The chronicle pissing on the takeover


Status
Not open for further replies.
If CM and SD have a minimal share, and as much as any of us know, it sounds like they will, why would that piss on peoples chips at the prospect of a take over.
why would that spoil the prospect of a takeover. I don’t care if they keep a share, a very minimal share that seems they will have minimal power.
Surely they will have as much power as any of us posting on here. In other words the sum total of nowt.
They'll just be in it incase we become relatively successful imo. Probably have little say in anything going forward, just stay behind the scenes so to speak.
 
If CM and SD have a minimal share, and as much as any of us know, it sounds like they will, why would that piss on peoples chips at the prospect of a take over.
why would that spoil the prospect of a takeover. I don’t care if they keep a share, a very minimal share that seems they will have minimal power.
Surely they will have as much power as any of us posting on here. In other words the sum total of nowt.
20% Is considerable.
 
They'll just be in it incase we become relatively successful imo. Probably have little say in anything going forward, just stay behind the scenes so to speak.
Totally agree they are going to be, from what I’ve seen/read so insignificant in terms of ownership and having power. So I’m not sure why people are pissed they’ll still be involved rather than just being chuffed we are being taken over
 
Totally agree they are going to be, from what I’ve seen/read so insignificant in terms of ownership and having power. So I’m not sure why people are pissed they’ll still be involved rather than just being chuffed we are being taken over
There's a section with an agenda, a further section who can't admit they're wrong about the takeover happening and another section who, it appears, simply don't understand.
 
a
In corporate terms, it equals zero influence. Sartori was the one with zero influence before. Donald could basically do whatever he wanted, and there was bugger all anyone else to do about it. The situation will now be reversed.
What happens in terms of investment - if the new guy pumps money in but the others don't yet retain the same level of shareholding?
 
Not a surprise the mag rag try to do us down at every op. I've already said in other threads it depends on JS very much as to where his oligences lie. If its with the new investor and oposed to SD then we're off to a flyer. If its with SD we're dead in the water. I would think the mag rag have no idea though.

Edit... at least no one in our club or linked to it are mass murderers
 
Last edited:
a
What happens in terms of investment - if the new guy pumps money in but the others don't yet retain the same level of shareholding?

It depends on how the money comes in. The deal clearly involves a redistribution of the share capital of Madrox. Any money coming into the club will come via Madrox, so the question then becomes a matter of how Madrox is funded. That can be done either by shareholder loans or increasing share capital. The former doesn't change percentage shareholdings, but would mean that if Madrox sold Sunderland, that would have to be paid first. If shares were issued, they would have to be offered to all shareholders pro rata to their holdings. In the event any shareholder can't or doesn't take up their allocation, then their percentage would obviously be reduced. If it got to the point where one shareholder owned more than 90%, then the other shareholders could be compulsorily bought out.
 
It depends on how the money comes in. The deal clearly involves a redistribution of the share capital of Madrox. Any money coming into the club will come via Madrox, so the question then becomes a matter of how Madrox is funded. That can be done either by shareholder loans or increasing share capital. The former doesn't change percentage shareholdings, but would mean that if Madrox sold Sunderland, that would have to be paid first. If shares were issued, they would have to be offered to all shareholders pro rata to their holdings. In the event any shareholder can't or doesn't take up their allocation, then their percentage would obviously be reduced. If it got to the point where one shareholder owned more than 90%, then the other shareholders could be compulsorily bought out.
That's a good explanation - will be interesting to see how it pans out.
 
Got to say, I'm a touch nervous about the whole thing.

Its anything but the clean break that is needed and we know pretty much nothing about the chap coming in and what we do know about satori is that he keeps company we are not fond of.

Its certainly something, I just don't know what yet. I really don't think its odd that some are casting concerns. In fact, it seems sensible to me.
 
Last edited:
It's just the blokes opinion. He's got no inside knowledge whatsoever. It could go either way yet, in terms of the influence of the other 3, we just don't know. What we do know is that this fella is a billionaire and having him on board is better than not. The only question is how much better?
 
My concern is of they can haggle to retain a decent share, despite struggling financially ATM they still may have a decent voice behind close doors. I have so little trust in Donald, I'm just very wary. Can't believe a word he says. I just think of the deal they managed to get to buy the club, and how many half truths were told along the way
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top