Jump to content

Registration of Charge: MacQuarie Bank vs MSD Holdings

trousers

By trousers,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Saint-Reece

Saint-Reece

Posted
Posted

As per last accounts filed on Companies House (Note 30) largest group our results are consolidated into are Southampton Football Sports Development Co. Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Which also agrees to all the paid company search reports I get through work, this is given as 'Global Ultimate Owner'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, Nolan said:

 

Sunderland's Local Paper looks to be the first media to cover it.

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/football/sunderland-afc/michael-dell-and-his-msd-uk-holdings-group-invest-southampton-year-after-their-sunderland-takeover-talks-began-2902625

Good to see local journos have mastered copying and pasting from Saintsweb threads... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Good to see local journos have mastered copying and pasting from Saintsweb threads... ;)

More likely they copied from my Tweet (which has been viewed 31,000+ times and liked and reweeted by several journalists)... which copied from your thread! 😉

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Wurzel said:

MSD are owned ultimately by a multi-billionaire whose parents were such big Saints fans they named him after our old ground. However, like many kids nowadays he was more interested in computers than sports, but is now having a mid-life crisis and wants to buy a new toy.

They also gave him a middle name paying homage to a Saints Legend 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted (edited)

A view on this from Adam Blackmore (Who knew about this in advance):

 
Contrary to some newspaper reports and gossip, this is not in any way an investment or stake in the club by MSD - they loan money like a bank, and have no interest in buying a football club.
 
They set up a new Uk business to hold the cash and create the facility for the club to use when they need to, as per their agreement.
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with Sunderland or Derby, or anything else.
 
Like I said, it’s a commonplace practise for clubs to use a 3rd part loan facility to help cash flow and bridge the periods between TV staged payments.  Saints have done it before, and I’m sure they’ll do it again. They have always used banks , not owners, and will keep doing it that way.
 
Most clubs have them.
 
This is not a drama….it’s about changing lender and having a new loan facility to help cash flow through Covid downturn – and the big thing – it enables the club to keep building around Ralph, as they want to do.
 
It is a positive –Saints are taking care of business in a global crisis, and are ahead of most clubs in this.
 
Well clear of relegation with 6 games to go, new contracts signed, good core of English players, and they want to progress as planned, and this enables them to do that.
 
It also gives them strength to negotiate on the front foot, with player sales or purchases. A lot of clubs are going to struggle to buy players in one lump now, so maybe if Saints get a good deal for a player they want to sell, but the club can’t pay it all up front, it enables Saints to take staged payments instead of taking cut-price money for a player……this keeps the money coming in, and is power to their elbow.
 
I think Toby Steel  should take a lot of credit for being shrewd and canny, and getting Saints ahead of the curve and other clubs.

Edited by SuperSAINT
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Dusic said:

Thanks SuperSAINT - all very logicial.

Where did you take the quotes from out of interest?

No worries. I asked him about it a couple of days ago. I asked if he was going to record a piece about it — I don’t think he planned to do one.  

As the articles started to come out Yesterday & today, I thought it might be handy if some facts got presented. 

Edited by SuperSAINT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Adam Blackmore is correct... We've always taken out a loan around this time of year and put the club's assets up as security. Indeed, the opening paragraph in my opening post highlighted that this annual practice was business as usual.

The main thrust of my OP was to highlight the differences between this year and previous years, namely that we appear to have switched from using a bank to 'financial intermediaries' and also that we appear to have put up more assets than usual, i.e. the intellectual property.

I also then subsequently highlighted another difference to previous years, in that the agreement signed with MSD is a "debenture" rather than a "deed". It's never been called a debenture before. I've no idea if that is just semantics or not, but all I'm doing is highlighting what I perceive to be differences.

I still think this is a reasonable series of questions to ponder upon:

- why did we switch lender types (from a bank to an intermediary organisation)?

- why did we seemingly have to put up more security than usual this time?

- is the use of the "debenture," terminology significant when this hasn't been the case previously?

I'm sure there's a completely routine and innocuous answer to all 3 of these questions but I still think it's valid to observe any differences to previous years and ponder on why they've chosen to do things differently this year.

Of course, it could be as simple as it being a more cost effective approach, but who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted

At a guess negotiations with Spurs are ongoing about Hojberg but they want to pay in instalments and we need the cash to go out and replace him.

I wonder if we'll see some movement pretty soon with his transfer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevegrant

stevegrant

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tajjuk said:

At a guess negotiations with Spurs are ongoing about Hojberg but they want to pay in instalments and we need the cash to go out and replace him.

I wonder if we'll see some movement pretty soon with his transfer. 

Most transfers these days are done with some sort of instalment plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, tajjuk said:

At a guess negotiations with Spurs are ongoing about Hojberg but they want to pay in instalments and we need the cash to go out and replace him.

His replacement would also likely be signed on a deal in instalments for a lower fee.

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

trousers

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

And now a second charge has been registered... This one covering property/land on Melbourne Street.

This is definitely more encompassing than previous years....

 

 

Screenshot_20200706-115439.png

 

 

Screenshot_20200706-115541.png

Screenshot_20200706-115555.png

Screenshot_20200706-115632.png

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alehouseboys

alehouseboys

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, trousers said:

And now a second charge has been registered... This one covering property/land on Melbourne Street.

This is definitely more encompassing than previous years....

 

 

Screenshot_20200706-115439.png

 

 

Screenshot_20200706-115541.png

Screenshot_20200706-115555.png

Screenshot_20200706-115632.png

“LEASHOLD PROPERTIES HELD IN THE NAME OF SOU....” if a multi-£billionaire is buying us let’s hope sloppy spelling mistakes don’t scupper the deal 😳

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted

Wonder why the charge that appeared first is against 5 companies 

  1. St Mary's Football Group Ltd
  2. Southampton Football Club Ltd
  3. Southampton Girls and Women Football Club Ltd
  4. St Mary's Training Ground Ltd
  5. St Mary's Training Centre Ltd.

but the new charge is only against

  1. St Mary's Football Group Ltd
  2. Southampton Football Club Ltd

There's something going on in the background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Nolan said:

There's something going on in the background.

I think that's a reasonable supposition. 

It's all very well the likes of Adam Blackmore (who I respect hugely) saying that this is 'business as usual' (which it is in principle) but there are several differences this time around that are worthy of wondering why IMO. (The differences could still transpire to be innocuous and/or inconsequential but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be questioned until such time that is proven to be the case. )

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevy777_x

stevy777_x

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, trousers said:

I think that's a reasonable supposition. 

It's all very well the likes of Adam Blackmore (who I respect hugely) saying that this is 'business as usual' (which it is in principle) but there are several differences this time around that are worthy of wondering why IMO. (The differences could still transpire to be innocuous and/or inconsequential but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be questioned until such time that is proven to be the case. )

Blackmore is a club s puppet.

he never asks tough questions, and when he tries to be more assertive, he hides behind the fact that it is the fans that have such and such feelings.

But let s be honest, if he did try to ask tough questions, he wouldn’t have anywhere near the access to the club he has today.
 

if there is something going on, he wouldn t be in the know, takeovers are very hush hush until they are official or an exclusivity is given to a given party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wurzel

Wurzel

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Nolan said:

Wonder why the charge that appeared first is against 5 companies 

  1. St Mary's Football Group Ltd
  2. Southampton Football Club Ltd
  3. Southampton Girls and Women Football Club Ltd
  4. St Mary's Training Ground Ltd
  5. St Mary's Training Centre Ltd.

but the new charge is only against

  1. St Mary's Football Group Ltd
  2. Southampton Football Club Ltd

There's something going on in the background.

Second charge relates to specific properties at (or close to) SMS . Ther electric sub-station in Melbourne St - why do we even have a lease over that ? or does it exclusively supply the stadium?. Company #3 would only cover the running of the Ladies teams, Companies #4&5 own/operate Staplewood, thought that Company #2 only relates to running of the mens sides (so surprised that is listed), I would only expect Company #1 to have anything to do with property ownership. So basically can't see much untoward there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Wurzel said:

Second charge relates to specific properties at (or close to) SMS . Ther electric sub-station in Melbourne St - why do we even have a lease over that ? or does it exclusively supply the stadium?. Company #3 would only cover the running of the Ladies teams, Companies #4&5 own/operate Staplewood, thought that Company #2 only relates to running of the mens sides (so surprised that is listed), I would only expect Company #1 to have anything to do with property ownership. So basically can't see much untoward there.

But why not put it on one charge? Why split it over two? 

 

Why not include Melbourne Street work At Mary's on the first charge?

Edited by Nolan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, LeG said:

Not even the CFO will know if theres a sale on the cards, let alone Adam Blackmore. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Adam Blackmore (or anyone else in his position) would know if a sale is imminent or not. The only reason I name-checked him is that he's said that this is 'busness as usual' and therefore 'nothing to see here folks'. He may well be right of course, however, I'm wondering why he's seemingly turning a blind eye to the differences that exist in the annual charging process compared to previous years and/or why he's concluded that these difference are of no consequence. As you say, he's not close enough to the decision making people to be able to make this 'nothing to see here' deduction, is he? 

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevy777_x

stevy777_x

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, trousers said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Adam Blackmore (or anyone else in his position) would know if a sale is imminent or not. The only reason I name-checked him is that he's said that this is 'busness as usual' and therefore 'nothing to see here folks'. He may well be right of course, however, I'm wondering why he's seemingly turning a blind eye to the differences that exist in the annual charging process compared to previous years and/or why he's concluded that these difference are of no consequence. As you say, he's not close enough to the decision making people to be able to make this 'nothing to see here' deduction, is he? 

Any proper journalist would investigate the potential difference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dusic

Dusic

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1280541049627213825

@mjshrimper: Pre-Covid, Aussie bank Macquarie was football’s go-to lender but Palace, Boro & Southampton have all paid off loans from them in last few weeks & Sheff Utd have started borrowing from Middle East. The word in the City of London is that Macquarie is getting out of football.

 

--------

Not sure its any more complex than that.

Edited by Dusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Dusic said:

https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1280541049627213825

@mjshrimper: Pre-Covid, Aussie bank Macquarie was football’s go-to lender but Palace, Boro & Southampton have all paid off loans from them in last few weeks & Sheff Utd have started borrowing from Middle East. The word in the City of London is that Macquarie is getting out of football.

 

--------

Not sure its any more complex than that.

Interesting... Cheers for posting. I wonder why Macquarie are "getting out of football"? You'd have thought lending to Premier League clubs was money for old rope 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted

Just Perusing the Accounts for the last couple years. 

looks like all the Shares of SFC were transfered from Lander Sports Investment to Southampton Football Club on 1/7/19

there is no mention of Lander in the SFC's accounts.

Lander's accounts are overdue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dusic

Dusic

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Nolan said:

And why not borrow from another bank? Why borrow from a company set up solely to lend you money?

What if none of the other banks wish to lend to you?

Or you can get more favourable terms from a private lender?

The setup seems purely a way to be able to access the cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

So we know now from the Lander UK accounts that we borrowed £80m. The previous working capital facility was £20m so that probably explains the change of lender - Macquarrie might not have had the stomach to be that exposed to a business that could be relegated and lose a huge chunk of turnover overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted

Hopefully someone who knows what that is can unpick that!

I do hope Gao is going. I'm very, very, very nervous about us being owned by Chinese entities at this moment in time. Wolves should be too.

China is expected to introduce more restrictions on its companies and citizens investing in UK businesses.

That could be bad news for Chinese-owned clubs in the UK such as Wolves, Southampton, West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham and Reading.

But given that he doesn't invest, I guess it'll make little difference! Still, very worrying though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted

"The memorandum of association is the document that sets up the company and the articles of association set out how the company is run, governed and owned."

so if that is changed then surely "how the company is run, governed and owned." has changed.

obviously legalese is pretty much impossible for normal humans, but the "allocation of shares" bits of the documents would certainly make it easier for F). to happen.

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...