WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

[riffraff]

We could only know this if we had access to the articles of association or the terms of the sale. However, none of that will relate to percentages. If SD wanted to retain voting rights on certain issues, he could write that into the terms of the sale, by saying the owner of 1 share allows that right.

I don't get why SD would sell a large % of the club to KLD to then go on to block further investment, it makes no sense at all. As per the first sentence, and as you pointed out if he wanted a veto on certain items he can have that regardless of % and it was him that sold on his terms.

The basis of the conspiracy theory seems to be that SD will try to hold us back or to block KLD investing, but if that was true, why would he sell to KLD in the first place. Both KLD and SD were happy to sign the deal only a few months ago, they obviously both see it as beneficial.

I think the fans are blinded by the state of the football and league position, that SD/CM are only ever seen as bogey men now. I'll be honest, they've got a lot wrong, but I don't think it was done deliberately. I'm also sure they wanted to make a profit in the process, but so do most businessmen. We've got used to Short pumping in millions of his own cash every year and want that to continue, but it didn't and there wasn't another billionaire happy to take over. So now we're in the real world, where we have to live from our income.

I agree with your comment that there isn't a valid argument for secrecy, but we don't know who and why that NDA is in place. It could be for reasons we don't expect. But, the point remains, it makes no difference if KLD has 60% or 72%.

If we were 20 points clear with five games in hand on the chasing pack people would still want to know and you know this yourself.

 

[Ashley In!!]

it does not matter got F all to do with us, we are supporters end of.

and its wrong

You have absolutely no idea whether it's right or wrong, let's be honest.

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

If I ask this what would Ellis or Sir Bob say if you asked, ?
If they had investors alongside them.
They would tell you where to go.
If it matters to you, good thats fine.
It mmatters not a jot to others

Maybe they would tell us where to go. That doesn’t make them better. Ellis Short was a ghost at the end and the lack of transparency and communication from the man at the top was woeful.
Murray was fairly open about his ownership of the club.

The issue is that we’re in the third division and have been for a while. There has been some very poor organisation at the club and the communication around ownership and investment has been woeful. When it’s evident that things aren’t being run particularly smoothly and there are leaks left, right and centre about different issues to different journalists et al, ownership becomes a big question for supporters. And rightly so.

Doesn’t really matter what Short or Murray would have said.

 

[riffraff]

You have absolutely no idea whether it's right or wrong, let's be honest.

Aaaaaah but he knows his strikers though.

 

[OnienRoll]

Club foot still owns a chunk. The tubby clown-shoe thief.

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

If I ask this what would Ellis or Sir Bob say if you asked, ?
If they had investors alongside them.
They would tell you where to go.
If it matters to you, good thats fine.
It mmatters not a jot to others

You wouldn't need to have asked them what their stake was as it was publicly known information. And short had 100% man.

This is a completely different scenario. If you can't see the importance no bother. But many of us can.

 

[Secret Visage]

If I ask this what would Ellis or Sir Bob say if you asked, ?
If they had investors alongside them.
They would tell you where to go.
If it matters to you, good thats fine.
It mmatters not a jot to others

The documents would have been lodged at companies house.

Stop defending the indefensible.

 

[Hep]

Donald and Methven got it badly wrong. They cut costs to the bare bones, and tried to turn a quick profit. They flogged off talent from the academy for peanuts. They employed the likes of Paul Reid and Richard Hill into key positions, both complete clowns that were out of their league at Whitehawk FC for fucks sake, in what world did they think these people have the credentials to help run safc. Methven has insulted safc fans, and Donald accused some fans of abducting his daughter from a bus stop in Oxford. They've used layers of companies and smoke and mirrors all around the financing of the club and the use of the clubs parachute payments. I understand them hanging out for their payday but they should be nowhere near any decisions about the business.

He refuses to show the evidence which would prove he has control,

They are not anywhere near the decisions, they are not on the board.

Also, they cut costs because we were losing £35m a year. Where was that money meant to come from?

You wouldn't need to have asked them what their stake was as it was publicly known information. And short had 100% man.

This is a completely different scenario. If you can't see the importance no bother. But many of us can.

Ellis didn’t have 100% initially and no one questioned it.

What about drumaville? Did we know their shareholdings?

We know.

We know.

We know.

We also know SD & CM couldn’t or claimed they couldn’t afford to buy the club paying the equivalent of the PP upfront.
What people are interested in is what wouldve happened to the other interested parties who presumably wouldn’t go along with the twin charades of pretending that “buying the club with its own money“ isnt what happened because “we are going to pay it back”.
Whichever way the SD & CM apologists dress it up the only reason they got their grubby hands on SAFC was by promising something that the other parties wouldn’t.

You’re wasting your time marra. There’s none so blind as those etc.

Legally yes. But it’s nice to know who to point the finger of blame at.

No other bidders were close to buying the club. Short wanted the pp money and that was factored into the deal. Yes SD should have came clean, but it was still a great deal for the club, given we had £100m of debt wiped in the process.

If we were 20 points clear with five games in hand on the chasing pack people would still want to know and you know this yourself.

I get fans want to know, but not one person has explained what material difference it would make if they did know?

If Kld owned 51% or 91% - how does that change anything ??

 

[oddbod]

Explains a lot

I think that's bollocks! if it turns out to be true im packing it in!

 

[Hep]

The documents would have been lodged at companies house.

Stop defending the indefensible.

That’s not true. Companies house doesn’t require a breakdown of percentages. I could own 24% of Safc and not need to register as a PSC.

 

[muffler]

I'm not sure it's at all relevant.

We want the team to do well because, you know, the obvious. They need to the team to do well because it'll give them huge returns.

Nobody invested because they love the club; but I don't doubt for a second the pressure is on internally whether we're jumping up or down or not.

 

[Hep]

I cannot see any logical reason they are keeping this shit secret!Its bad for PR its Bad for business and its bad for fans harmony!I see methmans hand in this as i bet he gets a NDA on his PIZZA order!

So kld is lying then?

If KLD didn’t own 51% - why would the football league carry out a fit and proper persons test as a new owner????

41%, 34%, 20% and 5%

41% isn’t a controlling interest.

Did anyone do maths at school??

 

[Fez2]

If KLD didn’t own 51% - why would the football league carry out a fit and proper persons test as a new owner????

41% isn’t a controlling interest.

Did anyone do maths at school??

Nothing wrong with the maths

 

[Ashley In!!]

If KLD didn’t own 51% - why would the football league carry out a fit and proper persons test as a new owner????

I may be wrong (and quite often I am) but I thought it was way less than 51% to be required to submit to the ODT?

 

[Hep]

Nothing wrong with the maths

is 41% more than half?

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

They are not anywhere near the decisions, they are not on the board.

Also, they cut costs because we were losing £35m a year. Where was that money meant to come from?

Ellis didn’t have 100% initially and no one questioned it.

What about drumaville? Did we know their shareholdings?

No other bidders were close to buying the club. Short wanted the pp money and that was factored into the deal. Yes SD should have came clean, but it was still a great deal for the club, given we had £100m of debt wiped in the process.

I get fans want to know, but not one person has explained what material difference it would make if they did know?

If Kld owned 51% or 91% - how does that change anything ??

Are you comparing the drummavile consortium to the current set up like? That's interesting. Drumaville's overall stake was known and im pretty certain it was no secret what the individual involvements were.

What's intriguing is the lengths you are going to argue why we shouldn't be interested in who owns what. Of course, to that end your efforts are totally failing.

And to answer your question who owns what could absolutely dictate what additional money KLD may be prepared to put into the club.

You answer me one question. If madrox had no involvement in the club why did we commit to spend 500k on the pitch. Then later on refrain from doing so?

 

[Hep]

I may be wrong (and quite often I am) but I thought it was way less than 51% to be required to submit to the ODT?

Indeed you are correct - it’s 30%. I was wrong.

 

[Gaz]

If KLD didn’t own 51% - why would the football league carry out a fit and proper persons test as a new owner????

41% isn’t a controlling interest.

Did anyone do maths at school??

Might be wrong, but sure they do fit and proper tests for all directors and owners so he’d have one regardless of shareholding %

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Which basically allows them to say owt they want.

When Davison went into the meeting, after being briefed by the hierachy, with RAWA he didn't have a clue there was an NDA.

The very next day, after RAWA made it clear his/their answer wasn't acceptable, they suddenly remembered there was an NDA (easiest way to try and stop people asking?)

Davison is COO and a director of SAFC. He won't have been privy to any detail of the sale agreement between Madrox and the entity which bought the shares in Sunderland, because it has no bearing on his role as an employee of SAFC controlling day to day matters.

 

[Hep]

Are you comparing the drummavile consortium to the current set up like? That's interesting. Drumaville's overall stake was known and im pretty certain it was no secret what the individual involvements were.

What's intriguing is the lengths you are going to argue why we shouldn't be interested in who owns what. Of course, to that end your efforts are totally failing.

And to answer your question who owns what could absolutely dictate what additional money KLD may be prepared to put into the club.

You answer me one question. If madrox had no involvement in the club why did we commit to spend 500k on the pitch. Then later on refrain from doing so?

Then you don’t understand how businesses work.

Are you suggesting a billionaire from a family of billionaires has invested into our club without ensuring he can invest further?

And are you also suggesting that the minority shareholders don’t want KLD to invest despite the fact that it could increase the value of their holdings by doing so?

The story was written to stir up shit, that’s what I cannot understand.