• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Neither do I. As an observer myself I see a lad who has the best intentions for this club wanting to see transparency.

His campaign to here the truth about the clubs ownership:

- Saw an owner orchastrate a social media abuse pile on
- Saw an ownership group report him to police
- Saw him have to leave his job to be able to continue asking questions
- Saw an owner name him in a fans meeting to orchastrate more abuse
- Saw an exec brag about calling the police on him to silence him (which didn't work)
- Saw many of our fans attack and discredit him

All when he was ultimately correct in what he said and what he campaigned for.

Now he's asking again for transparency (that we have been promised) over a query that has been raised since the takeover happened and again there's people attacking him.

If it's a chip on his shoulder he has that is his motive then I'd much prefer that than him sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting because he might not like the answer he gets as we would still be sitting here with Donald tearing the club apart and Parkinson bottling post match interviews.
Click to expand...
None of this is relevant to the new ownership and “journalists”, if that’s what he considered himself, shouldn’t be guided by chips on their shoulders no matter how much they feel it’s justified.

And as stated, this is all irrelevant unless they don’t do what they have said they will do. He couldn’t even wait to find out.
 

GarethQ said:
The timing is because the meeting is tomorrow. These are the kinds of questions it would be good to get the answers to, are they not?

Fair play to Chris like, given the abuse and threats he got last time even though he was essentially correct he still keeps asking the questions. Don’t think I’d bother if I was him.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this, fair play to Chris for still having the balls to ask the questions. People on this board go on about 'abuse' to owners and players etc yet dish it out to a fellow fan who wants the best for the club and acts upon it.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
So long as KLD has more 50%+1 of the shares in Sunderland, or in any entity which owns 100% of Sunderland (equally plausible), he has full control of any appointments to, or dismissals from the boards of Sunderland and all its subsidiaries.

The directors of Sunderland are KLD, Igor Levin and Patrick Treuer.

The directors of SAFC are the three above plus MLD, Steve Davison, Juan Sartori, Simon Vambuca, and Dave Jones.

Of those, only Vambuca is thought to represent the interests of Donald and Methven.

It's thus clear that KLD has total control, in management terms, of the strategic direction of the club by a simple majority of the boards being his appointees.

Yes, the confirmation statement is wrong, and that's a consequence of having no-one in place with a proper handle on company secretarial requirements. Hardly a hanging offence.
Click to expand...
That will do for me GOM. Thanks 👍
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
So long as KLD owns more than 50%, the percentages are frankly irrelevant. What matters is who's on the board and who they are backing. The board controls the strategic direction, not the shareholders, and, if KLD has more than 50% of the shares, he controls who's on the board, Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Matters to a lot of people tbf. Especially as if he controls who's on the board he's having Satori et al on.

The last ownership's lies and deceit plagued the club and once they were out in the open their walls came down. Would be nice not to have that happen again.
 
Last edited:
Nelson! said:
None of this is relevant to the new ownership and “journalists”, if that’s what he considered himself, shouldn’t be guided by chips on their shoulders no matter how much they feel it’s justified.

And as stated, this is all irrelevant unless they don’t do what they have said they will do. He couldn’t even wait to find out.
Click to expand...

He's waited a year to mention something they could have made available quite easily a year ago...but they chose not to. So with a meeting coming up he's asking a question a lot of people want to know.

Your first paragraph just reads as another attack on him tbh.
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
Wilful ignorance, sycophancy, not learning from past errors of judgement.

is the answer sections of the SAFC fanbase?
Click to expand...
You seem very protective of this lad. Yes, he found out about the parachute payments and was the first to tell everyone but ever since then he’s resorted to bickering and cheap shots and not really progressed as a Twitter expert.

Going by the radio silence since Donald left he’s gone back to accountancy. Once he’s finished his training he might have more to offer.
 
ilovehorswill said:
You seem very protective of this lad. Yes, he found out about the parachute payments and was the first to tell everyone but ever since then he’s resorted to bickering and cheap shots and not really progressed as a Twitter expert.

Going by the radio silence since Donald left he’s gone back to accountancy. Once he’s finished his training he might have more to offer.
Click to expand...

Ive no personal attachment to him whatsoever. Never met the lad. But when someone is willing to put their head above the parapet when plenty others were drunk on what seemed like cultism I think they should be given credit. He took a battering then and there are questions now. He should be applauded, not derided, even if his concerns prove to be less than fully warranted.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
He's waited a year to mention something they could have made available quite easily a year ago...but they chose not to. So with a meeting coming up he's asking a question a lot of people want to know.

Your first paragraph just reads as another attack on him tbh.
Click to expand...
He’s asked a question they have already agreed to answer in a meeting. What exactly is the point of that?
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Matters to a lot of people tbf. Especially as if he controls who's on the board he's having Satori et al on.

The last ownership's lies and deceit plagued the club and once they were out in the open their walls came down. Would be nice not to have that happen again.
Click to expand...

spot on, it matters to me that they still have any involvement in the club. If they have any say whatsoever then imo thats not acceptable
 
Gaz said:
spot on, it matters to me that they still have any involvement in the club. If they have any say whatsoever then imo thats not acceptable
Click to expand...
but it was obvious from day one they would have...i agree with you they shouldnt be..but it was there for all to see they would be.
 
Why sack Durban said:
He’s putting some context to the question so when they come back and say it’s 100% owned by the holding company we then can see the question hasn’t been asked
Click to expand...
He could and should have done that AFTER they failed to provide a suitable answer.

This just comes across as wanting to get his gripe out there before he misses the opportunity.
 
kildaremackem said:
but it was obvious from day one they would have...i agree with you they shouldnt be..but it was there for all to see they would be.
Click to expand...

its never been made obvious what their involvement would be, that's the issue. Hopefully its not too long before they both fuck off for good
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top