WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

[Hep]

Your mates are on record as saying that the parachute payments belonged to the club and would be available to the club as soon as Dond had finalised the payment of the agreed sum for the deal to buy the club. Ergo, the reason that the club didn't have access to those payments and why Ellis took them was because Donald and Co. Used them as consideration for the purchase for the club.

The club wasn't worth the £38m SD paid for it, the PP was factored into that price.

Also, when you say 'the club' didn't have access to those payments, you mean SD didn't have access to those payments.

If SD had paid the money owed to Short himself, that would have meant he chose to invest £20 odd Million quid.

If SD used the PP money to pay short, he still had the choice to invest £20 odd million if he wanted too.

The point is, how the money was paid to short is irrelevant, it's SD's choice not to invest that is the problem.

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

Thanks for answering, more than others have done.

That situation would require SD to have only sold 30% to KLD but to also have given him full control. Without any evidence to support this, it seems a highly unlikely scenario. Why would either SD or KLD do that?

Your answer also assumes the only KLD would invest in the club and SD would never do that, but that isn't necessarily the case. SD was instrumental in securing an investment from KLD and it's in his interest to bring further investment in. There is a big misunderstanding that investors wouldn't their shareholdings to be diluted, but this is just nonsense, all minority stakeholders would be better off if they were diluted as whilst they'd have a smaller % it would be of a much higher value if the investment was successful. Better to have 1% of a million than 50% of £5.

I think SD & CM have made some major PR mistakes, and now anything they do is tarnished, but we need to look at this without emotion, as whipping up more discontent just hurts the club further.

I've asked a lot, but no one has answered, what difference would any answer make if we were told the percentages. Nothing will change. It's only likely to create even more discontent (rightly or wrongly) - there is no positive outcome.

You must be logged on to see external links

I agree the situation I outlined was very unlikely, but was only using to show why the percentages could matter. Kld with 30% but the majority of the voting shares would be more likely to be listening to others than a kld with 80% of the shares.

Why Donald would allow someone with less shares to have control I couldn't answer, again its unlikely. But it could be possible that Donald acknowledged he's done a bad job, couldn't really continue, and felt that the money and contacts kld had might enable the club to grow and thus him to earn more money. KLD might have said he was only getting involved if he had the final say, hence the voting shares.

Its all speculation, I accept that. But this is why I don't understand why they don't just agree to get rid of the NDA. Like I say, I think people will be happy if they find out that kld has most of the shares, and they'll be unhappy if he doesn't, so not releasing the information is just going to fuel discontent in my opinion.

You make a very good point about the non voting shares. I'll certainly pass that on as a good question to ask, they'll probably say it's covered by an NDA as well like, but as you say if they do answer it then at least we have an indication as to whether kld has over 50%

 

[NYMackem]

The point is the SD was in control of that money. If offers no advantage unless he decided to take advantage of it.

45% isn't a controlling stake. I think the league would have asked for evidence that he had purchased the club. Unless they are party to this conspiracy theory.

Or an old boys club of utterly incompetent bunglers...

 

[CissesUnderpants9]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[KittenMittens]

There is a big misunderstanding that investors wouldn't their shareholdings to be diluted, but this is just nonsense, all minority stakeholders would be better off if they were diluted as whilst they'd have a smaller % it would be of a much higher value if the investment was successful. Better to have 1% of a million than 50% of £5.

And I think, as I said a few months back, share value is not the core issue of dilution in the current situation, nor is it strictly true that they would always be better off by dilution if the value of the thing does not grow beyond it's current price as a result of investment. The issue here is about voting rights that Donald may still have that can only be a bad thing for us, based on his previous running of the club.

When SD sold a hefty percentage to KLD at the outset, he will of course have retained rights as a shareholder to protect his interests - it is likely that any rights are tied to a percentage he holds or a special say negotiated into his specific agreement. If the percentage dilutes, then eventually, so do rights. For example, if he has a say over future share issues or ownership decisions, it would often be tied to holding a certain % of shares, and if he was diluted below that % or sold his shares, he would be unable to act upon his rights, unless he specifically built that provision into his agreement that he would ALWAYS have that right by holding any amount. I suspect that the latter is true, but either way, Donald will have incentive to ensure he is not simply marginalised, or that if the value of their pie remains at the same rough level, that he has not been diluted to a point where his shareholding is worthless.

You must be logged on to see external links

: Dilute the opposing interests with investment, until they lose their rights, and then essentially they are dead meat and you can do whatever you want. That's exactly why someone like Donald (a CHANCER) will hold on to his percentage, either by matching investments as a proportion of his shareholding (which they will definitely have a right to do) or blocking ones that he cannot match.

One of the reasons I have mentioned this, is that it seems clear now that Donald is still part of the decision-making group at the ownership level. It is therefore also the case that while he is now being asked to put less as a proportion of any future investment (say, 20% vs what was 70%), he still has to agree to do it for anyone else to proceed, and that may be something he isn't willing to do based on how he managed us as a majority owner. KLD cannot simply force him to put in a proportional investment, nor does it seem that he can force his own investment into the club without Donald's agreement.

All told, I think the point I would make is that clarity over who owns what prevents all of these discussions. There is no valid argument for secrecy with a football club ownership regime unless you are more invested in the owners than in the club itself.

 

[Hep]

And I think, as I said a few months back, share value is not the core issue of dilution in the current situation, nor is it strictly true that they would always be better off by dilution if the value of the thing does not grow beyond it's current price as a result of investment. The issue here is about voting rights that Donald may still have that can only be a bad thing for us, based on his previous running of the club.

When SD sold a hefty percentage to KLD at the outset, he will of course have retained rights as a shareholder to protect his interests - it is likely that any rights are tied to a percentage he holds or a special say negotiated into his specific agreement. If the percentage dilutes, then eventually, so do rights. For example, if he has a say over future share issues or ownership decisions, it would often be tied to holding a certain % of shares, and if he was diluted below that % or sold his shares, he would be unable to act upon his rights, unless he specifically built that provision into his agreement that he would ALWAYS have that right by holding any amount. I suspect that the latter is true, but either way, Donald will have incentive to ensure he is not simply marginalised, or that if the value of their pie remains at the same rough level, that he has not been diluted to a point where his shareholding is worthless.

You must be logged on to see external links

: Dilute the opposing interests with investment, until they lose their rights, and then essentially they are dead meat and you can do whatever you want. That's exactly why someone like Donald (a CHANCER) will hold on to his percentage, either by matching investments as a proportion of his shareholding (which they will definitely have a right to do) or blocking ones that he cannot match.

One of the reasons I have mentioned this, is that it seems clear now that Donald is still part of the decision-making group at the ownership level. It is therefore also the case that while he is now being asked to put less as a proportion of any future investment (say, 20% vs what was 70%), he still has to agree to do it for anyone else to proceed, and that may be something he isn't willing to do based on how he managed us as a majority owner. KLD cannot simply force him to put in a proportional investment, nor does it seem that he can force his own investment into the club without Donald's agreement.

All told, I think the point I would make is that clarity over who owns what prevents all of these discussions. There is no valid argument for secrecy with a football club ownership regime unless you are more invested in the owners than in the club itself.

We could only know this if we had access to the articles of association or the terms of the sale. However, none of that will relate to percentages. If SD wanted to retain voting rights on certain issues, he could write that into the terms of the sale, by saying the owner of 1 share allows that right.

I don't get why SD would sell a large % of the club to KLD to then go on to block further investment, it makes no sense at all. As per the first sentence, and as you pointed out if he wanted a veto on certain items he can have that regardless of % and it was him that sold on his terms.

The basis of the conspiracy theory seems to be that SD will try to hold us back or to block KLD investing, but if that was true, why would he sell to KLD in the first place. Both KLD and SD were happy to sign the deal only a few months ago, they obviously both see it as beneficial.

I think the fans are blinded by the state of the football and league position, that SD/CM are only ever seen as bogey men now. I'll be honest, they've got a lot wrong, but I don't think it was done deliberately. I'm also sure they wanted to make a profit in the process, but so do most businessmen. We've got used to Short pumping in millions of his own cash every year and want that to continue, but it didn't and there wasn't another billionaire happy to take over. So now we're in the real world, where we have to live from our income.

I agree with your comment that there isn't a valid argument for secrecy, but we don't know who and why that NDA is in place. It could be for reasons we don't expect. But, the point remains, it makes no difference if KLD has 60% or 72%.

 

[johnnyat87]

I agree the situation I outlined was very unlikely, but was only using to show why the percentages could matter. Kld with 30% but the majority of the voting shares would be more likely to be listening to others than a kld with 80% of the shares.

Why Donald would allow someone with less shares to have control I couldn't answer, again its unlikely. But it could be possible that Donald acknowledged he's done a bad job, couldn't really continue, and felt that the money and contacts kld had might enable the club to grow and thus him to earn more money. KLD might have said he was only getting involved if he had the final say, hence the voting shares.

Its all speculation, I accept that. But this is why I don't understand why they don't just agree to get rid of the NDA. Like I say, I think people will be happy if they find out that kld has most of the shares, and they'll be unhappy if he doesn't, so not releasing the information is just going to fuel discontent in my opinion.

You make a very good point about the non voting shares. I'll certainly pass that on as a good question to ask, they'll probably say it's covered by an NDA as well like, but as you say if they do answer it then at least we have an indication as to whether kld has over 50%

I think the current farce means they surely realise they need to answer questions now. If that means getting rid of NDAs etc. then so be it. But we need clarity because what seemed like a good long term plan and professional approach has become a bit of a joke all too quickly and Methven rocking up in the middle is just fuelling the fire and absolutely baffling PR. Do they pay any attention at all?

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

An NDA is there to hide something. There isn’t a vaguely plausible reason why it is needed otherwise, so we should be asking what they are trying to hide.

It’s that simple

 

[kildaremackem]

And I think, as I said a few months back, share value is not the core issue of dilution in the current situation, nor is it strictly true that they would always be better off by dilution if the value of the thing does not grow beyond it's current price as a result of investment. The issue here is about voting rights that Donald may still have that can only be a bad thing for us, based on his previous running of the club.

When SD sold a hefty percentage to KLD at the outset, he will of course have retained rights as a shareholder to protect his interests - it is likely that any rights are tied to a percentage he holds or a special say negotiated into his specific agreement. If the percentage dilutes, then eventually, so do rights. For example, if he has a say over future share issues or ownership decisions, it would often be tied to holding a certain % of shares, and if he was diluted below that % or sold his shares, he would be unable to act upon his rights, unless he specifically built that provision into his agreement that he would ALWAYS have that right by holding any amount. I suspect that the latter is true, but either way, Donald will have incentive to ensure he is not simply marginalised, or that if the value of their pie remains at the same rough level, that he has not been diluted to a point where his shareholding is worthless.

You must be logged on to see external links

: Dilute the opposing interests with investment, until they lose their rights, and then essentially they are dead meat and you can do whatever you want. That's exactly why someone like Donald (a CHANCER) will hold on to his percentage, either by matching investments as a proportion of his shareholding (which they will definitely have a right to do) or blocking ones that he cannot match.

One of the reasons I have mentioned this, is that it seems clear now that Donald is still part of the decision-making group at the ownership level. It is therefore also the case that while he is now being asked to put less as a proportion of any future investment (say, 20% vs what was 70%), he still has to agree to do it for anyone else to proceed, and that may be something he isn't willing to do based on how he managed us as a majority owner. KLD cannot simply force him to put in a proportional investment, nor does it seem that he can force his own investment into the club without Donald's agreement.

All told, I think the point I would make is that clarity over who owns what prevents all of these discussions. There is no valid argument for secrecy with a football club ownership regime unless you are more invested in the owners than in the club itself.

how can you say its clear donald is still part of it? methven may be. and sartori definitely is, but no evidence donald is

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

An NDA is there to hide something. There isn’t a vaguely plausible reason why it is needed otherwise, so we should be asking what they are trying to hide.

It’s that simple

Can they show proof on the NDA?

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Can they show proof on the NDA?

I don’t understand the question.

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

I don’t understand the question.

Is there even an NDA at all?

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Is there even an NDA at all?

Oh, I don’t know. You wouldn’t expect it to be public.

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

Oh, I don’t know. You wouldn’t expect it to be public.

Which basically allows them to say owt they want.

When Davison went into the meeting, after being briefed by the hierachy, with RAWA he didn't have a clue there was an NDA.

The very next day, after RAWA made it clear his/their answer wasn't acceptable, they suddenly remembered there was an NDA (easiest way to try and stop people asking?)

 

[Soton Pete]

Imagine wanting to know who owns the football club we invest our hard earned money into.

Shocking

You don't invest any money at all. You are a customer not an investor, and on that basis you can spend your money at SAFC, or not, that's your choice.

 

[johnnyat87]

You don't invest any money at all. You are a customer not an investor, and on that basis you can spend your money at SAFC, or not, that's your choice.

That's just being pedantic. You know exactly what he means. We choose to put our money into the club. It's more than just a usual business/customer relationship. The fans are actively an intrinsic part of the club and plough a small fortune into it.

 

[Be Here Now]

You don't invest any money at all. You are a customer not an investor, and on that basis you can spend your money at SAFC, or not, that's your choice.

What a load of shit

Customer or investor

I think myself and everyone else that dedicate huge parts of our lives following SAFC have the right to know whats going on

Imagine if nobody bought tickets where does the investment come from then

 

[Red and white TID]

41%, 34%, 20% and 5%

 

[Dun Scathach]

What a load of shit

Customer or investor

I think myself and everyone else that dedicate huge parts of our lives following SAFC have the right to know whats going on

Imagine if nobody bought tickets where does the investment come from then

You really don't have any rights whatsoever.

No more than a say on Greggs’ corporate governance because you’ve regularly been in there for a corned beef pastie.

Football is a business, fans are customers. We fool ourselves we are otherwise.

 

[Be Here Now]

You really don't have any rights whatsoever.

No more than a say on Greggs’ corporate governance because you’ve regularly been in there for a corned beef pastie.

Football is a business, fans are customers. We fool ourselves we are otherwise.

So if the fans have no rights why will the club even be bothering meeting a section of the fans on the 16th