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

WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guinness Guzzler said:
Let's just take a hypothetical. Let's say kld has the majority of the voting shares so he can make the calls, but let's say he actually only has 30% of the shares overall. I'm sure he has more than that, but just for arguments sake. That would change things for me because, although he could certainly ignore Donald and Methven, if they held 45% of the shares between them he might be inclined not to. He might think he'd better listen to them. They might be able to sway him. It might mean that he can't dilute their shareholdings so might mean his only options if he wants to spend are to get their agreement or put in a loan (although he'd get it back, they'd benefit to a great degree by getting the potential benefit of the club growing without putting in the money themselves).

That is obviously a different situation from them saying "kld owns 80%, sartori 10%, the others 5% each". At that point at least we know that all the decisions are his. If we fail, it's not because Donald and Methven are still involved, it's because kld hasn't got decisions right. You might not care either way, but plenty of people would. If KLD is in the first scenario I think he'd get a fair bit of support, people would believe that once the others go he might have a chance. If it was nearer the second scenario then there'd be more questions over him and the whole new set up. Or it could be in the middle. But I can't agree that it simply doesn't matter
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering, more than others have done.

That situation would require SD to have only sold 30% to KLD but to also have given him full control. Without any evidence to support this, it seems a highly unlikely scenario. Why would either SD or KLD do that?

Your answer also assumes the only KLD would invest in the club and SD would never do that, but that isn't necessarily the case. SD was instrumental in securing an investment from KLD and it's in his interest to bring further investment in. There is a big misunderstanding that investors wouldn't their shareholdings to be diluted, but this is just nonsense, all minority stakeholders would be better off if they were diluted as whilst they'd have a smaller % it would be of a much higher value if the investment was successful. Better to have 1% of a million than 50% of £5.

I think SD & CM have made some major PR mistakes, and now anything they do is tarnished, but we need to look at this without emotion, as whipping up more discontent just hurts the club further.

I've asked a lot, but no one has answered, what difference would any answer make if we were told the percentages. Nothing will change. It's only likely to create even more discontent (rightly or wrongly) - there is no positive outcome.
garyswc said:
Show me the evidence KLD owns more than 50% please?
Click to expand...
You must be logged on to see external links
 
Hep said:
Thanks for answering, more than others have done.

That situation would require SD to have only sold 30% to KLD but to also have given him full control. Without any evidence to support this, it seems a highly unlikely scenario. Why would either SD or KLD do that?

Your answer also assumes the only KLD would invest in the club and SD would never do that, but that isn't necessarily the case. SD was instrumental in securing an investment from KLD and it's in his interest to bring further investment in. There is a big misunderstanding that investors wouldn't their shareholdings to be diluted, but this is just nonsense, all minority stakeholders would be better off if they were diluted as whilst they'd have a smaller % it would be of a much higher value if the investment was successful. Better to have 1% of a million than 50% of £5.

I think SD & CM have made some major PR mistakes, and now anything they do is tarnished, but we need to look at this without emotion, as whipping up more discontent just hurts the club further.

I've asked a lot, but no one has answered, what difference would any answer make if we were told the percentages. Nothing will change. It's only likely to create even more discontent (rightly or wrongly) - there is no positive outcome.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
I will await some actual evidence then rather than the headline of an article written by Oscar f***ing Chamberlain.....oh yes you have no such evidence, nothing from Companies House or its overseas equivalent thereof.
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
Let's just take a hypothetical. Let's say kld has the majority of the voting shares so he can make the calls, but let's say he actually only has 30% of the shares overall. I'm sure he has more than that, but just for arguments sake. That would change things for me because, although he could certainly ignore Donald and Methven, if they held 45% of the shares between them he might be inclined not to. He might think he'd better listen to them. They might be able to sway him. It might mean that he can't dilute their shareholdings so might mean his only options if he wants to spend are to get their agreement or put in a loan (although he'd get it back, they'd benefit to a great degree by getting the potential benefit of the club growing without putting in the money themselves).

That is obviously a different situation from them saying "kld owns 80%, sartori 10%, the others 5% each". At that point at least we know that all the decisions are his. If we fail, it's not because Donald and Methven are still involved, it's because kld hasn't got decisions right. You might not care either way, but plenty of people would. If KLD is in the first scenario I think he'd get a fair bit of support, people would believe that once the others go he might have a chance. If it was nearer the second scenario then there'd be more questions over him and the whole new set up. Or it could be in the middle. But I can't agree that it simply doesn't matter
Click to expand...
Actually, you've just given me an idea.

Whilst the club cannot share percentages, could you ask are there any 'non-voting' shares issued. If not, that would confirm KLD owns more than 50%.
garyswc said:
I will await some actual evidence then rather than the headline of an article written by Oscar f***ing Chamberlain.....oh yes you have no such evidence, nothing from Companies House or its overseas equivalent thereof.
Click to expand...
And do you have any evidence to the contrary?
 
Fez2 said:
How would people feel if for example KLD owned 45% and Donald owned 35%?
Click to expand...
if i knew about it from the start I would be pissed off but least I would have known the truth, but if this came out now I would not return to the cluster fuck that is Sunderland AFC.
 
Hep said:
Actually, you've just given me an idea.

Whilst the club cannot share percentages, could you ask are there any 'non-voting' shares issued. If not, that would confirm KLD owns more than 50%.

And do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...
Nobody has any evidence that is the entire point you can't prove who owns the shares in the club in what percentages, I can't and the club/shareholders themselves refuse to.
 
garyswc said:
I will await some actual evidence then rather than the headline of an article written by Oscar f***ing Chamberlain.....oh yes you have no such evidence, nothing from Companies House or its overseas equivalent thereof.
Click to expand...
The purchase also went through leagues tests. Do you think they played along with this supposed charade?
 
garyswc said:
I will await some actual evidence then rather than the headline of an article written by Oscar f***ing Chamberlain.....oh yes you have no such evidence, nothing from Companies House or its overseas equivalent thereof.
Click to expand...
what has changed at companies house is that madrox is no longer as the cotrlling party
 
Hep said:
How would it help the club? it was still Stewart Donald deciding if we would spend it and on what. Did you expect him to pay Short back out of his own cash and then agree to spend £20m on the squad whilst the club was still running at a loss???

The owners don't want to share the percentages for reasons only known to them. RAWA won't get told and Chris Weatherspoon wouldn't understand if he did get told.

What would change if we did know the percentages? Give me an example?

What concerns??
Click to expand...
Why are you trying to argue that the club having a cash injection of 15-20 million wouldn't help it? It's beyond moronic. It's like saying the parachute payments relegated clubs get offer no advantage to them.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
Why are you trying to argue that the club having a cash injection of 15-20 million wouldn't help it? It's beyond moronic. It's like saying the parachute payments relegated clubs get offer no advantage to them.
Click to expand...
The point is the SD was in control of that money. If offers no advantage unless he decided to take advantage of it.
garyswc said:
So you are saying the league which allows any old clowns to buy clubs would object to KLD buying say 45% of the shares in a company controlling the club.

You are now deflecting with random shite because you cannot prove your point.
Click to expand...
45% isn't a controlling stake. I think the league would have asked for evidence that he had purchased the club. Unless they are party to this conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
kildaremackem said:
but the c;lub wouldmt have had it...ellis had it.
Click to expand...
Your mates are on record as saying that the parachute payments belonged to the club and would be available to the club as soon as Dond had finalised the payment of the agreed sum for the deal to buy the club. Ergo, the reason that the club didn't have access to those payments and why Ellis took them was because Donald and Co. Used them as consideration for the purchase for the club.
 
garyswc said:
So you are saying the league which allows any old clowns to buy clubs would object to KLD buying say 45% of the shares in a company controlling the club.

You are now deflecting with random shite because you cannot prove your point.
Click to expand...
It's no good having a argument over who owns what we will never get to no
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top