WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

[samaistonsrightfoot]

i doubt they would have been able to pay 37 m right then your right..amybe with sartori they would. but my point is....no one would whether they could afford to or not, because they would be paying 3 times the value of the asset...
the money they saved on the para? they saved nowt..ellis got it..he saved 25

And if they had been honest with that arrangement at the beginning instead of misrepresnting the deal, threatening to sue newspapers for reporting it, and carrying in the misrepresentation for months people would have been more willing to accept it although the other stuff would have still turned people by the end.

I've said all along the biggest mistake Donald has made is those initial press interviews and podcasts. Hung himself out to dry with misrepresentation and fabrication.

I think the point he's trying to make, but not well, is that, other than making a lot of noise, there's little the fans can do irrespective of what the ownership structure looks like. What impact any noise has is simply a matter of how thick-skinned the owners are.

So he won't mind clarity then so doesn't need to oppose it.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

yes its strange, he probably agrees with me on a few things..but aking why it matters who owns a club is a really strange view indeed

but if a club has loads of debt..even if soft loans..it reduces the notional value of the equity for others wanting to sell? so for eg if KLD loaned the club money..donald would find it hard to sell his shares to anyone other than KLD?

That's not necessarily the case if the loan results in an improvement in league performance which increases the capital value of the shares.

 

[Gaz]

i doubt they would have been able to pay 37 m right then your right..amybe with sartori they would. but my point is....no one would whether they could afford to or not, because they would be paying 3 times the value of the asset...
the money they saved on the para? they saved nowt..ellis got it..he saved 25 m

they lied about the deal, they tried to hide the details, legally they may have done nothing wrong but morally they absolutely did.

you can talk about the legality of things as much as you want, that doesn’t matter to most fans, the lies / slagging off fans etc. does. I suspect most fans want them gone completely, if they have more of a share or more of a say than we think, then it won’t go down well.

they both need to go, and the sooner the better

 

[Ashley In!!]

Actually, he's right, if the money is done via Share Issue as he said, they will have to put money in.

Why would KLD loan money to the club, whilst the other shareholders don't??

To get it back when the circumstances allow. Same reason Ashley did for example.

yes he can loan it...but will he? and also an indebted club is worth less than a non indebted one...

Irrelevant in the circumstances of a shareholder loan - would just be factored into the selling prices, again see Ashley and the mags. Even more irrelevant when he isn't looking to sell.

 

[Soton Pete]

To get it back when the circumstances allow. Same reason Ashley did for example.

Irrelevant in the circumstances of a shareholder loan - would just be factored into the selling prices, again see Ashley and the mags. Even more irrelevant when he isn't looking to sell.

But wasn't Ashley the only shareholder? He would get all the benefit, where in our case others will get the benefit without having to commit any cash.

 

[Hep]

He clearly cares or wouldn't even be on this thread. He's quite vociferously against any clarity with regards to football clubs.

He hasn't said why though which is odd.

I'm just saying it makes no difference if we know or not. Campaigns against owners do nothing.

That's not necessarily the case if the loan results in an improvement in league performance which increases the capital value of the shares.

This is why it's unlikely KLD would go down the loan route.

 

[kildaremackem]

To get it back when the circumstances allow. Same reason Ashley did for example.

Irrelevant in the circumstances of a shareholder loan - would just be factored into the selling prices, again see Ashley and the mags. Even more irrelevant when he isn't looking to sell.

but if he put money in and the others dont..but they retain their shareholdings...then he is essentially unging them millions..if he does ot as a loan...its not good for the club to be in debt.
when will the circumstances allow? SAFC cant pay dividends for years I think because the accrued losses are so high..
ashley probably lost money on the newcastle deal...excpet if he got cheap advettiisng or somehting,...but KLD has nowt to advertise

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

I'm just saying it makes no difference if we know or not. Campaigns against owners do nothing.

This is why it's unlikely KLD would go down the loan route.

That’s highly debatable

 

[kildaremackem]

To get it back when the circumstances allow. Same reason Ashley did for example.

Irrelevant in the circumstances of a shareholder loan - would just be factored into the selling prices, again see Ashley and the mags. Even more irrelevant when he isn't looking to sell.

he isnt looing to sell now but would be in future..the highly experienced business advisers he has on the baord are there to advise him long term...and unless he plans to own the club for 50 years an exit strategy, however far into the fuure, will be part of that

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

It would just lead to discussions on here and chats in the pub. Nothing of substance and nothing that will make a difference.

It would significantly impact season ticket sales next season.

 

[kildaremackem]

That's not necessarily the case if the loan results in an improvement in league performance which increases the capital value of the shares.

of course..but i dont think league position would matter as much as financial position in those circumstances...
the reason to do a loan is to be higher up the capital structure than the equity holders are...and he may choose it for that reason..
also brings some tax beefits on exit maybe..which is why i think donald borrowed from the Dell lot.

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

I'm just saying it makes no difference if we know or not. Campaigns against owners do nothing.

This is why it's unlikely KLD would go down the loan route.

It allows people to choose what they want to do with the information given and to be able to hold those people who own the club to account.

Clarity in football is a good thing which should be encouraged. Fan representation (and I don't mean owners friends, business contacts or celebrities) at board level would be great but won't happen because owners don't want people to know what they are doing.

And that is for all clubs which is why an overwhelmimg majority of fans ask for it. The new ownership has promised it for nearly a year but has yet to give it.

Opposing anyone who wants clarity on the basis that 'it doesn' t matter who owns the club' is bizarre when the person, or people, who own it are responsible for whether it sparkles or implodes.

This is why it's unlikely KLD would go down the loan route.

Which is why other owners are relvant. If KLD feels like a loan is needed, and the others can't afford it or refuse to do it, then it holds the club back if he is unwilling to do it himself on that basis and they become detrimental to targets and growth.

 

[molthemackem]

Speculation still but ,If KLD really wants to, he has already stated that he has control, then he can force the others to put money into the club by a share issue, he doesn't need to go by a loan route. I wait with baited breath.

 

[kildaremackem]

It allows people to choose what they want to do with the information given and to be able to hold those people who own the club to account.

Clarity in football is a good thing which should be encouraged. Fan representation (and I don't mean owners friends, business contacts or celebrities) at board level would be great but won't happen because owners don't want people to know what they are doing.

And that is for all clubs which is why an overwhelmimg majority of fans ask for it. The new ownership has promised it for nearly a year but has yet to give it.

Opposing anyone who wants clarity on the basis that 'it doesn' t matter who owns the club' is bizarre when the person, or people, who own it are responsible for whether it sparkles or implodes.


Which is why other owners are relvant. If KLD feels like a loan is needed, and the others can't afford it or refuse to do it, then it holds the club back if he is unwilling to do it himself on that basis and they become detrimental to targets and growth.

the best way for fans to be able to hold owners to account is for a club to be profitable...because if its profitable..owners will listen to those who made it so, ie the fans, whereas if a club incurs heavy losses so the owner is paying out..then the ower wont listen to those who made it loss making, ie the fans

 

[Ashley In!!]

when will the circumstances allow? SAFC cant pay dividends for years I think because the accrued losses are so high..

That's exactly the point that you are missing - if it was loans he can take that money back out as repayment of the loans. No need to take it as dividends in that case & he revoers his capital.

 

[Mackem00]

the best way for fans to be able to hold owners to account is for a club to be profitable...because if its profitable..owners will listen to those who made it so, ie the fans, whereas if a club incurs heavy losses so the owner is paying out..then the ower wont listen to those who made it loss making, ie the fans

Some canny logic that mind.

 

[kildaremackem]

That's exactly the point that you are missing - if it was loans he can take that money back out as repayment of the loans. No need to take it as dividends in that case & he revoers his capital.

yes he can do that..very tax efficient too..though that probably wont bother him as he is swiss but also the company he owns it via is offshore.
if he does it via loans..which is far more sensible than via shares...SAFC eds up oweing him money...better for him..worse for the club...
but also..a future buyer of the lub wouldnt like the loans and would deduct it from sale price..

 

[Nelson!]

Agreed.
I posted a few years back when the club shops dotted around the NE were closing that we need mobile shops. Theyre all ower outside grounds at tournaments like the euros and WCs.
A few big mobile vans going round the markets and town centres and shopping centres of the NE midweek and then around the car parks etc outside the ground on match days to catch fans coming from all the major pedestrian routes ower the surrounding area.
Theres no passing trade on the far side of the ground, nivver has been, nivver will be. The logic of building the ticket office away from the ground but not the club shop is plain unadulterated lunacy.

It just seems like it’s really not a priority at the moment. I can’t pretend to have a grasp of how much money it brings in or whether it would be worth it or not but from a branding and community perspective it doesn’t look good.

There are a lot of ways to put something together with a little bit of thought. If they don’t have enough stock to justify it they could invite local artists and makers to consign or wholesale gift items as a pop up ahead of the holidays. Even Lucasfilm (and now disney) do this with unliscenced makers rather that go down the route of cease and desist. Pick the best ones, bring them in house, and let the rest crack on. It might not be lucrative but it would at least mean the club doesn’t seem like it’s totally disengaged with the city.

It really feels like no one at the club is even thinking about this stuff at the moment, hopefully that changes soon. Obviously the on the pitch performance is paramount but if we can’t even make the same level of experience as Fleetwood etc then it points to there being problems behind the scenes.

 

[Freddie the Greek]

the best way for fans to be able to hold owners to account is for a club to be profitable...because if its profitable..owners will listen to those who made it so, ie the fans, whereas if a club incurs heavy losses so the owner is paying out..then the ower wont listen to those who made it loss making, ie the fans

u wot m8?

 

[kildaremackem]

Some canny logic that mind.

its the lieteral truth of how the world works..fans asking an owner who is keeping their club alive to listen to them is bzzare..fans whi are providing the money that keeps the owner in profit are very valuable to the owner