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

WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NYMackem said:
Where did you Charlie get the money to put in? I thought his 6% was sweat equity for being the executive director in the first takeover, and other than the fact he has a family rich enough to send him to Eton, his career to date does not suggest a football club owner level of wealth.
Click to expand...
doesnt methven presently own a couple of pubs? thats what some of quinnys invesos had.
his career to date includes running a very large PR firm (one of their subsidiaries did cambridge analyica stuff)
im sure he can fund 6 per cent or less of a club..but otherwise not in the big leagues like..
Father Jack Hackett said:
I meant within Madrox
Click to expand...
but that definitely didnt happen..kld has zero shares within madrox..
 

DonaldDownTheWing said:
Has Kyril ever said that he has a majority shareholding?

I know he said he has a controlling majority, but the longer this goes on, the more it looks like the other 2 have a lot more to say than it first appeared.
Click to expand...
Good point which is why RAWA will bring it up again and we can then get the answers on the record which will be published one way or another to the supporters. I am sure many of RAWAs leadership like many fans want answers to questions.
 
Fetch Fletch said:
This seems like a very provocative blog post with little substance.
Click to expand...
It's the same guy trying to whip up shit on twitter.

No evidence at all and a clear misunderstanding of companies house.

KLD own a majority of voting shares, as confirmed by the club. If you don't believe that, why would you believe it if they told you the actual share %.
CissesUnderpants9 said:
Good point which is why RAWA will bring it up again and we can then get the answers on the record which will be published one way or another to the supporters. I am sure many of RAWAs leadership like many fans want answers to questions.
Click to expand...
This has been answered a million times.

KLD owns the majority of voting shares, which is described as a controlling interest.

They won't release the exact percentages and their is an NDA in place.
 
Last edited:
Until there is a clean break from all of these ties existing already at the club, nothing changes.

Let’s not treat KLD like he’s Quinny or a legend of the club. He’s part of this shitshow and the sketchiness around who owns the club is, partly, his doing so I don’t get all the support he’s getting. I’m dubious of him and I’m not happy that there’s so much up in the air about the ownership of the club and frankly, him working with the idiots already at the club makes me question him more.

The problems, for me, start at the top.
 
AKickUpTheBerntHaas said:
Until there is a clean break from all of these ties existing already at the club, nothing changes.

Let’s not treat KLD like he’s Quinny or a legend of the club. He’s part of this shitshow and the sketchiness around who owns the club is, partly, his doing so I don’t get all the support he’s getting. I’m dubious of him and I’m not happy that there’s so much up in the air about the ownership of the club and frankly, him working with the idiots already at the club makes me question him more.

The problems, for me, start at the top.
Click to expand...
There is nothing 'up in the air' about the ownership of the club, KLD owns the majority of shares with JS/SD/CM owning minority stakes. They've decided not the tell the exact percentages for whatever reason they don't want to.

Fans knowing the exact percentages changes absolutely nothing.
kildaremackem said:
his next move? well he would have been running the club..so he could have taken the para money and then sold to whoever the next best offer was...ie it wasnt in the power of anyone else to stop him taking the para money..he was chairman of the club..
Click to expand...
Stop talking sense. A lot of people think that if SD hadn't used the parachute money to pay back short, he would be forced to buy players with it.
riffraff said:
I’m not doubting your knowledge of the intricacies of the deal. I am doubting your internet persona of casual Irish fan to be sure.

So if the chancers had refused the para money thing what was ES‘s next move? Sell to whoever offered the most? Close SAFC down and lose the lot? Settle for a smaller amount of the para money? Raffle off SAFC?

Whatever it was you have just proven that theyre only here because of a deal that’s not allowed in current English football rules without a special committee giving it the nod. One of that committee miraculously emerged at SAFC as CEO a few months later. wow!
Click to expand...
Short was losing £35m a year, the parachute payments were factored into the value of the club as a way of giving Ellis that money.

Administration was a very real possibility.
 
Last edited:
Hep said:
It's the same guy trying to whip up shit on twitter.

No evidence at all and a clear misunderstanding of companies house.

KLD own a majority of voting shares, as confirmed by the club. If you don't believe that, why would you believe it if they told you the actual share %.

This has been answered a million times.

KLD owns the majority of voting shares, which is described as a controlling interest.

They won't release the exact percentages and their is an NDA in place.
Click to expand...
Then there shouldn’t be a problem putting it on the record if the answer, is the Same, as for the rest of your post, I think I will wait on the answer from RAWA or Chris Weatherspoon thanks👍🏻
 
Hep said:
There is nothing 'up in the air' about the ownership of the club, KLD owns the majority of shares with JS/SD/CM owning minority stakes. They've decided not the tell the exact percentages for whatever reason they don't want to.

Fans knowing the exact percentages changes absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
There’s plenty to be concerned with and plenty up in the air. The changes to the board are alarming and represent a real change in those first few months and the now.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
Are you Stewart donald? :lol: Seriously, its unreal. Youre genuinely arguing that an injection of 20 plus million wouldn't have helped the club. Its incredible.

Regarding the first bit in bold to get us out this league. Sunderland can tread water in the championship; it can't in league 1. And I'm not saying the second bit at all. All I wanted was for the club to use the parachute money it is owed to help us get out this league.
Click to expand...
How would it help the club? it was still Stewart Donald deciding if we would spend it and on what. Did you expect him to pay Short back out of his own cash and then agree to spend £20m on the squad whilst the club was still running at a loss???
CissesUnderpants9 said:
Then there shouldn’t be a problem putting it on the record if the answer, is the Same, as for the rest of your post, I think I will wait on the answer from RAWA or Chris Weatherspoon thanks👍🏻
Click to expand...
The owners don't want to share the percentages for reasons only known to them. RAWA won't get told and Chris Weatherspoon wouldn't understand if he did get told.

What would change if we did know the percentages? Give me an example?
AKickUpTheBerntHaas said:
There’s plenty to be concerned with and plenty up in the air. The changes to the board are alarming and represent a real change in those first few months and the now.
Click to expand...
What concerns??
 
Last edited:
Hep said:
There is nothing 'up in the air' about the ownership of the club, KLD owns the majority of shares with JS/SD/CM owning minority stakes. They've decided not the tell the exact percentages for whatever reason they don't want to.

Fans knowing the exact percentages changes absolutely nothing.

Stop talking sense. A lot of people think that if SD hadn't used the parachute money to pay back short, he would be forced to buy players with it.

Short was losing £35m a year, the parachute payments were factored into the value of the club as a way of giving Ellis that money.

Administration was a very real possibility.
Click to expand...
You keep parroting the same response over and over and over again and jumping between whether controlling means voting or owning %. It does make a difference and it does matter to an increasingly growing portion of the supporter base. It matters, because we're in League 1, and without fan income this club will suffer even further losses. Constant mis-management and reluctance to be transparent is eroding supporting confidence - compounded by crap results on the pitch bleeding over into everything else that seems to be wrong. As those fans start to lose confidence, the numbers will drop today, tomorrows generation that gives us tomorrows supporter numbers and fan base will shrink. It does make a difference, and it does matter. Do you not realise that everything going on behind closed doors is having a seriously negative effect on what really matters for a football club, the results on the pitch? And how that translates to supporter and fan involvement and income streams? If there is no faith that the ownership structure can give us a foundation to build positivity and improvement, then it does make a difference, and it does matter. If the club wants the continued income stream from supporters and fans as it languishes in league 1, it does make a difference, and it does matter. In a f***ing big way.
 
Hep said:
How would it help the club? it was still Stewart Donald deciding if we would spend it and on what. Did you expect him to pay Short back out of his own cash and then agree to spend £20m on the squad whilst the club was still running at a loss???

The owners don't want to share the percentages for reasons only known to them. RAWA won't get told and Chris Weatherspoon wouldn't understand if he did get told.

What would change if we did know the percentages? Give me an example?

What concerns??
Click to expand...
You can work that out for yourself what would happen, have nice day 😎👍🏻
 
Hep said:
The owners don't want to share the percentages for reasons only known to them. RAWA won't get told and Chris Weatherspoon wouldn't understand if he did get told.

What would change if we did know the percentages? Give me an example?
Click to expand...
Let's just take a hypothetical. Let's say kld has the majority of the voting shares so he can make the calls, but let's say he actually only has 30% of the shares overall. I'm sure he has more than that, but just for arguments sake. That would change things for me because, although he could certainly ignore Donald and Methven, if they held 45% of the shares between them he might be inclined not to. He might think he'd better listen to them. They might be able to sway him. It might mean that he can't dilute their shareholdings so might mean his only options if he wants to spend are to get their agreement or put in a loan (although he'd get it back, they'd benefit to a great degree by getting the potential benefit of the club growing without putting in the money themselves).

That is obviously a different situation from them saying "kld owns 80%, sartori 10%, the others 5% each". At that point at least we know that all the decisions are his. If we fail, it's not because Donald and Methven are still involved, it's because kld hasn't got decisions right. You might not care either way, but plenty of people would. If KLD is in the first scenario I think he'd get a fair bit of support, people would believe that once the others go he might have a chance. If it was nearer the second scenario then there'd be more questions over him and the whole new set up. Or it could be in the middle. But I can't agree that it simply doesn't matter
 
parttimer said:
You keep parroting the same response over and over and over again and jumping between whether controlling means voting or owning %. It does make a difference and it does matter to an increasingly growing portion of the supporter base. It matters, because we're in League 1, and without fan income this club will suffer even further losses. Constant mis-management and reluctance to be transparent is eroding supporting confidence - compounded by crap results on the pitch bleeding over into everything else that seems to be wrong. As those fans start to lose confidence, the numbers will drop today, tomorrows generation that gives us tomorrows supporter numbers and fan base will shrink. It does make a difference, and it does matter. Do you not realise that everything going on behind closed doors is having a seriously negative effect on what really matters for a football club, the results on the pitch? And how that translates to supporter and fan involvement and income streams? If there is no faith that the ownership structure can give us a foundation to build positivity and improvement, then it does make a difference, and it does matter. If the club wants the continued income stream from supporters and fans as it languishes in league 1, it does make a difference, and it does matter. In a f***ing big way.
Click to expand...
None of that relates to if KLD owns 60% or 70%, that all relates to the team performance, nothing else.

A Controlling interest means more than 50% of the voting shares.
CissesUnderpants9 said:
As I said in my previous answer, have a nice day 😎👍🏻
Click to expand...
unable to answer as I suspected.
 
Hep said:
None of that relates to if KLD owns 60% or 70%, that all relates to the team performance, nothing else.

A Controlling interest means more than 50% of the voting shares.

unable to answer as I suspected.
Click to expand...
More like not going to share, but like I said have a nice day 😎👍🏻
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top