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
10 minutes ago, 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

👍

not sure I’m on board with this lot.

  • Like 1
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

👍

not sure I’m on board with this lot.

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 

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, EBS1980 said:

Surely if they want to replicate the Man City model, the only way it’ll work is the figure head club being half successful?

& having an owner with billions of pounds...

SambaMaverick

SambaMaverick

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

I dont see that arrangement getting anywhere near passing the PL owner test.

 

 

 

 

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

  • Haha 1
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SambaMaverick said:

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

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
5 minutes ago, SambaMaverick said:

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

 

3 minutes ago, 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. 🙄

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

Charlie Wayman

Charlie Wayman

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SaintsLoyal said:

I dont see that arrangement getting anywhere near passing the PL owner test.

 

 

 

 

Which could be a blessing in disguise. Everything I have read about this possible deal brings images to mind of frying pans and fires.

Convict Colony

Convict Colony

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

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

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

S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

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

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
14 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

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

Decent addition to the no-no list, TBF. 

14 minutes ago, 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.

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

Wigan.  What a shambles.

SaintsLoyal

SaintsLoyal

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SambaMaverick said:

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

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
4 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

 

 

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
16 minutes ago, 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.

“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
29 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

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

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
10 hours ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

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

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
6 minutes ago, 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.

Cheers.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, 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."

 

 

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

  • Like 1
Convict Colony

Convict Colony

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, verlaine1979 said:

Ares are a pretty huge, which makes me curious why they'd get into bed with someone as small time as DaGrosa.

Chairman owns LA football club

 

Edited by Convict Colony
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
1 hour ago, 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.

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
1 hour ago, benjii said:

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

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
3 hours ago, benjii said:

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

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
13 hours ago, 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. 

Quite. We are going no where under Goa. 

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, for_heaven's_Saint said:

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

Indeed. Backing people just because they aren’t Gao isn’t exactly the wisest choice.

  • Like 2
Wurzel

Wurzel

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, for_heaven's_Saint said:

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

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
2 hours ago, 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

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
18 minutes ago, 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.

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
1 hour ago, 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.

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
1 hour ago, SuperSAINT said:

Indeed. Backing people just because they aren’t Gao isn’t exactly the wisest choice.

‘Let’s go Wilde’ all over again. What could possibly go wrong?? 😏

Simon3737

Simon3737

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, 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. 

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...