Jump to content

The Sunday Times - Southampton put up for sale at £250m

The Odd Guy

By The Odd Guy
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Toadhall Saint

Toadhall Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 17:31, Convict Colony said:

Ok you lazy bastards i signed up for free.

We have a potential winner - Kapital Football

DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR

KFG HAS EXECUTED AN EXCLUSIVE LETTER TO ACQUIRE  80% OF AN UNNAMED PREMIER LEAGUE CLUB WITH THE OPTION TO ACQUIRE THE REMAINING 20.

Cunningly they stop you copying and pasting from the article so its going to be screen shots

 

Screenshot 2020-09-25 at 19.26.22.png

Screenshot 2020-09-25 at 19.26.30.png

Screenshot 2020-09-25 at 19.26.42.png

Expand  

👍

not sure I’m on board with this lot.

  • Like 1
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 17:42, Toadhall Saint said:

👍

not sure I’m on board with this lot.

Expand  

Yes, it could be SISU but with the veneer of Miami over it.

Think Red Bull are probably the only ones vaguely mentioned * with a decent pedigree and track record. Ratcliffe and Ineos possibly decent owners but they've previously discounted buying an EPL club just yet.

 

*okay, I know they probably even aren't in the frame or interested but just adding their name for comparison purposes 

S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 19:39, SambaMaverick said:

Yeah, because Gao looked a whole lot better on paper... PL came down on him like a ton of bricks... 😕 :S

Expand  

It's ok, they changed the rules so he wouldn't be approved in the future, after they'd approved him for us. 🙄

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 19:39, SambaMaverick said:

Yeah, because Gao looked a whole lot better on paper... PL came down on him like a ton of bricks... 😕 :S

Expand  

 

  On 25/09/2020 at 19:42, S-Clarke said:

It's ok, they changed the rules so he wouldn't be approved in the future, after they'd approved him for us. 🙄

Expand  

Did anyone ever report what they actually changed to ensure it couldn't happen again?

S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 19:46, SuperSAINT said:

 

Did anyone ever report what they actually changed to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Expand  

I'm fairly certain they changed the rules after, but I never saw confirmation of what it was. But from what I'd read the new rules would have stopped him passing if he went in for it again now.

The Fit and proper test is a total farce, really. Even Wigan's owners passed it, and they just had it for two weeks before throwing it into admin.

stevy777_x

stevy777_x

Posted
Posted

What a bunch of Wet fannies.

if they invest in a football club, it is to create long term investment value.

To do this, you need to develop a brand, expand the club and bring in better players to put us on the map.

What is not to like?

its way better that being stuck with Gao for years with zero investment on the horizon. That is a recipe for disaster and you all know it. 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 19:57, Convict Colony said:

Yeah, have never admitted corruption against the state that got other people killed

Expand  

Decent addition to the no-no list, TBF. 

  On 25/09/2020 at 19:57, S-Clarke said:

I'm fairly certain they changed the rules after, but I never saw confirmation of what it was. But from what I'd read the new rules would have stopped him passing if he went in for it again now.

The Fit and proper test is a total farce, really. Even Wigan's owners passed it, and they just had it for two weeks before throwing it into admin.

Expand  

I definitely remember hearing it too.  Alarm bells amplified then.

Wigan.  What a shambles.

SaintsLoyal

SaintsLoyal

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 25/09/2020 at 19:39, SambaMaverick said:

Yeah, because Gao looked a whole lot better on paper... PL came down on him like a ton of bricks... 😕 :S

Expand  

The situation and rules have changed significantly more since he turned up.

The PL would look at the mess with Bordeaux and question everything.

The whole way in which it would be financed as suggested wouldnt be allowed either.

 

 

 

 

Edited by SaintsLoyal
SambaMaverick

SambaMaverick

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 20:14, SaintsLoyal said:

The situation and rules  have just significantly more since he turned up.

The PL would look at the mess with Bordeaux and question everything.

The whole way in which it would be financed as suggested wouldnt be allowed either.

 

 

 

 

Expand  

What's wrong with the finances? I'm not arguing the contrary, just asking because I'm not at all clued up. I would've thought getting the capital from a reputable source like Ares would highlight the "legitimacy" of the deal and the team behind it.

Toadhall Saint

Toadhall Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 20:20, SambaMaverick said:

What's wrong with the finances? I'm not arguing the contrary, just asking because I'm not at all clued up. I would've thought getting the capital from a reputable source like Ares would highlight the "legitimacy" of the deal and the team behind it.

Expand  

“Some” of that capital loan would be based on debt. Who’s debt? Is my question?

Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted

Sounds dreadful. But sounds like it might be happening, gut feeling is this is not good for the football club.

I really don’t like the model of owning different clubs, don’t think it should be allowed. 

Wurzel

Wurzel

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 20:39, Toadhall Saint said:

“Some” of that capital loan would be based on debt. Who’s debt? Is my question?

Expand  

From Dan Sheldon's article about this potential takeover in The Athletic...

"

If DaGrosa borrows money to buy Southampton, will that not put the club at risk if it goes wrong?

In theory, no.

Because Southampton aren’t a publicly listed company, buyers won’t be able to use the club as leverage like the Glazers did with Manchester United. DaGrosa would need to have the capital already in the bank before Gao could sell.

Because of this, any money lent to him would not be held against Southampton, it will be the American’s concern."

 

 

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 19:46, SuperSAINT said:

 

Did anyone ever report what they actually changed to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Expand  

Yes, I’ve posted the exact rule and the reference on here before but I can’t be bothered to look it up again now.

But, basically, Gao admitted bribing officials in China but was never convicted because he acted as prosecution witness. Basically, he agreed a deal.

The PL rules said that someone convicted of certain crimes couldn’t run or own a club. Bribery is one of the crimes. But he wasn’t convicted, even though he admitted it in evidence he gave.

So they changed the rule to ban people who had been convicted or people who had committed an act overseas that would have been a crime if it had been committed in the UK.

  • Like 1
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 05:50, benjii said:

Yes, I’ve posted the exact rule and the reference on here before but I can’t be bothered to look it up again now.

But, basically, Gao admitted bribing officials in China but was never convicted because he acted as prosecution witness. Basically, he agreed a deal.

The PL rules said that someone convicted of certain crimes couldn’t run or own a club. Bribery is one of the crimes. But he wasn’t convicted, even though he admitted it in evidence he gave.

So they changed the rule to ban people who had been convicted or people who had committed an act overseas that would have been a crime if it had been committed in the UK.

Expand  

Cheers.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 21:11, Wurzel said:

From Dan Sheldon's article about this potential takeover in The Athletic...

"

If DaGrosa borrows money to buy Southampton, will that not put the club at risk if it goes wrong?

In theory, no.

Because Southampton aren’t a publicly listed company, buyers won’t be able to use the club as leverage like the Glazers did with Manchester United. DaGrosa would need to have the capital already in the bank before Gao could sell.

Because of this, any money lent to him would not be held against Southampton, it will be the American’s concern."

 

 

Expand  

That's complete bull. It's easier to leverage a deal for a private company than a public company. 

  • Like 1
redkeith

redkeith

Posted
Posted

After he bought Bordeaux, they worked out that they had over paid for it, so they sold their best players every window, and trousered the profits. 

Bordeaux are still making transfer profits after he has gone. They have a fantastic new 40,000 stadium and the potential was there to fill it and be a regular top 4 team again with just a little investment,  This season they have sold only  7500 season tickets  and signed no-one.  

 

 

  • Like 1
John D

John D

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 05:50, benjii said:

Yes, I’ve posted the exact rule and the reference on here before but I can’t be bothered to look it up again now.

But, basically, Gao admitted bribing officials in China but was never convicted because he acted as prosecution witness. Basically, he agreed a deal.

The PL rules said that someone convicted of certain crimes couldn’t run or own a club. Bribery is one of the crimes. But he wasn’t convicted, even though he admitted it in evidence he gave.

So they changed the rule to ban people who had been convicted or people who had committed an act overseas that would have been a crime if it had been committed in the UK.

Expand  

Thats right. For Gao it was the fact that he avoided a conviction by doing a deal and the lack of a conviction prevented the deal being blocked. 

 

 Premier League's rules will also allow it to block a new owner where they have "engaged in conduct outside the UK that would constitute an offence… if such conduct had taken place in the UK, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction".

Sources told Sky News last month that that amendment to the rule book had been partly inspired by a move by Chinese businessman Gao Jisheng to take control of Southampton FC in a deal reported to be worth £200m

Gao had admitted to bribery offences, but gave evidence for the prosecution in two separate cases, meaning that he escaped charges himself.

Because he has not been convicted of an offence, the Premier League is understood to have had no existing grounds to block his bid.

 

 

  • Like 1
John D

John D

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 06:21, benjii said:

That's complete bull. It's easier to leverage a deal for a private company than a public company. 

Expand  

That's what I thought. Didn't understand that comment in the Athletic article.

I think it is what Gao has done with Saints but it isn't transparent because it is impossible to follow the trail once our ownership disappears into the BVI

  • Like 1
Chewy

Chewy

Posted
Posted

So a couple of nobodies want a big loan to buy a club on the cheap with an extra “roughly $50million” additional to spend (Basically one decent player and some new furniture) as part of a vision to create a new Man City style empire, without the need for the main club to be remotely like Man City.

Now that’s the sort of vision I can buy into! Where can I sign up to invest??? 

  • Like 1
Wurzel

Wurzel

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 06:21, benjii said:

That's complete bull. It's easier to leverage a deal for a private company than a public company. 

Expand  

Confused me too, that's why I posted it. Should have been a line saying "Can someone explain how/why?" but couldn't be arsed to try and edit it on my phone.

I can only assume it means the debt would be his (or his companies) so technically not SFC debt, but secured by his shares in club and/or club assets which would then pass to lender in case of default. Presumably they (lender) could then decide to recover costs asap (firesale) or continue running club in attempt to recoup money long term.

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
  On 25/09/2020 at 19:58, stevy777_x said:

What a bunch of Wet fannies.

if they invest in a football club, it is to create long term investment value.

To do this, you need to develop a brand, expand the club and bring in better players to put us on the map.

What is not to like?

its way better that being stuck with Gao for years with zero investment on the horizon. That is a recipe for disaster and you all know it. 

Expand  

Quite. We are going no where under Goa. 

Wurzel

Wurzel

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 09:45, for_heaven's_Saint said:

This is true. But it’s possible for our situation to get worse as well as better. 

Expand  

Pointless comment. The same applies if we do nothing.

Every business transaction carries some element of risk, if it didn't  no company would ever fail. Conversely no company would ever grow beyond average either.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 07:35, John D said:

That's what I thought. Didn't understand that comment in the Athletic article.

I think it is what Gao has done with Saints but it isn't transparent because it is impossible to follow the trail once our ownership disappears into the BVI

Expand  

I've always thought it odd that he's not a director of the UK companies. Is he banned from being a director in the UK?

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

Certainly true that we're going nowhere under Goa but he stands to lose if we get relegated.

These reported new folks are having a whip round to spaff other people's money.  It's no big deal to them what happens.

  • Like 2
for_heaven's_Saint

for_heaven's_Saint

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 10:04, Wurzel said:

Pointless comment. The same applies if we do nothing.

Every business transaction carries some element of risk, if it didn't  no company would ever fail. Conversely no company would ever grow beyond average either.

Expand  

Just because you don’t agree with a comment doesn’t make it pointless. 
 

I’m really not convinced that this is a positive step for the club. 

tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 09:32, Wurzel said:

Confused me too, that's why I posted it. Should have been a line saying "Can someone explain how/why?" but couldn't be arsed to try and edit it on my phone.

I can only assume it means the debt would be his (or his companies) so technically not SFC debt, but secured by his shares in club and/or club assets which would then pass to lender in case of default. Presumably they (lender) could then decide to recover costs asap (firesale) or continue running club in attempt to recoup money long term.

Expand  

See AC Milan I think, Elliott Management Corporation basically lent most of the money for the takeover by Li Yonghong, who then defaulted on payments so Elliott Management then took over the running of the club. 

So I suppose the same would happen here, the club would essentially become an asset of Ares if De Grosa doesn't pay the money back, rather than the club being liable for the loan. 

I'd also presume that investment companies of that sort of scale (Ares Management is I think even bigger than Elliott Management as a whole) have the ability to sit on an investment like that and re-sell it down the line.

So we'd probably either be at the same state now with an owner that basically didn't want to own us and would put the bare minimum in to maintain it and sell us on as soon as possible, or might invest a little to increase their return. 

  • Like 1
Simon3737

Simon3737

Posted
Posted
  On 26/09/2020 at 10:52, tajjuk said:

See AC Milan I think, Elliott Management Corporation basically lent most of the money for the takeover by Li Yonghong, who then defaulted on payments so Elliott Management then took over the running of the club. 

So I suppose the same would happen here, the club would essentially become an asset of Ares if De Grosa doesn't pay the money back, rather than the club being liable for the loan. 

I'd also presume that investment companies of that sort of scale (Ares Management is I think even bigger than Elliott Management as a whole) have the ability to sit on an investment like that and re-sell it down the line.

So we'd probably either be at the same state now with an owner that basically didn't want to own us and would put the bare minimum in to maintain it and sell us on as soon as possible, or might invest a little to increase their return. 

Expand  

I seem to remember Gao borrowed the money personally to buy us, but as soon as he’d bought us he transferred the debt on to the club (and recovered his personal debt).

I’m not overly concerned in principle about owners funding us with debt. The key issue is the cost to the club of servicing that debt moving forward (as that will reduce the amount of money available to reinvest in the club).

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...