• 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.
TDalt said:
Does CM have millions to put in? Doubt that one. Maybes Donald can check down the back of the sofa again
Click to expand...
collectively they have put in well in excess of the purchase price...donald di £2m on his own in the last financial year and that was pre covid..it will have to be more by now...KLD hasnt put £2m in yet id wager though he will do in time certainly
 

kildaremackem said:
collectively they have put in well in excess of the purchase price...donald di £2m on his own in the last financial year and that was pre covid..it will have to be more by now...KLD hasnt put £2m in yet id wager though he will do in time certainly
Click to expand...
I’d have thought he’d have put in more than that at the moment, or else covered it. I just think if the 51% is true, it’ll cause problems in reciprocal funding. You can’t get away with free transfers and loans in the championship..if we ever get there
 
TDalt said:
I’d have thought he’d have put in more than that at the moment, or else covered it. I just think if the 51% is true, it’ll cause problems in reciprocal funding. You can’t get away with free transfers and loans in the championship..if we ever get there
Click to expand...
but KLDs plan is for self sufficiency..so wont need much external funding on the football side..donald put £10m into easteligh..if he can do the same in the champo..alongside sartori who is very rich and KLD who have access to his cah by then..that should cover it
 
kildaremackem said:
but KLDs plan is for self sufficiency..so wont need much external funding on the football side..donald put £10m into easteligh..if he can do the same in the champo..alongside sartori who is very rich and KLD who have access to his cah by then..that should cover it
Click to expand...
The championship doesn’t self fund..at least not as we are at this point in time (assuming promotion this season). What’s the most saleable asset? Stewart? Neil? What would you get, maybes a couple of million, maybes a bit more for Neil with add ons. It’s not enough to self fund in the top half of the championship.
 
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...
Why do we need to know
 
TDalt said:
The championship doesn’t self fund..at least not as we are at this point in time (assuming promotion this season). What’s the most saleable asset? Stewart? Neil? What would you get, maybes a couple of million, maybes a bit more for Neil with add ons. It’s not enough to self fund in the top half of the championship.
Click to expand...
but safc should need less cash than most as bigger crowds than most..and as mentioned both parts of the ownership group can contribute eight figure sums...brentford must have self funded to promotion? burnley before them?
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
Well if club ownership doesn’t interest you, just ignore it! A lot of us seemingly like to know the club is being properly run, well resourced and with people at the helm who are entirely committed to the clubs performance both now and in the future.
Click to expand...

This is like the old public interest vs the public is interested journalism argument. Irrespective of what the details are, there's little or nothing that fans can actually do about it.
 
Sea to Shining Sea said:
Well if club ownership doesn’t interest you, just ignore it! A lot of us seemingly like to know the club is being properly run, well resourced and with people at the helm who are entirely committed to the clubs performance both now and in the future.
Click to expand...
The ownership of the club is someone can not effect , the ownership of the club doesn't determine whether you support the club or not so just don't get it ?
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
This is like the old public interest vs the public is interested journalism argument. Irrespective of what the details are, there's little or nothing that fans can actually do about it.
Click to expand...

We will probably get to find out if it turns out they still have as much as 49%
gastap said:
The ownership of the club is someone can not effect , the ownership of the club doesn't determine whether you support the club or not so just don't get it ?
Click to expand...

Exactly what the mags say about being owned by the Saudi regime.

Hopefully we avoid going down that route.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
What I think we'll find tomorrow is that the club is owned 100% by Mercator, and that Mercator has KLD, Sartori, Donald and Methven as shareholders.


No, it should have disclosed who now held the shares in Sunderland, since it obviously wasn't Madrox anymore.
Click to expand...
That still wont really answer the questions raised though will it?
 
Safc88 said:
That still wont really answer the questions raised though will it?
Click to expand...

That's because the split of the shares is not the real question; the question is to what extent do each of those shareholders influence the strategic direction of the club. Looking at the composition of the boards, it's pretty clear that KLD is running that. On the question of finance, the proportionate funding only comes into play if there's a share issue, and not even then if one or more minority shareholders accept dilution. Loans can be made by individual shareholders at any time. The EFL clearance is a bit of a red herring here - the owners just have to demonstrate that they could contribute, if required. That doesn't commit them to proportionate loan funding.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
That's because the split of the shares is not the real question; the question is to what extent do each of those shareholders influence the strategic direction of the club. Looking at the composition of the boards, it's pretty clear that KLD is running that. On the question of finance, the proportionate funding only comes into play if there's a share issue, and not even then if one or more minority shareholders accept dilution. Loans can be made by individual shareholders at any time. The EFL clearance is a bit of a red herring here - the owners just have to demonstrate that they could contribute, if required. That doesn't commit them to proportionate loan funding.
Click to expand...
but isnt part of EFL clearance the submission of a business plan over multiple years? Now, the influence at the club which matters is the influence each shareholder had on the compositon of that plan? And, when they submit the business plan, they must show how they can fund that business plan, so the shareholders collectively are commiting at that stage to a level of funding?
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
That's because the split of the shares is not the real question; the question is to what extent do each of those shareholders influence the strategic direction of the club. Looking at the composition of the boards, it's pretty clear that KLD is running that. On the question of finance, the proportionate funding only comes into play if there's a share issue, and not even then if one or more minority shareholders accept dilution. Loans can be made by individual shareholders at any time. The EFL clearance is a bit of a red herring here - the owners just have to demonstrate that they could contribute, if required. That doesn't commit them to proportionate loan funding.
Click to expand...
Well to me if they simple dont answer the question then it all looks shady as fuck
 
kildaremackem said:
but isnt part of EFL clearance the submission of a business plan over multiple years? Now, the influence at the club which matters is the influence each shareholder had on the compositon of that plan? And, when they submit the business plan, they must show how they can fund that business plan, so the shareholders collectively are commiting at that stage to a level of funding?
Click to expand...

The plan simply has to be financially sustainable. The owners collectively have to show they can finance the plan to the extent that external finance is needed. The EFL can't force individual shareholders to commit simultaneously. In effect it's a joint and several guarantee.
 
Safc88 said:
Well to me if they simple dont answer the question then it all looks shady as fuck
Click to expand...
which bit about moving the ownership of the club to a company in a secretive tax haven did you think wouldnt be shady?
Grumpy Old Man said:
The plan simply has to be financially sustainable. The owners collectively have to show they can finance the plan to the extent that external finance is needed. The EFL can't force individual shareholders to commit simultaneously. In effect it's a joint and several guarantee.
Click to expand...
yes a joint and several garuntee...i thought that meant if one didnt do it..the others would have to make up their chare? as you say it cant force any indidual to do it..but surely the controlling shreholder has to be very confident and see evidence, of the others intentions before he would commit to a joint and several?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top