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

WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
girojim said:
Having no 'person with significant control' most commonly means that there is no one person who owns more than 25% of the shares outright.
Click to expand...
but it could mean another company owns more than the 25per cent, that company is likely mercator, so it comes down to who owns that?
 

Not commenting on the article, as I haven’t read it. (I tend not to bother with online SAFC sites amnd podcasts. Although WMS have some sound lads who I’ve met).

But the question of shares, who calls the shots, do the two liars still have any sway, are definitely questions that our supporters would like to know. And should 100% be asked of the club.

EDIT. And the photos with Methven the other week had lots of fans asking about ‘to what capacity is he still involved?, as most don’t want him to be.
Thus, it can’t come as any surprise when fans want to know.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
So long as KLD has more 50%+1 of the shares in Sunderland, or in any entity which owns 100% of Sunderland (equally plausible), he has full control of any appointments to, or dismissals from the boards of Sunderland and all its subsidiaries.

The directors of Sunderland are KLD, Igor Levin and Patrick Treuer.

The directors of SAFC are the three above plus MLD, Steve Davison, Juan Sartori, Simon Vambuca, and Dave Jones.

Of those, only Vambuca is thought to represent the interests of Donald and Methven.

It's thus clear that KLD has total control, in management terms, of the strategic direction of the club by a simple majority of the boards being his appointees.

Yes, the confirmation statement is wrong, and that's a consequence of having no-one in place with a proper handle on company secretarial requirements. Hardly a hanging offence.
Click to expand...
Would i be right in thinking that

Quote: "Louis-Dreyfus confirmed that while Donald, Methven and Sartori retained ‘a minority shareholding in the club and will support it as much as they can’, it was he who was now ‘the largest shareholder at the club’. Moreover, he continued: ‘I want to assure you. I have executive control of the club and the majority on the board.’

to overall executive control would be over the 75% threshold?????
 
molthemackem said:
Would i be right in thinking that

Quote: "Louis-Dreyfus confirmed that while Donald, Methven and Sartori retained ‘a minority shareholding in the club and will support it as much as they can’, it was he who was now ‘the largest shareholder at the club’. Moreover, he continued: ‘I want to assure you. I have executive control of the club and the majority on the board.’

to overall executive control would be over the 75% threshold?????
Click to expand...
75 per cent gives more power that 50 per cent plus 1..but how much different it is day today im not sure
 
Mantobar said:
Chris
Stick to running pubs
Thought this was sort of stuff The Mag would do
Click to expand...

The Mag did a piece about our finances that was embarrassingly obsessed but raised issues our fanbase weren’t willing to.

Why tell a fellow supporter to stop asking questions that should have been answered in the public domain? It’s bizarre that you wouldn’t want to know, particularly given everything that has happened here in recent years.
 
molthemackem said:
Would i be right in thinking that

Quote: "Louis-Dreyfus confirmed that while Donald, Methven and Sartori retained ‘a minority shareholding in the club and will support it as much as they can’, it was he who was now ‘the largest shareholder at the club’. Moreover, he continued: ‘I want to assure you. I have executive control of the club and the majority on the board.’

to overall executive control would be over the 75% threshold?????
Click to expand...

And according to companies house there is no person with significant control so either;

no one owns more than 25%
or
a legal entity other than an individual owns more than 25%

if the second is the case we do not know what this entitiy is and who owns/controls it
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
The Mag did a piece about our finances that was embarrassingly obsessed but raised issues our fanbase weren’t willing to.

Why tell a fellow supporter to stop asking questions that should have been answered in the public domain? It’s bizarre that you wouldn’t want to know, particularly given everything that has happened here in recent years.
Click to expand...
This. I think his timing is a bit off on this one given the meeting tomorrow, but he's done a decent job of asking questions thus far and I'm glad he's still prepared to do so. In terms of fan media this is very far removed from the kind of shite posted in the mag
 
girojim said:
And according to companies house there is no person with significant control so either;

no one owns more than 25%
or
a legal entity other than an individual owns more than 25%

if the second is the case we do not know what this entitiy is and who owns/controls it
Click to expand...
is this on the Company (SAFC) information now? Is it factual information regarding the share holding at the Club?
 
Last edited:
girojim said:
And according to companies house there is no person with significant control so either;

no one owns more than 25%
or
a legal entity other than an individual owns more than 25%

if the second is the case we do not know what this entitiy is and who owns/controls it
Click to expand...
if its the second one the entity is mercator..
molthemackem said:
is this on the Company (SAFC) information now? Is it factual information regarding the share holding at the Club?
Click to expand...
so they filed a return saying madrox no longer had control.
then filed a statement with no updates..taken at face value..that means no individual has more than 25 per cent, but a company might
 
Last edited:
Guinness Guzzler said:
This. I think his timing is a bit off on this one given the meeting tomorrow, but he's done a decent job of asking questions thus far and I'm glad he's still prepared to do so. In terms of fan media this is very far removed from the kind of shite posted in the mag
Click to expand...
The timing is because the meeting is tomorrow. These are the kinds of questions it would be good to get the answers to, are they not?

Fair play to Chris like, given the abuse and threats he got last time even though he was essentially correct he still keeps asking the questions. Don’t think I’d bother if I was him.
 
girojim said:
Having no 'person with significant control' most commonly means that there is no one person who owns more than 25% of the shares outright.
Click to expand...

There are various public and private requirements. Companies are required to maintain a register of persons owning more than 25%, but filing can be restricted to disclosure of holdings of more than 50% or more than 75%. The club have always disclosed the higher threshold for CH disclosures.
 
If "it is widely accepted that Louis-Dreyfus bankrolled the signings of Ross Stewart and Carl Winchester", why does the author not "widely accept" that KLD is the owner, what with him having 50% + 1 of the shares etc ?

It reads like a load of self indulgent crap, imo
 
GarethQ said:
The timing is because the meeting is tomorrow. These are the kinds of questions it would be good to get the answers to, are they not?

Fair play to Chris like, given the abuse and threats he got last time even though he was essentially correct he still keeps asking the questions. Don’t think I’d bother if I was him.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but as he mentions, the club have already committed to answering them at the meeting. Not really a criticism, I've said he's doing a lot of good stuff and has done throughout, but I'd have thought a discussion with those attending to make sure the key questions are covered would have been more appropriate than a public article. If the club don't give the answers tomorrow then articles etc would be more called for. But either way, glad he's still asking the questions and highlighting when they go unanswered
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top