Confirmed KLD only owns 41%

[Helvellyn]

There we go. A few climbing down the beanstalk now.
Still pissed off they own so many like just cos they’re absolute dicks, but people saying he is a puppet are also dicks.

The terms of the deal are key and of that we have little insight. I have worked in companies where the controlling interest has precisely zero to do with the day-to-day operations of the company albeit they have an iron fist if they choose to become active - but most often they do not even sit on the board.

For all we know, hypothetically, KLD could have a controlling or non-controlling interest and have agreed his price and return on a precondition he butts out / chairs the board meetings. The transparency of the clubs leadership is still buried beneath muddied waters.

 

[Angelos]

To be honest they know how i feel about the whole yes clusterfuck, are they bothered NO.
so to be honest i just crack on with work and we speak weekly not daily.
I also wish everyone on would remember, the grass is not always greener on the other side.
If KLD puts us up for sale there will not be a flood of buyers. and remember this is a self sufficient season. so no investment till we get up.

How can KLD put the club up for sale if he only owns 41%?
I can’t imagine many buyers would be queuing up for a minority stake.

 

[sir rowell cummins]

The terms of the deal are key and of that we have little insight. I have worked in companies where the controlling interest has precisely zero to do with the day-to-day operations of the company albeit they have an iron fist if they choose to become active - but most often they do not even sit on the board.

For all we know, hypothetically, KLD could have a controlling or non-controlling interest and have agreed his price and return on a precondition he butts out / chairs the board meetings. The transparency of the clubs leadership is still buried beneath muddied waters.

Yeah that all make sense. More to come out for sure before we judge KLD and the new board. The previous incumbents and their operating we know about already which is why whatever the deal we’d be better losing them for better.

 

[Deleted member 31305]

You must be logged on to see media items

Even the echo are in. This will ramp up

We can’t let this drop off now, as you say finally a little bit of momentum amongst the wider fanbase and local press. Now or never

 

[Sam Handwich]

1: ask yourself whether there is any ambiguity in any statement they make. Every word they say is chosen carefully

2: watch every related document or filing, and every financial update, to see if it matches with what they have said.

1. Yes
2. No

 

[Krusty up front]

Watch your pensions SAFC employees

 

[sadsack01]

You do understand the arithmetic of a majority?
In percentage terms it is anything greater than 50.

Thanks for this very patronising answer. Do you understand the basics of shareholder voting rights? I guess not based on your response.

While the percentage of his ownership might not be over 50% to make him a majority owner, his voting shares might be worth much more than the others, hence being called "controlling" shareholder all of this time, not majority. As I said earlier, if this is the case, it is strictly not a lie.

Take the emotion out of this and there could be any amount of logical business answers as to how this works (which I'd imagine they're spinning before the meeting tomorrow).

 

[Georgewhitt]

Anybody still questioning why Roy Keane told us to f***ing do one, now has their answer.
Fuck the f***ing lot of them.

 

[Mowgli]

Thanks for this very patronising answer. Do you understand the basics of shareholder voting rights? I guess not based on your response.

While the percentage of his ownership might not be over 50% to make him a majority owner, his voting shares might be worth much more than the others, hence being called "controlling" shareholder all of this time, not majority. As I said earlier, if this is the case, it is strictly not a lie.

Take the emotion out of this and there could be any amount of logical business answers as to how this works (which I'd imagine they're spinning before the meeting tomorrow).

None of them will be acceptable to fans mind. Even if kld is in full control, them.holding 59% will hold the club back, they're skint.

 

[riffraff]

You must be logged on to see external links

It’s nivver been the pleasentest of rides at safc like. Weve had a Gray and Steele recently anarl.

 

[Secret Visage]

Watch your pensions SAFC employees

That's naughty mind.

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

So either put up or shut up.

 

[r@mside]

Almost as exciting as matchday

 

[sadsack01]

None of them will be acceptable to fans mind. Even if kld is in full control, them.holding 59% will hold the club back, they're skint.

I understand this bit due to the emotion involved and people looking at basic maths (like the person I replied to).

Take the emotion out of this, understanding how shareholdings can work and that nobody anywhere has ever called KLD "majority" shareholder, only always "controlling", and that's where we're at.

The question to ask at this meeting tomorrow is "how many votes does KLD have vs Madrox". It could be that KLD votes are 50 to Madrox 5 each and the non-execs and C levels have a percentage, for example. In which case, KLD IS controlling owner...as he has always called himself.
If KLD owns the majority votes, it doesn't matter if the others are skint, his voting overrules them so they have to do it (to answer the last part)

 

[Mowgli]

I understand this bit due to the emotion involved and people looking at basic maths (like the person I replied to).

Take the emotion out of this, understanding how shareholdings can work and that nobody anywhere has ever called KLD "majority" shareholder, only always "controlling", and that's where we're at.

The question to ask at this meeting tomorrow is "how many votes does KLD have vs Madrox". It could be that KLD votes are 50 to Madrox 5 each and the non-execs and C levels have a percentage, for example. In which case, KLD IS controlling owner...as he has always called himself.

Yes but where does thay fall financially? He says all shareholders meet their obligations etc etc. But we will never progress if we sre expecting madrox to stump up 59% of money in moving the club forward, I assume you agree?

Until they move on, we are stuck with nothing to spend and no ambition to do anything except scrape a promotion and hope they clear off.

 

[Sam Handwich]

There we go. A few climbing down the beanstalk now.
Still pissed off they own so many like just cos they’re absolute dicks, but people saying he is a puppet are also dicks.

The voting shares issue needs resolving though mate, because if those three stiil have voting shares then KLD is fucked. I think it will be the opposite, but he needs to come out tomorrow and address it. He doesn't need to give actual figures.

 

[El Gen]

i'd be interested to see if KLD has a legally binding option to purchase more shares at a set price based on promotion.
There's probably still an awful lot we don't know about yet.

But i agree with most that the club has been 'economical with the truth' to say the least

 

[Georgewhitt]

I understand this bit due to the emotion involved and people looking at basic maths (like the person I replied to).

Take the emotion out of this, understanding how shareholdings can work and that nobody anywhere has ever called KLD "majority" shareholder, only always "controlling", and that's where we're at.

The question to ask at this meeting tomorrow is "how many votes does KLD have vs Madrox". It could be that KLD votes are 50 to Madrox 5 each and the non-execs and C levels have a percentage, for example. In which case, KLD IS controlling owner...as he has always called himself.

Taking the emotion out of this is a bloody big ask mate.
I've seen people on here lose it over bad punctuation, let alone being misled, coerced in to buying into a brave new world, and then being pissed all over by charlatans and wide boys.
I'm afraid removing emotion from this is not an option.

 

[riffraff]

I'm aware of your previous health issues which is why I think people should remember there's a human being at the other end of the computer or phone. Nobody is infallible. We may disagree, but I try to keep things polite.

Here would be my questions for the supporters meeting:

1: Who does the club delegation represent? Is it KLD and his directors, or is it the club ownership group?
2: In the case of further investment into SAFC, is it a fair assumption that 59% of all future investment must come from the previous owners, SD, CM and JS?
3: We want to believe in KLD, not only his control of the football side, but also his ownership. What kind of financial commitment is KLD willing to make towards SAFC, and is that level of investment likely to be acceptable to our old owners?
4: What is KLD's long term plan for the club from his own shareholding perspective? Does he have any desire to take more financial control, and how amenable are the old ownership group to that happening? Do they have an ideal timescale or trigger point (eg: promotion)?
5: Can the club owners collectively commit to being more transparent in their financial dealings and the club ownership in future? Trust needs to be rebuilt, and part of that is not obstructing our view and hoping we won't find out. We will, and it'll be worse when we do.

I'm hoping they realise that they don't benefit by hiding anything. When it comes out, it just reinforces the idea that something nefarious is going on.

Aaaaah but would you believe any of their answers?

 

[sadsack01]

Yes but where does thay fall financially? He says all shareholders meet their obligations etc etc. But we will never progress if we sre expecting madrox to stump up 59% of money in moving the club forward, I assume you agree?

Until they move on, we are stuck with nothing to spend and no ambition to do anything except scrape a promotion and hope they clear off.

Agree and disagree. As a group of Madrox, they have their individual percentages contributing to the 59% of finances. One could disagree with a decision and the other two agree. It still doesn't matter though because once it goes to boardroom voting, they have to do whatever the vote decides.
Generally speaking, this kind of vote isn't on specific player transfers, for example, but how much to make available each window. Looking at January, we've actually spent more than people realise because we've brought in a few loans. Fees are normally associated with loans.
Matete is widely known to have been over 1m alone. Then consider all of the wages or percentage of wages to the parent club we'll be paying (plus agent fees etc)

 

[Madlad]

I understand this bit due to the emotion involved and people looking at basic maths (like the person I replied to).

Take the emotion out of this, understanding how shareholdings can work and that nobody anywhere has ever called KLD "majority" shareholder, only always "controlling", and that's where we're at.

The question to ask at this meeting tomorrow is "how many votes does KLD have vs Madrox". It could be that KLD votes are 50 to Madrox 5 each and the non-execs and C levels have a percentage, for example. In which case, KLD IS controlling owner...as he has always called himself.
If KLD owns the majority votes, it doesn't matter if the others are skint, his voting overrules them so they have to do it (to answer the last part)

Finally a bit of f***ing sense,
We'll find out tomorrow who has the overall governance and if there was a NDA , and if so because it has run out time wise or they've all agreed to remove it