WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

[Grumpy Old Man]

which is why people want to know exactly how much they do own and how much say / involvement they have in the running of the club. Not much to ask considering the shambles the two of them made during their ownership

The club is run by the boards of Sunderland and SAFC. Neither Donald nor Methven are on the board, and all the Sunderland board members and an overwhelming majority of the SAFC board are KLD appointees. Methven would probably like to be involved some way; Donald is simply hanging on for a second, bigger, payout.

 

[kildaremackem]

The club have a history of promising things they never deliver. Fans and fan groups need to be on the front foot. Especially with Donald and Methven still involved in ANY capacity. SAFC have been pissing on our shoes and telling us it’s raining since WW2.

the club never promised donald et al would not be involved.

 

[GarethQ]

In this case, I think he's gone over the top, given that RAWA have committed to asking the club the question, they club know the question's coming, and the meeting is tomorrow, If I have an animus, it's because on the way up to the meeting to try to get chapter and verse from Methven on the purchase deal, I was getting texts from him via RAWA demanding that I ask certain questions in a certain way,. I found that a totally unacceptable way to treat another professional.

You’ve made a mountain out of a molehill on this as per usual

 

[Cotia]

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.

Holy shit what????!!!!!

I did not realise any of this

 

[vinegar hill]

Not all this boring shite again.

 

[riffraff]

I ain’t saying this isn’t important but if we were 20 points clear at the top no one would give a shite.

Rubbish.

 

[Mallard]

Rubbish.

you are right. We would never be 20 points clear.

 

[girojim]

The board appointments alone suggest that, plus both sides were clear at the time of the deal that he was taking a controlling stake.

There is nothing official to confirm it and the reappearance of Metvhen and the change in tac from when he first became chairman raise questions that deserve answers imo

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

In this case, I think he's gone over the top, given that RAWA have committed to asking the club the question, they club know the question's coming, and the meeting is tomorrow, If I have an animus, it's because on the way up to the meeting to try to get chapter and verse from Methven on the purchase deal, I was getting texts from him via RAWA demanding that I ask certain questions in a certain way,. I found that a totally unacceptable way to treat another professional.

Don't blame him tbf considering at the time you were blaming all their lies on their accountants. Nothing was ever their fault.

 

[kildaremackem]

There is nothing official to confirm it and the reappearance of Metvhen and the change in tac from when he first became chairman raise questions that deserve answers imo

safc is owned by a company in leicthestein so you will never see anything to confirm it

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

yes indeed. it doesnt matter so much whether KLD has the power to have them involved or not..if he has chosen to.

I would say though..its very common for minority shareholders, who are going to be asked for millions of pounds of funding, to be entitield to appoint a director or two to the baord.

I agree, I'd expect them to appoint someone to represent them tbh. That being said, assuming you're right it does beg more questions. Namely why does KLD want them involved and how long does he want them involved for. My personal opinion on it is that he probably doesn't want them, but they probably refused to sell 100% of the club (as they hope to profit down the line from it) and he still thought it was a deal worth doing. If their shares aren't protected he can invest and slowly dilute them out. If that's wrong and he actually wants them around, well that really wouldn't go down well

 

[girojim]

The club is run by the boards of Sunderland and SAFC. Neither Donald nor Methven are on the board, and all the Sunderland board members and an overwhelming majority of the SAFC board are KLD appointees. Methven would probably like to be involved some way; Donald is simply hanging on for a second, bigger, payout.

Juan Sartori and Simon Vumbaca are baord members of Sunderland Association Football Club Ltd

 

[phunboy]

Everyone sufficiently outraged?

Yeah but I'm not sure why. I suppose I'm outraged that I'm outraged

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Don't blame him tbf considering at the time you were blaming all their lies on their accountants. Nothing was ever their fault.

I was blaming the errors in the accounts on them, and I pointed them out to CM at the time. As it was, I was being asked to ask questions about things like a share issue that never ever happened.

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

I agree, I'd expect them to appoint someone to represent them tbh. That being said, assuming you're right it does beg more questions. Namely why does KLD want them involved and how long does he want them involved for. My personal opinion on it is that he probably doesn't want them, but they probably refused to sell 100% of the club (as they hope to profit down the line from it) and he still thought it was a deal worth doing. If their shares aren't protected he can invest and slowly dilute them out. If that's wrong and he actually wants them around, well that really wouldn't go down well

Spot on. If KLD decides who is, or isn't, on the board then he wants them on. The question is why.

 

[Deleted member 50464]

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.

It was bad enough when Donald did his first disappearing act, around the time the Daily Mail article came out which showed what he was up to, and he organised an internet pile-on of Chris Wetherspoon for asking the right questions.

It was fairly sickening to watch SAFC fans believe everything Donald said and launch into Chris Wetherspoon with tirades of online abuse.

And to see some of the same people who previously stuck up for everything that Donald did, and launch into personal attacks, now on this thread trying to have a go at him for asking really fundamental, really basic questions that could and should have been answered months ago, is beyond belief tbh.

He is right to ask these questions. We are all entitled to answers on the questions he is raising. Given the history of some of the people still apparently involved in the club, though we don't know on what basis, he is right to raise these in advance of the meeting to put pressure on to get a proper answer, not just a fobbing off of people who will be bought off with a pint in the Hilton before they move onto the size of the shelves in the concourse or the availability of craft ales.

 

[riffraff]

I disagree. It isn't about criticizing the club or KLD and their handling so far, just by raising it now in the article you bring attention to the club's commitment to something quite important to the widest possible audience, and try to ensure the club can't dodge it as fans are aware of it. The point of the article is to set out why it is important to the fans and repeat the club's promise back at them. Therefore, if they answer tomorrow it isn't redundant, it has done its job. What would be redundant is writing an article about why this promise is important after the club has already dodged it at the meeting - because then there isn't an opportunity to hold the club accountable again for awhile.

If they answer it tomorrow then fantastic, the article is still correct in stating how important it is to the fans. If they were intending on dodging the question, but now feel they can't as we as fans (and fan representatives in the meeting) are aware and will be looking out for it - then fantastic. If they were intending on dodging it and still do, then at least fans (and those in the room) know how important the question is and alarm bells will be ringing immediately in a wider group then before.

Imho tomorrow’s answer will merely list those with shares in the tax haven company but not how it’s divvied up. I suspect the writer already expects this and has his follow up article written already. Two articles for the price of one and a bit of “told you so“ kudos hoyed in anarl.
Those posting that the article is pointless because all will be revealed tomorrow may have jumped the gun. Does anyone really anticipate transparency with Donald and Methven involved?

 

[ilovehorswill]

You’ve made a mountain out of a molehill on this as per usual

If that’s true you should get him on your podcast

 

[riffraff]

I disagree. It isn't about criticizing the club or KLD and their handling so far, just by raising it now in the article you bring attention to the club's commitment to something quite important to the widest possible audience, and try to ensure the club can't dodge it as fans are aware of it. The point of the article is to set out why it is important to the fans and repeat the club's promise back at them. Therefore, if they answer tomorrow it isn't redundant, it has done its job. What would be redundant is writing an article about why this promise is important after the club has already dodged it at the meeting - because then there isn't an opportunity to hold the club accountable again for awhile.

If they answer it tomorrow then fantastic, the article is still correct in stating how important it is to the fans. If they were intending on dodging the question, but now feel they can't as we as fans (and fan representatives in the meeting) are aware and will be looking out for it - then fantastic. If they were intending on dodging it and still do, then at least fans (and those in the room) know how important the question is and alarm bells will be ringing immediately in a wider group then before.

Spot on.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Juan Sartori and Simon Vumbaca are baord members of Sunderland Association Football Club Ltd

And KLD, MLD, Patrick Treuer, Igor Levin, Steve Davison and Dave Jones are also on the board. It's normal for minority shareholders to have representation - however, strategy is decided by a simple majority. I'm also almost certain that Sartori is backing KLD anyway - he's known the family for donkey's years, and is thought to have been less than impressed with their antics while he was off playing politics.