• 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.

Fez2 said:
Down to RAWA and the local media to press the club on this. The share percentages have come out so let’s see if they come clean.
Click to expand...
Where has it come out , someone one on a forum making up figures is not a source

If then figures were the KLD would be in real trouble mainly as he made it clear at a fans group meeting with signed off minutes that he has a controlling share .
 
molthemackem said:
The mearest fact that No2 Chancer has been turning up at away games ,sitting in the directors box, indicates that these so called "stakeholders". of which No2 Chancer has to be one, have much more influence and say in the running of the club than simply holding shares.
Click to expand...
they appopinted a director to the baord to represent their interests..
 
molthemackem said:
Let me get this straight...You are stating that the two Chancers appointed a director to the board of Sunderland AFC to represent THEIR interests? Is that really what your stating?
Click to expand...
yes..sharehodlers typicLLY do get to appoint directors..KLD got his directors on the board..Sartori is there to rperesent thimself..and Methven/Donald seem to have one.
The key point is, KLD has a majority of the dorctros there...Methven/Donald have just one director..ie they are a minorty and KLD has the majority control of the baord.
 
kildaremackem said:
could be a multitude of reasons..for example..what if the KLD FAMILY TRUST ONS THE CLUB? who are the trustees? they might not want those names in public?

but they have said its more than 50 per cent
Click to expand...
They’ve said it’s a controlling interest which doesn’t not necessarily equate to >50%.
 
martinlumley said:
Exactly, watching football is a leisure pastime, bit like going to the cinema. Pay your money, and watch the match/ movie.
Can we demand to be involved in the inner workings of Odeon cinemas, because we go there every week?
Click to expand...
we don’t invest money time and have the emotional attachment to odeon cinemas like we do with the club. We don’t follow odeon cinemas up and down the country. We didn’t queue in the pissing down rain for tickets to a movie at Wembley. Our forebears were following SAFC before odeon was thought of. My grandad didn’t tell me tales of how good odeon were way back when.
When was the last time odeon had 38000 at a showing of Paddington the movie. Odeon could never be classed as part of the fabric of the city and the area. But you know all this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kildaremackem said:
yes..sharehodlers typicLLY do get to appoint directors..KLD got his directors on the board..Sartori is there to rperesent thimself..and Methven/Donald seem to have one.
The key point is, KLD has a majority of the dorctros there...Methven/Donald have just one director..ie they are a minorty and KLD has the majority control of the baord.
Click to expand...
That my friend is shareholders acting as Shadow directors.
jsdftm04 said:
Remember Donald said on a podcast he could get us top 10 PL himself before he'd need investors :lol::lol:
Click to expand...
Aye, but no one believed him surely... An insurance man?
 
Last edited:
molthemackem said:
That my friend is shareholders acting as Shadow directors.
Click to expand...
its common enough practice for shareholders to apoint directors to represent their intetests...abramavhich is not a director at chelsea..he does get to pick the directors though..

the key bit is..donald and methven only have one nominated director...so ar a minority on the board..kld picked the majority so has a majority of the directors..and so can do as he likes..he has control.
 
kildaremackem said:
its common enough practice for shareholders to apoint directors to represent their intetests...abramavhich is not a director at chelsea..he does get to pick the directors though..

the key bit is..donald and methven only have one nominated director...so ar a minority on the board..kld picked the majority so has a majority of the directors..and so can do as he likes..he has control.
Click to expand...
Your wrong, it is not common practice. but once they shareholding figures have been published I'm sure that there will be some futher questions to ask.
kildaremackem said:
its common enough practice for shareholders to apoint directors to represent their intetests...abramavhich is not a director at chelsea..he does get to pick the directors though..

the key bit is..donald and methven only have one nominated director...so ar a minority on the board..kld picked the majority so has a majority of the directors..and so can do as he likes..he has control.
Click to expand...
Limited Company Law:

In company law, a minority shareholder has little if any power over the management of the company or the distribution of its profits.As a general principle, the majority rules. For instance, shareholders with less than 50% of the shares in the company cannot appoint a new director.
 
molthemackem said:
Your wrong, it is not common practice. but once they shareholding figures have been published I'm sure that there will be some futher questions to ask.

Limited Company Law:

In company law, a minority shareholder has little if any power over the management of the company or the distribution of its profits.As a general principle, the majority rules. For instance, shareholders with less than 50% of the shares in the company cannot appoint a new director.
Click to expand...
it is not a legal requirement, but it is common practice...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top