• 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.

Grumpy Old Man said:
Can't see any benefits to them. In fact, there's a definite downside in all the speculation.
Click to expand...

People not knowing what input Donald and Methven still have is a massive benefit to them. There would be ructions from the first day of the new takeover and onwards if the chancers were known to be still involved at more than a few %. Kyril and his dogs wouldn't have stood a chance.

Speculation can be brushed off as speculation. Protests not so easy.
 
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot said:
People not knowing what input Donald and Methven still have is a massive benefit to them. There would be ructions from the first day of the new takeover and onwards if the chancers were known to be still involved at more than a few %. Kyril and his dogs wouldn't have stood a chance.
Click to expand...
But if that’s the case we have been mislead. His other actions suggests he’s not that type
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
I do agree with this mind. If the hope is to find out more tomorrow, then I'd sit on the article. If the answers are forthcoming it renders it redundant. If they aren't then that's the time to release an article and ask why we aren't getting the information they promised.
Click to expand...

Depends on your intentions. I don’t know the lad but remember his run ins with the club under SD and CM. My feeling is that he may have a bit of a chip on his shoulder that they’re still holding some shares.

If he’s got that article out now because he wanted to do it before it all gets made redundant, for the sake of getting it off his chest/clicks and engagement, it’s daft. It’s not only self-interested but bad journalistic leveraging.

He could have sat on it, if he assumes they won’t address these issues, then used it as a rebuttal to their continued lack of clarity, citing they had promised to be transparent, and pressuring them to make a statement.

As it stands, if they go in there tomorrow and won’t make things clear or answer questions the article is already out and unable to have much impact.
 
Nelson! said:
Depends on your intentions. I don’t know the lad but remember his run ins with the club under SD and CM. My feeling is that he may have a bit of a chip on his shoulder that they’re still holding some shares.

If he’s got that article out now because he wanted to do it before it all gets made redundant, for the sake of getting it off his chest/clicks and engagement, it’s daft. It’s not only self-interested but bad journalistic leveraging.

He could have sat on it, if he assumes they won’t address these issues, then used it as a rebuttal to their continued lack of clarity, citing they had promised to be transparent, and pressuring them to make a statement.

As it stands, if they go in there tomorrow and won’t make things clear or answer questions the article is already out and unable to have much impact.
Click to expand...

He's probably written it off the back of people talking about it again on the other thread on here.

We saw many people attacking his motives and credibility when he wrote about the parachute payments as well.
 
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot said:
If they are still involved we have been misled. The silence on the matter has been deafening.

Not like Donald and Methven don't have form for misleading us then going quiet hoping people will forget about it
Click to expand...

what did they say about Donald and methvens involvement though? I always thought they were still involved. Unfortunately of course. But I remember at the time it was made clear they wouldn’t be fully gone. Genuinely can’t remember if they talked about percentages though
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
I do agree with this mind. If the hope is to find out more tomorrow, then I'd sit on the article. If the answers are forthcoming it renders it redundant. If they aren't then that's the time to release an article and ask why we aren't getting the information they promised. I do think it would be good to have some clarity on the ownership, on short term goals, long term goals, all of it. But let's give them the chance to address it through the right channel tomorrow and see where we're at then. The confirmation statement stuff is strange mind, I can imagine Madrox having people who miss things (GOM has flagged that up plenty of times) but the hope is that KLD and his people are a different animal. But again, he's a day or two early with this one
Click to expand...
I disagree. It isn't about criticizing the club or KLD and their handling so far, just by raising it now in the article you bring attention to the club's commitment to something quite important to the widest possible audience, and try to ensure the club can't dodge it as fans are aware of it. The point of the article is to set out why it is important to the fans and repeat the club's promise back at them. Therefore, if they answer tomorrow it isn't redundant, it has done its job. What would be redundant is writing an article about why this promise is important after the club has already dodged it at the meeting - because then there isn't an opportunity to hold the club accountable again for awhile.

If they answer it tomorrow then fantastic, the article is still correct in stating how important it is to the fans. If they were intending on dodging the question, but now feel they can't as we as fans (and fan representatives in the meeting) are aware and will be looking out for it - then fantastic. If they were intending on dodging it and still do, then at least fans (and those in the room) know how important the question is and alarm bells will be ringing immediately in a wider group then before.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
75% gives you control on special resolutions at AGMs (needed for a limited range of decisions, such as changing the Articles, share buy backs, etc). 50%+1 gives you control of ordinary resolutions, and the power to control board appointments.
Click to expand...
So it could be that between KLD & Sartori, between them they may only own 51%
 
Honess10 said:
what did they say about Donald and methvens involvement though? I always thought they were still involved. Unfortunately of course. But I remember at the time it was made clear they wouldn’t be fully gone. Genuinely can’t remember if they talked about percentages though
Click to expand...

We were led to believe they would be nowt but a small % holder and were 'asset strippers'.

Then they started appointing more people to the board.

They've had a year to clarify. They haven't and appear to be filing incorrect documents with companies house which would.
 
Gaz said:
CM being abroad recently wearing club gear suggests he is “involved”. Some (i suspect a lot), don’t want him or SD anywhere near the club
Click to expand...
i dont want hm or SD anywhere near the club either..
but at what point did KLD say they wouldnt be?
he said he would have a controlling interes, not 100 per cent, and would run the club with the ownership group.
when kld went for approval for the takeover..the others also had to get approved, sshowing they were always goig to be there at some levle?
samaistonsrightfoot said:
We were led to believe they would be nowt but a small % holder and were 'asset strippers'.

Then they started appointing more people to the board.

They've had a year to clarify. They haven't and appear to be filing incorrect documents with companies house which would.
Click to expand...
i dont think he ever meant madrox were the asset strippers..why would he use that language about his business partners? they literally had to be approved by the league as part of his takeover..he was never going to ask them to do that-then insult them
 
Last edited:
RTG said:
Sunderland AFC are nine months removed from a reported takeover, yet fans still have no confirmation of who actually owns how much of their club. Chris Weatherspoon looks at a big question that needs answering.

The post
You must be logged on to see external links
appeared first on
You must be logged on to see external links
.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
Clickbait, sensationalism, flogging a dead horse



Is the answer Chris Weatherspoon
 
HarrogateMackem said:
I disagree. It isn't about criticizing the club or KLD and their handling so far, just by raising it now in the article you bring the fan the club's committed to something quite important to the widest possible audience and try to ensure the club can't dodge it as fans are aware of it. The point of the article is to set out why it is important to the fans and repeat the club's promise back at them. Therefore, if they answer tomorrow it isn't redundant, it has done its job. What would be redundant is writing an article about why this promise is important after the club has already dodged it at the meeting - because then there isn't an opportunity to hold the club accountable again for awhile.

If they answer it tomorrow then fantastic, the article is still correct in stating how important it is to the fans. If they were intending on dodging the question, but now feel they can't as we as fans (and fan representatives in the meeting) are aware and will be looking out for it - then fantastic. If they were intending on dodging it and still do, then at least fans (and those in the room) know how important a question is and alarm bells will be rining immediately.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but RAWA have a WMS rep, so he could have easily made sure people attending were aware of the key questions and they'd be asked. The club have already said they'll answer. It's not a big thing at all, I just don't think it needed a public article at this stage, that could have followed if people were aware of the questions, asked the questions, and the club avoided them. Up to him like, as I say it's not really much of a criticism
 
HarrogateMackem said:
I disagree. It isn't about criticizing the club or KLD and their handling so far, just by raising it now in the article you bring attention to the club's commitment to something quite important to the widest possible audience, and try to ensure the club can't dodge it as fans are aware of it. The point of the article is to set out why it is important to the fans and repeat the club's promise back at them. Therefore, if they answer tomorrow it isn't redundant, it has done its job. What would be redundant is writing an article about why this promise is important after the club has already dodged it at the meeting - because then there isn't an opportunity to hold the club accountable again for awhile.

If they answer it tomorrow then fantastic, the article is still correct in stating how important it is to the fans. If they were intending on dodging the question, but now feel they can't as we as fans (and fan representatives in the meeting) are aware and will be looking out for it - then fantastic. If they were intending on dodging it and still do, then at least fans (and those in the room) know how important the question is and alarm bells will be ringing immediately in a wider group then before.
Click to expand...
Spot on
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top