• 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.
Roger said:
Regarding the land, I always thought SAFC owned plenty land around there, certainly enough to extend the concourses if required (although possibly not behind the North Stand).
Click to expand...
it could only be the east\south side... implication is that short still had his name on the car park - unlikely in my mind...
 

Roger said:
I don't recall how much of a holding Sartori has, but once the purchasing company owns 90% of the shares it may compulsory purchase the remainder whether agreed or not. This has happened twice with me, ironically once with SAFC shares!

The situation is complicated at SAFC as obviously Sartori won't own shares in SAFC, just in Madrox. So I guess Madrox could still sell its stake in SAFC without his agreement as it he isn't a majority shareholder in Madrox. My head hurts now.

Regarding the land, I always thought SAFC owned plenty land around there, certainly enough to extend the concourses if required (although possibly not behind the North Stand).
Click to expand...
I am sure Bob Murray said that one of the reasons he extended the north stand was to do it before the swimming pool and hotel were built otherwise there would be issues with planning, construction etc
 
SPUFF said:
When you consider SDs podcasts and the negotiating a new deal with Short regularly despite a year passing you can see why they want to iron out issues prior.
Didnt fat mike buy a load of debt he wasnt aware of too.

Some smbers think this is akin to buying a lawnmower off gumtree.
Click to expand...

I don't think they do. Word is this was going on for months prior to it being public knowledge and it was close at that point. Something has happened since and folk are speculating as to why.
 
Getting back to Greens after destroying MK Dons was ok but largely due to both the result and fine weather, it's not going to last though. Repeating such a feat in freezing rain after a January defeat will be tough without a monorail. Let's get this show on the road man.
 
OldNewtown said:
So just to clarify
Madrox owns the shares in Sunderland
Sartori owns shares in Madrox
If Madrox chose to dispose of an asset, shares in Sunderland, surely it would be a simple case of voting your shares and a simple majority wins

Though I admit I'm probably missing something

I'm pretty sure that someone mentioned that for tax purposes it may be more efficient if Madrox sold the shares rather than Madrox being sold - or a meringue

Edit - thread has moved on see above
Click to expand...

No, you're right

Except possibly on tax - dunno about any of that
 
JimmyQuinn said:
No, you're right

Except possibly on tax - dunno about any of that
Click to expand...

Normally from a vendor's point of view selling shares is more tax efficient. If Madrox sells its investment it will be subject to corporation tax on the "gain" and then the individuals would be subject to almost certainly higher rate tax if the extracted the funds. From a buyer if you buy the shares of the company you inherit everything warts and all (subject to warranties)

Boring accountant speak again
 
King Kareoke said:
Normally from a vendor's point of view selling shares is more tax efficient. If Madrox sells its investment it will be subject to corporation tax on the "gain" and then the individuals would be subject to almost certainly higher rate tax if the extracted the funds. From a buyer if you buy the shares of the company you inherit everything warts and all (subject to warranties)

Boring accountant speak again
Click to expand...
There are relatively straightforward ways of sheltering the gain as well.
 
King Kareoke said:
Normally from a vendor's point of view selling shares is more tax efficient. If Madrox sells its investment it will be subject to corporation tax on the "gain" and then the individuals would be subject to almost certainly higher rate tax if the extracted the funds. From a buyer if you buy the shares of the company you inherit everything warts and all (subject to warranties)

Boring accountant speak again
Click to expand...

Because CGT rates are lower than income tax rates?
 
Gadzooks said:
But what are we criticising for over the takeover? Are we genuinely discussing whether it’s ok to level criticism at someone over a hypothetical situation?

I know we’re stretched for discussion topics but god that’s scraping the barrel to further an agenda.
Click to expand...

In a general sense

Blind faith in a bloke they hardly know on every single decision. It’s like a cult.
 
Roger said:
Something had happened!

Unfortunately, like 97.356% of this thread it had nothing to do with the potential takeover of the club.
Click to expand...

Sorry Roger but by my calculations the true figure is in fact 97.666 recurring. Having said that, such is the nature of an open forum, people do tend to go off at a tangent at the slightest prompt or phrase as seen with “river sluts” - as weird as it was!
 
Indeed, their key principles state that ‘investing our reputation is as important as investing our capital’.

... Does this equal big arrogant egos?
Only a thought but people who’s primary purpose is to to protect themselves as a brand. Does not sit comfortably with sport for me.
Probably totally overthinking it..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top