the PL have voted for a rule change on ownership but we are still forging ahead with the glorious revolution?

 

This... is not exactly filling me with confidence.

On face value, I struggle to see how KL can say with all honesty that she is selling us to the `right' new owner. They might have the right money, but unless you regard someone that offers backhanders and then shafts the receiver (who is executed) to save their own skin as the right type of person, then you are simply not telling the truth.

 

I struggle to imagine Markus even contemplating talking to Gao Jisheng, never mind selling the club to him.

 

Maybe I am wrong, maybe I don't know the corruption case in intrinsic detail, but if the Premier League are concerned enough to change their own rules, then this fella must be a right sort.

verlaine1979

verlaine1979

Posted
Posted

It seems pretty clear that KL is selling in order to liquidate an asset that has unexpectedly turned into likely the single most valuable item in her estate. With that in mind, I suspect that the talk about finding a buyer with the money to push the club on is 100% appeasement and spin, as there's nothing to indicate that Lander have anything other than debt to bring to the table. I'm sure that if KL could've found a buyer who'd pay what she wants and has the resources to push the club on, she'd have happily sold to them, but it definitely looks like when choosing between risking the long-term stability of the club and doubling her cash net worth, she's understandably chosen the cash.

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
On the over side, it seems that the present owner does not have the funds to take the club forward so we are caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

But won't a new owner simply loan more money to the club and take us further into debt? Lander are not going to gift the club money. New investment mean new debt. So any `taking the club forward' talk is just another phrase for the owner gambling on future success. Spend now and pay later...maybe.

 

Can't the club simply progress organically with all the money brought in through TV and Prem?

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
as there's nothing to indicate that Lander have anything other than debt to bring to the table.
Incredibly worrying if you ask me. One or two false moves in the transfer window and who knows what might happen in a football season. With a mountain of debt on the club and not the owner you have all sorts of problems on your hands...
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
Just to add some perspective we would of happily taken Lander when we were about to go under, I think KL has the right to decide when to leave and who to sell to with us in the the premier league etc.

 

I think her and her family had discharged whatever obligations they felt they had after her father died.

 

I can not fault KL. It was her money that took us through the leagues, all be it inherited. However, she bloody well does have an obligation to sell to someone that wont **** us up for decades should it all go pear shaped. Obviously that is a very worse case scenario, and I might be over worrying about nothing, but now is the time to do so not when it is too late.

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
As i've said elsewhere i'm genuinely concerned about this take, in my view it's NOT a good thing for the club.

 

could not agree more. This is pivotal moment in the clubs life. What VVD, Bertrand or Puel might do could pail into insignificant compared to this takeover.

Faz

Faz

Posted
Posted
But won't a new owner simply loan more money to the club and take us further into debt? Lander are not going to gift the club money. New investment mean new debt. So any `taking the club forward' talk is just another phrase for the owner gambling on future success. Spend now and pay later...maybe.

 

Can't the club simply progress organically with all the money brought in through TV and Prem?

 

One man's organic progress is another man's lack of ambition of course.

Saint Albert

Saint Albert

Posted
Posted

I hope that Kat has the wherewithal to decline a deal that would involve saddling the club with the new ownership group's debts. Worst case scenario, the club could be £200 million in debt from this and servicing huge interest payments.

CanadaSaint

CanadaSaint

Posted
Posted
Once they own 90% of the club the new owners can do what they like, including going back on promises, and no one can stop them. I'm not saying they will replace a manager, Les or Ralph but they could and that breeds uncertainty because they are an unknown quantity. Anyone looking at joining our club at the moment has no idea how things are going to pan out and that can only making recruiting harder imo.

 

I don't think that's the case. There will be a legally enforceable shareholders agreement which will define the agreements and future conduct of the parties, and it will be underpinned by laws surrounding minority shareholders' rights. It will include things such as commitment to future investment, staff (including players) to be retained, the provisions for a final buyout (price and timing), and so on.

 

I'm not happy about this either, but I don't think Lander would come in with free reign - and finalizing that agreement is probably what's taking the time. I don't think Katharina wants to sell - she probably needs to see in order to pay a probable tax bill and diversify the investment of her wealth. The VvD thing could have been a key component of the SA, which would account for the Club's uncharacteristically "ballsy" reaction to stuff they've tolerated without much of a whimper in the past.

Raging Bull

Raging Bull

Posted
Posted

What does Landers track record look like with regards takeovers and high finance deals?

 

Do they have a history of running successful operations or is it a mixed bag?

AK

AK

Posted
Posted
I don't think that's the case. There will be a legally enforceable shareholders agreement which will define the agreements and future conduct of the parties, and it will be underpinned by laws surrounding minority shareholders' rights. It will include things such as commitment to future investment, staff (including players) to be retained, the provisions for a final buyout (price and timing), and so on.

 

I'm not happy about this either, but I don't think Lander would come in with free reign - and finalizing that agreement is probably what's taking the time. I don't think Katharina wants to sell - she probably needs to see in order to pay a probable tax bill and diversify the investment of her wealth. The VvD thing could have been a key component of the SA, which would account for the Club's uncharacteristically "ballsy" reaction to stuff they've tolerated without much of a whimper in the past.

 

If the Lander deal goes through broadly in line with the media speculation i.e. Buying a 80-90% stake they will be able to do exactly what they like. There is no way they'll be held accountable by Kat over keeping staff etc Even if there was such an agreement the only way to enforce would be with litigation. Which would be costly and could last years.

Alain Perrin

Alain Perrin

Posted
Posted

In fairness to Gao, there's not a billionaire in China who hasn't given a reach around or backhander. It's the way the world works (or used to) out there and I am sure you could say similar about Abrahamovic.

S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted

It's hard for us to really make a judgement on lander, there's little information on it from our side - i.e what kat's intentions are, and all we can see is stuff that is out in the open - i.e their history, bribing, backhanding etc.

 

So I think it's hard to be completely against this, or completely for it. Need to know exactly how this will benefit us, and I still don't believe KL is out to ship us off to some crooks who will dump us up a river. This club is part of her fathers legacy, the training ground building is even named after him.....so I can't see how she'd want us to be dragged down and sold to some crooks.

 

This is why I think there's more that KL and co know which we don't, and if we did, we'd possibly be a lot more content.

Faz

Faz

Posted
Posted
It's hard for us to really make a judgement on lander, there's little information on it from our side - i.e what kat's intentions are, and all we can see is stuff that is out in the open - i.e their history, bribing, backhanding etc.

 

So I think it's hard to be completely against this, or completely for it. Need to know exactly how this will benefit us, and I still don't believe KL is out to ship us off to some crooks who will dump us up a river. This club is part of her fathers legacy, the training ground building is even named after him.....so I can't see how she'd want us to be dragged down and sold to some crooks.

 

This is why I think there's more that KL and co know which we don't, and if we did, we'd possibly be a lot more content.

 

Agree. Kat has earned our trust imo, and invested a not inconsiderable slice of her personal fortune (which turns out to be less than many of us thought) to get us to this point. For the reasons you state, and the public statements made, I'm content to wait and see. There's chuff all I can do about it anyway.

SO16_Saint

SO16_Saint

Posted
Posted
The SSN I'm watching says that its Lander that are claiming it's a done deal, and Sky sources are claiming that SFC are saying it's a long way from being a done deal.

 

And my reading of the new rules is that the PL could exclude for crimes committed overseas, not would or must, so it is discretionary. Basildon Bond will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

 

I expect Lander to issue a statement soon saying they regret their actions and any harm it's caused to the board and fans, and this signals the end of their interest in buying the club

pluto

pluto

Posted
Posted

Did Gareth Rogers resign because he wasn't happy with this takeover and despite being a board member had no say in negotiations ?

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
Did Gareth Rogers resign because he wasn't happy with this takeover and despite being a board member had no say in negotiations ?

 

It can't be coincidence.

Convict Colony

Convict Colony

Posted
Posted
Did Gareth Rogers resign because he wasn't happy with this takeover and despite being a board member had no say in negotiations ?

 

Dont think he resigned I think he was allowed to go

captainchris

captainchris

Posted
Posted

Most clubs are bought on debt.... Man U were totally bought on debt, I think Arsenal were and a host of other clubs. Even we were lent the money - it wasn't a gift....

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted (edited)
Most clubs are bought on debt.... Man U were totally bought on debt, I think Arsenal were and a host of other clubs. Even we were lent the money - it wasn't a gift....

The Glaziers bought the club using loans secured against the assets of the club, thus they didn't have to use their own money and the club carried the debt and risk not the owner. Kroenke used his own money to buy 67% of Arsenal, so didn't add more debt and neither do must new owners, so not sure what you mean. Most clubs are not debt free, that's for sure and most are in debt to their rich owners. But that's not the same as someone buying a club using loans secured on the assets of the club. If Lander are doing this then it's a big ****ing no thanks from me.

Edited by Chez
captainchris

captainchris

Posted
Posted
The Glaziers bought the club using loans secured against the assets of the club, thus they didn't have to use their own money and the club carried the debt and risk not the owner. Kroenke used his own money to buy 67% of Arsenal, so didn't add more debt and neither do must new owners, so not sure what you mean. Most clubs are not debt free, that's for sure and most are in debt to their rich owners. But that's not the same as someone buying a club using loans secured on the assets of the club. If Lander are doing this then it's a big ****ing no thanks from me.

 

Well I think quite a few have been bought on loaned money....

I just thought of a very good example errrrrr ....... Coventry!!! ?

Redslo

Redslo

Posted
Posted
In fairness to Gao, there's not a billionaire in China who hasn't given a reach around or backhander. It's the way the world works (or used to) out there and I am sure you could say similar about Abrahamovic.

 

Much worse seems likely.

Saint86

Saint86

Posted
Posted (edited)

Any word? The fact that no one has said this is off means it must be about to break soonish? We can't afford to waste half the summer in limbo.

 

The one thing I don't quite follow is how the guaranteed turnover of the club for the next 2 years is more than he is paying to buy it. Let alone the value of the clubs assets (both players and facilities). We do seem to be going cheap for a premier league club?

Edited by Saint86
farawaysaint

farawaysaint

Posted
Posted
Any word? The fact that no one has said this is off means it must be about to break soonish? We can't afford to waste half the summer in limbo.

 

The one thing I don't quite follow is how the guaranteed turnover of the club for the next 2 years is more than he is paying to buy it. Let alone the value of the clubs assets (both players and facilities). We do seem to be going cheap for a premier league club?

 

Cash flows are much more commonly used in the valuations of unlisted entities.

Redslo

Redslo

Posted
Posted
Any word? The fact that no one has said this is off means it must be about to break soonish? We can't afford to waste half the summer in limbo.

 

The one thing I don't quite follow is how the guaranteed turnover of the club for the next 2 years is more than he is paying to buy it. Let alone the value of the clubs assets (both players and facilities). We do seem to be going cheap for a premier league club?

 

I would assume it is because nearly all of that guaranteed turnover is already committed in the form of player salaries and owed, but not yet due, transfer fees.

saint lard

saint lard

Posted
Posted

Breaking news on Sky.....Chinese consortium/company trying to buy Newcastle...Ashley seriously considering offer....

 

Please be Lander....please be Lander.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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...