• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

SAFC Takeover Latest

Status
Not open for further replies.
molthemackem said:
Praise the lord!....its about time too. The old guard have for too long had their opinions treated as gospel and acted upon and they are the common denominator
Click to expand...
Who are the old guard mate? I haven’t a clue who and how many are still there since Short left.
 

Dilligaf60 said:
Who are the old guard mate? I haven’t a clue who and how many are still there since Short left.
Click to expand...
DD
I think that Kevin Ball and Elliott Dickman are two that spring to mind, further, probably Bennett ,Montgomery even Gabbiadini to an extent just by having players under his company signed to the club.. and a few others who have hung around for too long that have influenced the owners and former managers..
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
Exactly. There's no suggestion that the things that are being sorted would prevent the takeover. Way I see it, I know you get access to the books etc during due diligence but if they want to do detailed investigations into historical items they'll probably get a lot more access if they actually own the company. Equally trying to piece together a new team to come in (from a business side rather than a footballing one), it's a lot easier approaching potential candidates if you actually own the club rather than if you are just prospective buyers.

They could be getting Donald and co to do this, but I imagine they'd want to handle things themselves, equally Donald might be cautious about how much access he gives to inner details about the club over and above those required by DD until the deal is signed.

If the issues aren't of the sort that would make them want to walk away, I don't think there's any advantage for them in not completing. They complete the deal, go in depth into issues which they've discovered during the process and then, when everything is lined up in terms of getting rid of people they think need to go and getting the right people to replace them, then they do the big announcement and come in looking like they mean business with a whole new set up. The due diligence will have shown them any unexpected costs, but how to deal with the cause of them is likely what they're doing now which would be done after DD is complete.
Click to expand...
You're probably not far off with that. They'll not want to make a huge announcement and then have the press get hold of something a couple of days later.
 
chunksafc said:
Semi serious questions about due diligence which hopefully someone more informed can answer please?

How far back can a potential buyer look into the accounts?

Is it just the accounts they examine or is it board meeting minutes etc?

Can they question the existing owners about decisions made in the past?
Click to expand...
1. They can examine any and all records held by the company (at least six years for a private company, and twelve years for a plc)
2. They will look a at board minutes, contracts, legal documents and correspondence.
3. They can only really question management about decisions made in their tenure. However, it should be noted that the finance director has been in place since 2007.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
1. They can examine any and all records held by the company (at least six years for a private company, and twelve years for a plc)
2. They will look a at board minutes, contracts, legal documents and correspondence.
3. They can only really question management about decisions made in their tenure. However, it should be noted that the finance director has been in place since 2007.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

I didn't realise dd was as involved, I thought it was just accounts based
 
SD was pencilled in for a local talk in / meeting with the Jarra branch this Friday. This has now been rescheduled for 11th October. I wonder if the takeover negotiations have forced the change?
 
chunksafc said:
Thanks for the reply.

I didn't realise dd was as involved, I thought it was just accounts based
Click to expand...
It can get into all kinds of things from my experience. It's not just a case of the books balancing. They could be looking at all kinds of contracts and attached risks.

They'll have some kind of register drawn up from their findings and work through each issue ensuring that they've got sufficient assurances in place or achievable mitigations.
The Jarra Wanderer said:
SD was pencilled in for a local talk in / meeting with the Jarra branch this Friday. This has now been rescheduled for 11th October. I wonder if the takeover negotiations have forced the change?
Click to expand...
Think it may have been a double booking as he's at Consett.
 
Last edited:
molthemackem said:
DD
I think that Kevin Ball and Elliott Dickman are two that spring to mind, further, probably Bennett ,Montgomery even Gabbiadini to an extent just by having players under his company signed to the club.. and a few others who have hung around for too long that have influenced the owners and former managers..
Click to expand...

So out of the 5 names you mentioned, 2 of them aren’t employed by the club, one of them has only more recently joined in an official capacity (ambassadorial only), an ex coach that’s now in ambassadorial role and a seemingly inept coach.

There are far far bigger issues to resolve at the club than any of those 5.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
1. They can examine any and all records held by the company (at least six years for a private company, and twelve years for a plc)
2. They will look a at board minutes, contracts, legal documents and correspondence.
3. They can only really question management about decisions made in their tenure. However, it should be noted that the finance director has been in place since 2007.
Click to expand...
He's a gonna then
 
OohBaldyBally said:
So out of the 5 names you mentioned, 2 of them aren’t employed by the club, one of them has only more recently joined in an official capacity (ambassadorial only), an ex coach that’s now in ambassadorial role and a seemingly inept coach.

There are far far bigger issues to resolve at the club than any of those 5.
Click to expand...
As ex payers they all will have have had an input at one time or another, the same as ex managers, coaches etc.. If you mean it is Ball who has an ambassadorial role, then I think you will find that occurred under Byrne. He now has a major input into how the club is being run otherwise why else would he be sitting next to SD & CM in the directors box or turning up like some CIA or FBI minder on the club talk ins.? That's the way he came across to me and a few others the last time I met him only a few weeks ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top