• 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.

Confirmed KLD only owns 41%

Status
Not open for further replies.

sadsack01 said:
You know what to ask tomorrow then ;)

Agreed on your main point though - they were possibly playing word games with people who, generally, don't understand how it works at a business level. That is understandable.
However, even a quick google search for anyone of "majority or controlling shareholder" will show them what they need to know. Understanding it is a different thing altogether.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to feel a little bit like a child having his head patted, and someone saying "there, there. You'll understand when you're a grown up"

They have misled a huge amount of people intentionally with what you call "playing word games"
They made a huge amount of noise about "ethics" when the Keane saga dragged on, trying to give the impression of an open and clean business model.

They are liars and cheats, and I don't care how much I am patronised, that is not going to change my view of them.
 
sadsack01 said:
You know what to ask tomorrow then ;)

Agreed on your main point though - they were possibly playing word games with people who, generally, don't understand how it works at a business level. That is understandable.
However, even a quick google search for anyone of "majority or controlling shareholder" will show them what they need to know. Understanding it is a different thing altogether.
Click to expand...
I think people just didn't think they'd have to Google the wording of a club statement tbh. I mean if he had 80% of the club he'd also be the controlling shareholder, so the Google wouldn't have been proof and people suggesting it would have been shouted down! I just think that approach jarrs completely with the statement kld made when he arrived about wanting to be open and transparent. Open and transparent to me would have been "I've bought 41% of the shares and I'm the controlling shareholder who will make board appointments and control the footballing direction of the club". Its disappointing.

I'm not at the meeting tomorrow, some other poor buggers drew the short straw! Got absolute confidence that they'll represent the fans (well, the RAWA members before anyone says "they don't speak for me") well and will strike the right balance between being professional but also conveying the depth of feeling, the concerns, the disappointment and, in many cases, the anger felt
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
I think people just didn't think they'd have to Google the wording of a club statement tbh. I mean if he had 80% of the club he'd also be the controlling shareholder, so the Google wouldn't have been proof and people suggesting it would have been shouted down! I just think that approach jarrs completely with the statement kld made when he arrived about wanting to be open and transparent. Open and transparent to me would have been "I've bought 41% of the shares and I'm the controlling shareholder who will make board appointments and control the footballing direction of the club". Its disappointing.

I'm not at the meeting tomorrow, some other poor buggers drew the short straw! Got absolute confidence that they'll represent the fans (well, the RAWA members before anyone says "they don't speak for me") well and will strike the right balance between being professional but also conveying the depth of feeling, the concerns, the disappointment and, in many cases, the anger felt
Click to expand...
It's not even clear with a Google mind. Controlling interest can be with over 50% or below if other conditions are met according to Google. How are fans supposed to decipher based on that?
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
I think people just didn't think they'd have to Google the wording of a club statement tbh. I mean if he had 80% of the club he'd also be the controlling shareholder, so the Google wouldn't have been proof and people suggesting it would have been shouted down! I just think that approach jarrs completely with the statement kld made when he arrived about wanting to be open and transparent. Open and transparent to me would have been "I've bought 41% of the shares and I'm the controlling shareholder who will make board appointments and control the footballing direction of the club". Its disappointing.

I'm not at the meeting tomorrow, some other poor buggers drew the short straw! Got absolute confidence that they'll represent the fans (well, the RAWA members before anyone says "they don't speak for me") well and will strike the right balance between being professional but also conveying the depth of feeling, the concerns, the disappointment and, in many cases, the anger felt
Click to expand...
I think the echo and Chronicle pieces along with abuse they're getting on other media outlets has shown them that mate.

A lot of anger will be shown on Saturday, and especially if we go a goal down. Think place will be toxic.
 
jsdftm04 said:
It's not even clear with a Google mind. Controlling interest can be with over 50% or below if other conditions are met according to Google. How are fans supposed to decipher based on that?
Click to expand...
That's what I mean, if he bought 80% or more like people hoped he'd still have been a controlling shareholder, and if anyone had said "I reckon he's got less than 50%" they'd have been shouted down. I know what the lad means, the fact they chose to use that word, when at 80% they'd probably have said "majority shareholder" or whatever was a bit of a clue, but haway, they knew exactly what they were doing!
 
Georgewhitt said:
I'm beginning to feel a little bit like a child having his head patted, and someone saying "there, there. You'll understand when you're a grown up"

They have misled a huge amount of people intentionally with what you call "playing word games"
They made a huge amount of noise about "ethics" when the Keane saga dragged on, trying to give the impression of an open and clean business model.

They are liars and cheats, and I don't care how much I am patronised, that is not going to change my view of them.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I'm not intending to come across as patronising, especially as I only responded to someone who I felt had been patronising towards me.

I do agree, as I said above, that they have possibly intentionally misled a huge amount of people. There is a clear distinction though between controlling and majority and a lot of us taking in what has been said about KLD.
I didn't come here fully in that knowledge so I searched for articles from when he took over. All but two or three said he was the controlling shareholder, new chairman and SD had reduced his percentage of ownership.

Apologies again though, not my intent.
 
Secret Visage said:
That's naughty mind.

I know quiet a lot of former and current SAFC staff.

So either put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
Nothing naughty about it and you don’t have the monopoly on knowing employees at the club I’m afraid.
You just need to read about Robert Maxwell or Philip Green to realise how directors sometimes use all means possible to sustain their lifestyles and socialite credibility. And the way the current owners of my club have purposely and successfully deceived (allegedly) the possible 100k worldwide SAFC fan base, then this leads me to think that we know nothing at all about what could really be going on internally. I mean they’ve already used the clubs parachute money to buy the club in their names. Money that may have seen us back in the premiership by now.
All I’m saying is if my money was at their disposal I’d remain vigilante. Of course I have no idea how SAFC pension funds are invested or distributed, or how accessible these funds are, who does?
 
sadsack01 said:
Apologies, I'm not intending to come across as patronising, especially as I only responded to someone who I felt had been patronising towards me.

I do agree, as I said above, that they have possibly intentionally misled a huge amount of people. There is a clear distinction though between controlling and majority and a lot of us taking in what has been said about KLD.
I didn't come here fully in that knowledge so I searched for articles from when he took over. All but two or three said he was the controlling shareholder, new chairman and SD had reduced his percentage of ownership.

Apologies again though, not my intent.
Click to expand...
I think another issue is that you say "if you look at what they wrote they haven't lied" and I get that. And you mentioned about people maybe misunderstanding the wording because they aren't massively up on business. Again, fair. But I'm sure as @jsdftm04 has mentioned, even GOM, who I would say is pretty much an authority on business on here (he certainly understands it, as shown in numerous threads and whenever accounts are released) was almost certain that kld had over 50%. If its unclear enough to have a vastly experienced accountant thinking he's got over 50% of course it would mislead the rest of us!
 
Krusty up front said:
Nothing naughty about it and you don’t have the monopoly on knowing employees at the club I’m afraid.
You just need to read about Robert Maxwell or Philip Green to realise how directors sometimes use all means possible to sustain their lifestyles and socialite credibility. And the way the current owners of my club have purposely and successfully deceived (allegedly) the possible 100k worldwide SAFC fan base, then this leads me to think that we know nothing at all about what could really be going on internally. I mean they’ve already used the clubs parachute money to buy the club in their names. Money that may have seen us back in the premiership by now.
All I’m saying is if my money was at their disposal I’d remain vigilante. Of course I have no idea how SAFC pension funds are invested or distributed, or how accessible these funds are, who does?
Click to expand...

The Club participates in the Football League Pension and Life Assurance Scheme, which is a funded multi-employer defined benefit scheme. The operation of the pension scheme is nothing to do with the club's owners. Source: SAFC 2020 accounts. Pretty much every EFL club is part of the scheme.
 
sadsack01 said:
Apologies, I'm not intending to come across as patronising, especially as I only responded to someone who I felt had been patronising towards me.

I do agree, as I said above, that they have possibly intentionally misled a huge amount of people. There is a clear distinction though between controlling and majority and a lot of us taking in what has been said about KLD.
I didn't come here fully in that knowledge so I searched for articles from when he took over. All but two or three said he was the controlling shareholder, new chairman and SD had reduced his percentage of ownership.

Apologies again though, not my intent.
Click to expand...
Mate, I kind of get that, and no need to apologise.
There are a lot of people on here, including myself, that will fully understand the differences, but there has been a clear intention to present KLD as the main man, when all along that has not been the case.

Understanding the minutiae of business is not going to change the underhandedness of that.
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
I think another issue is that you say "if you look at what they wrote they haven't lied" and I get that. And you mentioned about people maybe misunderstanding the wording because they aren't massively up on business. Again, fair. But I'm sure as @jsdftm04 has mentioned, even GOM, who I would say is pretty much an authority on business on here (he certainly understands it, as shown in numerous threads and whenever accounts are released) was almost certain that kld had over 50%. If its unclear enough to have a vastly experienced accountant thinking he's got over 50% of course it would mislead the rest of us!
Click to expand...

Over 50% of what though, and that, for me, is the key here. He quite possibly does have over 50% voting share, depending on how much he's bought in at.

Sartori bought his 20% for £1. Normally, that means he won't have a big voting share. How much did KLD buy his 41% for and how does it compare to the rest. That should, theoretically, give us the answer.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The Club participates in the Football League Pension and Life Assurance Scheme, which is a funded multi-employer defined benefit scheme. The operation of the pension scheme is nothing to do with the club's owners. Source: SAFC 2020 accounts. Pretty much every EFL club is part of the scheme.
Click to expand...
Thanks GOM. Nowt to worry about then. Still wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them mind.
 
Anyone got Linkedin Premium for "InMail" because here's Stewart Donald's profile and you can message him here.

You must be logged on to see external links

Look at how he describes himself as "the big cheese"- sums him up the wanker.
 
sadsack01 said:
Over 50% of what though, and that, for me, is the key here. He quite possibly does have over 50% voting share, depending on how much he's bought in at.

Sartori bought his 20% for £1. Normally, that means he won't have a big voting share. How much did KLD buy his 41% for and how does it compare to the rest. That should, theoretically, give us the answer.
Click to expand...

He paid that to Donald for 20% of Madrox. And then immediately put £3m into it to pay his share of Short's £15m for the shares. Also, it doesn't matter what you paid, it's the number of shares you own.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
He paid that to Donald for 20% of Madrox. And then immediately put £3m into it to pay his share of Short's £15m for the shares. Also, it doesn't matter what you paid, it's the number of shares you own.
Click to expand...
Fair, but with someone new (KLD for example) coming in, he could look at the amount paid for the number of shares owned by current shareholders and negotiate to pay more but then have more voting rights. Or am I wrong here?

Either way, you only really talk about the finances and shares. Whats your understanding from your previous studying of the books on the voting split?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top