Saints in takeover talks with Chinese group

thats your approach to how you've viewed it Schad.

Question: you said they have been scrambling around to raise the Money. Is this fact (I could well have missed this as I haven't read every article), or your interpretation of what you've read?

 

Yes but all the noise from the Liebherr camp was that they would only sell to the right person willing to invest more than they were willing to (which has been pretty significant amounts), and someone who is taking out loans to buy the club doesn't strike me as someone with bags of money waiting to be thrown into the club. I do agree with FLT that I think they will try and raise our profile in China, but I'm sure anyone taking over the club would have raising our profile globally high up their "to do" list. But anyway we can't do anything about it and who knows it may turn out a good thing, but atm their isn't any real sign of this being a step forward.

 

So nothing suggests KL has been operating in anyone's interests but her own? But nothing suggests otherwise either. You seem to be assuming that she has decided to serve no one's interests but her own, but you have no evidence for that assumption.

For the record, I'm less than enthusiastic about this takeover; I'm very happy with the way club's been run since 2009, & my ideal scenario would be for that to continue. But I'm not going to start making assumptions about people's motives, or the values that may or may not guide them.

As for KL, she has at the very least earned the right to a bit of trust.

 

If the figures bandied about (£200 million etc) are correct for around 80% of the club. Doesn't anyone see this figure as being a bit high?
Surely if Katrina is going to sell such a large stake in Saints it would only be to someone who would invest in its future? I E someone who can actually invest more than she can (or wants to)?
What would be the point of getting new investors if not? I suppose then that brings into the question her motive for getting rid of her main share in Saints?

I guess what is getting at me is my family motto............If it sounds to good to be true............then it usually is.............

 

Thanks Fran. Looking at both sides.

Schad mentioned that he thinks Katharina is only wanting to get the most money she can and that she is possibly staying at the table to maximise that. This is where I find it odd that he is so adamant that she only wants the most money regardless of how it leaves Saints, because surely if she is leaving herself at the table, she must feel confident that the new majority shareholders will be doing things well for the future of the club. Anything other than that, she is jeopardising her 20%.

This may be better worded in a pub!

 

As with a lot of discussions on here to be honest!

I've had plenty of debates on here that have taken ages to resolve which would have been done in 5 minutes in person

 

She doesn't have to sell to someone who will invest. There isn't really a question on her motive: she wants to release her asset for money.

The question seems to be around whether she is genuinely considering the type of new owner or just grabbing the cash. The fact she seems to be keeping a stake suggests to me that she is caring about the intentions of the new owner. That doesn't necessarily mean one that will invest heavily.

We don't know their plans or the discussions had around the table.

 

That's the nature of a forum though.

 

.

 

I'm not saying that she's wholly unconcerned with the club, just that, when a large sum of her money or an asset that represents such is involved, she is likely to be more concerned with that large sum of money than she is the club. If she had wanted to maximize the pool of aspiring owners to find the absolute best for us, she could have easily converted the debt to equity and still walk away with an enormous profit. She did not. Not many people would alter the ordering of those two considerations, for that matter.

Regarding the 20%, it's not an uncommon state of affairs; debtholders generally like to be stakeholders. They don't need to do particularly well...just avoid running the club into the ground over the next two seasons while her debt is being settled, or until they scrape together the money to buy her out.

 

The Leihberrs have put a lot of money in, but Kreuger said recently that Katharina didn't want to put any more in. An article recently indicated that she is not as wealthy as often quoted and Saints represent a large part of her cash....and she may have other plans for it (after all she never intended to own a football club). We are unlikely to make the next step to being a global superpower without investment. Yes, Leicester won the title, so theoretically we could in a very good season....but that is a one off...our plan is to compete every season and not have our best players sold because we need the money to balance the books.

We have to just hope that she gets it right....once sold, our future is unknown. She may be keeping the 20% so she has some input and link to her father's legacy or perhaps she sees us as a good investment if our future is good....or perhaps Lander cannot afford to buy it all. I suspect that she just can't bear to let it all go when Saints are connected with some happy memories, but needs to free up most of the money tied up in SFC. Fingers crossed everyone.

 

I am seeing Liebherr staying in for 20% as a sign it could be a step forward. She must think it will be or why else would she keep 20%. She isn't going to get more money back from that 20% if it isn't a step forward.


I come back to the same point every time on this. That family and its advisors are successful business people (or so it seems), so I read her keeping 20% as a sign that there is better to come. If she wasn't keeping a share, she would put her hands out for he most money now and could do that without looking at their future plans. To keep 20% she would have asked about the future and seen the plans AND financing, unless this Swiss family has suddenly become wreckless with money.

 

That's fair Schad. The reason I kept questioning is because twice you said she was only interested in herself and the money. Now you have said about the club too.

You could be right on the 20%, but from what I've seen and the fact they are Swiss (purely my conjecture here) I suspect she wouldn't take that risk on the 20%. Just my thought and enough for me to show a balance on my view, where you said there want anything to balance off against.

 

I've said (now and in years past) that, push to shove, if given a choice between her money and the club, she'd choose her money. And I think she has here.

And with the 20%, one thing to consider is that it's worth less on the open market than the other 80% she sold; if 80% was worth 210m, that suggests a total valuation of 260m-ish, but that 20% likely wouldn't actually fetch the other 50m. Ownership of the club isn't fragmented as it is with some other clubs; there's no means to use it to attain the 30% threshold to tender a takeover bid that way, and while it comes with a seat on the board it doesn't come with any real influence over the state of the team.

 

Ok I can understand why she might want to rid herself of the bulk share in Saints..........However if the new shareholders are going to invest in the club then she will still have to be responsible for 20% of that investment? (Assuming she holds 20%) So if they decide to invest big could this make things difficult for her?
Again more questions than answers.........

 

So no one knows wtf is going on, right?

Righto. I'll go back to worrying about my own mortgage then.

 

What do you mean?

That 20% will give her little (if any) say on what happens in terms of decisions etc. and she wouldn't have an obligation to match (% wise) what they invest.

Well as far as I'm aware anyway.

 

This is it. A large lump of her money is tied up in the business. Also a large lump of her heart. Keeping 20%, means she can get to the money and also keep her heart in it.

If my father had left me a business (he is still around, but i doubt he will as he is retired ), I would have some emotional attachment to it, but I would also eventually want some of the money - especially if the business wasn't really my bag. I know it is her thing now, but I can't imagine her growing up as baby Liebherr and saying "oh I hope daddy buys a football club in England and leaves it to me".

With regard to financing it with debt, that doesn't really worry me personally to a certain extent, providing the figures add up. As some have said, I have a mortgage and a car and maybe a credit card or two. Put all that debt in a lump sum, ask me to pay it back in one hit...I could if I sold the house and the car. BUT, my income finances the debt and a little more for the things I like. The problem arises when the debt is well over 100% of the assets and the income starts to dwindle. So provided we keep getting more valuable as a club and stay in the Premier League, it shouldn't be a worry.

But it isn't a worry as I can do nothing about it, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the ride

 

When push comes to shove, it will always be money over club. I don't think anybody thinks differently.

Although what you've then written on the 20% all is good and correct, I still see her retaining 20% as a positive sign for the future, otherwise I don't think she'd bother (and yes, I've considered the option of them not being able to buy her all out yet). That's purely my positive outlook talking though.

 

The ability to buy a white away shirt would be good too!