Saint in Paradise Posted 3 June, 2009 Posted 3 June, 2009 Well maybe or maybe not http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/4416342.Who_owns___36m_yacht_/#show Could belong to Eric Watson a very wealthy NZ man who used to part own Aucklands Rugby Leaque team called The Warriors. OR Graeme Hart No 3 on below list, Eric Watson is No 34. http://www.forbes.com/global/2007/0212/037.html Of course it might have nothing to do with buying Saints :D:D
Bailey Posted 3 June, 2009 Posted 3 June, 2009 You're going to get some serious abuse for your choice of thread title. You have been warned!
Saint in Paradise Posted 3 June, 2009 Author Posted 3 June, 2009 I fully expect too but it will spice up the very cold sunny day here in NZ :D
Micky Posted 3 June, 2009 Posted 3 June, 2009 Flamin crappi, ****i, shyte, knobjocky thread title - it might be a f u c k i n ' nice cold sunny day there - but it's half past midnight here and you go and post that trype - damn..!
Saint in Paradise Posted 3 June, 2009 Author Posted 3 June, 2009 (edited) Sorry Mind you it could be a chap called Spenser on the list Edited 4 June, 2009 by Saint in Paradise
Big John Posted 3 June, 2009 Posted 3 June, 2009 Not sure that the new chap would even need to reposition a yacht to sign a few documents tbh. Unless of course people think that his ego is getting the better of him.
Saintjersey Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Sorry Mind you it could be a chap called Spensor on the list Well it made me laugh.
SaintJackoInHurworth Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 hmmm... perhaps Paul Allen is buying a new yacht and a football club at the same time.
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 So you don't know then! - and you are in NZ as well you bastard;)
Clapham Saint Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Why is it that people expect a new owner to show up by yacht? might be expensive but is hardly the most expedient mode of transport for somebody on a business trip...
Mole Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Why is it that people expect a new owner to show up by yacht? might be expensive but is hardly the most expedient mode of transport for somebody on a business trip...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Why is it that people expect a new owner to show up by yacht? might be expensive but is hardly the most expedient mode of transport for somebody on a business trip... Maybe not for David Sullivan.
DT Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 ah the old 'mystery surrounds'- type story. ie the Echo has not got a clue but wants to add a whole bunch of unsubstantiated w*nk as if it is evidence that a bloke who owns said yacht might just be stupid enough to arrive in it when rumoured to be buying Saints. Could we lock this on the grounds that it is balls, please? What a waste of everyone's time.
SFKA South Woodford Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Why is it that people expect a new owner to show up by yacht? might be expensive but is hardly the most expedient mode of transport for somebody on a business trip... Since we finally got news of a takeover on a Friday, should it not be fate that the new owner will now turn up for his press conference on a yacht? I fully expect his entrance from a yacht, it would be bad form to do it any other way.
Clapham Saint Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Since we finally got news of a takeover on a Friday, should it not be fate that the new owner will now turn up for his press conference on a yacht? I fully expect his entrance from a yacht, it would be bad form to do it any other way. Maybe be could paraglide behind his yacht as it comes into the docks, detach and glide in a low arc accross the city before landing on the pitch?
derry Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 The new owner may not wish to be named at all. His employees would run the club and be the public face. I think this is the most likely outcome.
Pancake Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 The new owner may not wish to be named at all. His employees would run the club and be the public face. I think this is the most likely outcome. Not allowed under FA rules. He will be named, but only when he has "control" of the club.
krissyboy31 Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Not allowed under FA rules. He will be named, but only when he has "control" of the club. Yes but the new owners could be "The Pinnacle Group" or similar. The money man doesn't have to be listed as a company Director.
Pancake Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Yes but the new owners could be "The Pinnacle Group" or similar. The money man doesn't have to be listed as a company Director. That wont pass the new "fit and proper" persons code.
Mole Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 The new owner may not wish to be named at all. His employees would run the club and be the public face. I think this is the most likely outcome. I think that outcome is inconceiveable.
dubai_phil Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 The term "Beneficial Owner" must be shown to the FA & FL. Hidden owners - lol - Abu Dhabi Quasi-Government companies could buy the whole of the rest of the PL and not get made public just so Man City win everything for "His Excellency"!
derry Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 That wont pass the new "fit and proper" persons code. Wait and see, the title is being vested in Tony Lynham, he is being installed as the de facto owner of the title. Nothing ITK here, it's in his letter. The new owner is known to a few, but his wish for anonymity is not being abused. There are about a dozen on here who know the names of the originals and the one left.
SFC Forever Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Derry you seem to have a bit of an idea about this and seem relatively calm, so perhaps we should take our lead from you. As well as some others who seem quite relaxed and confident regarding our future.
Pancake Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 Wait and see, the title is being vested in Tony Lynham, he is being installed as the de facto owner of the title. Nothing ITK here, it's in his letter. I understand that, but the FA now want to know all the financial backers too. Its quick simple that Mr X, whilst wanted anonymity at the moment, will notm be granted it once he becomes the financier to SFC (or whoever).
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 The new owner is known to a few, but his wish for anonymity is not being abused. There are about a dozen on here who know the names of the originals and the one left. Ok, Derry don't tell us the name of the guy but name The Dirty Dozen (posters on here not Reisman, Maggott, Pinkly, Wladislow et al)
docker-p Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 The new owner is known to a few, but his wish for anonymity is not being abused. There are about a dozen on here who know the names of the originals and the one left. Well, can one of those dozen tell us if he, or indeed she, has a yacht?
derry Posted 4 June, 2009 Posted 4 June, 2009 I understand that, but the FA now want to know all the financial backers too. Its quick simple that Mr X, whilst wanted anonymity at the moment, will notm be granted it once he becomes the financier to SFC (or whoever). So what happens with equity funds. Who gets named there? Either way he looks like he is taking a seat way back. If the plan holds together and he does as publicised, I don't care if his name never came out.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now