Serious takeover talk

Agree with this mind, I'm very sceptical. If they take, let's say 40% of the club and also provide a loan that's one thing. If they aren't actually taking any shares at all at present and are simply going to become a creditor with a vague "maybe we'll take a share later" that is very concerning. What if Donald and co can't get us promoted (not exactly an outlandish suggestion)? Do they take the stadium? Could they, in theory, get control of assets and flog them for housing?

Not saying I think any of the above is likely, but I'd feel a **** load more secure if they actually bought into the club as well as loaning money. I realise many will just want them involved and I'll get accused of being a negative bastard but as you say this doesn't sound on the face of it any different to going to SBC. So they want to make decisions (wanting some of Donalds mates gone) and in return all we are guaranteed is a secured loan (no doubt with interest). I really hope I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here because this sounds very different to what was suggested. People may moan but I'd be interested to hear @Kittenmittons take on it!

 

Thanks for the explanation Nads. I know sod all about business deals!!

 

ShieldsBlackCat?

 

No, it will be very similar to Ashley by sounds of it. Hopefully not with an external loan party (a la SBC)

His funding is via a loan to newcastle (so was Short's to us for a long time) and it is secured against the club and it's assets. If the club can't pay, it doesn't matter, but what it does allow is for him to take money out in any year, regardless of profit/loss as he is technically a creditor of the club.

Ironically, it would be a reverse of SD's position, but certainly more altruistic and 'club first' in practice than SD's method, as it involves putting a lump sum down up front and then recovering it when the club starts making money again. It's far more in keeping with the spirit of an investment.

 

Yes and no mate, you’d have to do that every time you changed your mind about a post, which is more of a pain in the arse than deleting it

Cheers though.

 

Short had around 100m+ loan into SAFC at one point, he capitalised that debt (effectively wrote it off) for the good of the club. Ashley is still owed about 120m by the Mags when he sells, he gets that regardless of price. Donald is in the opposite position where no deal is good for him unless it makes a profit because otherwise he owes the club money that he hasn't yet paid it.

 

You will, no doubt, have seen them owner converted his debt to shares’.

This is basically what they’d likely do if they took ownership of the club.

For all that we know the potential of the club, and for all that clearly they see it, or they wouldn’t have been at the table to start with, the facts remain that there’s no guarantees around promotion and it looks like they can see, and are excited by the possibilities, but are also realistic enough to know there’s no given.

That’s smart, and that’s what Short didn’t have.

Did I read they are involved in an NFL club? Cos that’s a massive positive if I’ve not got wrong end of the stick.

 

I don't know why, but my shackles are well and truly up regarding these Americans..

 

Not that I'm aware of (and I definitely would be as that's my job), unless they're minority shareholders.

They do have a stake in UFC though.

 

Miami marlins baseball team as an investor through msd I think

 

The MSD loan to the Marlins is interesting. Its a clever way of potentially taking over the club on the cheap.
They have loaned them $175m with a fixed repayment in full plus interest in 3 years time
If they cant repay then they must repay MSD with equity in the club

No idea if this is the kind of deal they have done but

Sounds win win from the clubs point of view. But potentially not for SD.
If we are successful we just pay back the loan (unlikely we do this in full)). If we are not we get rich american owners or part owners. (or a mixture of both)

Sounds like a good way of getting money in now from the investors without them actually taking over straight away.
They maintain a healthy interest we have some cash to kick us on, they potentially come on board later.

The Marlins deal was MSD it looks like these chaps are doing individually but the process still makes sense.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...-to-short-the-marlins-and-jeter/#7ab4ad3438b6

 

Fair one. I dunno where I read it I can’t recall to be honest, and I’d normally have taken that in.

I may have imagined it...

 

They own a stake in a baseball team, the Marlins.

 

I reckon it would be a secured convertible loan at a fairly low interest rate, something like 2-3% rolled-up (added to the loan rather than payable as cash). So it doesn't add to cash outgoings, low interest expense isn't too crippling on the losses, and when FPP are ready to take over the loan + interest gets converted into shares. If it goes belly up, SD has to give up his share of the club and FPP get full control (or he has to pay them back). If it works, FPP have the option to buy SD out at the increased share value. Just a hunch!

 

Ah that may well be the one then.

Only American sport I’m interested in is the NBA so I wouldn’t know the team outside that and the MLS, bar the big, world famous ones.

 

Yeah, they have the Miami ???? In the states

 

I think it's the Miami marlins

 

Interesting. And absolutely a smart way of investing. Minimal risk but you’re likely to win on whichever outcome.

Dolphins is the Miami NFL team, of course I knew that, just had the wrong sport.

 

The only thing with this is trying not to get carried away and assume it's on yet. So much misinformation out there, most of it it passed on in good faith. I prefer it when there's more circumstantial evidence to back it up, so going to keep my head 50/50 for now.

If they do come on board on the basis stated, it's absolutely good news for us. The convertible debt is not an issue, and it gets us working as a proper club again.

I do worry that Parkinson came on though, if they're serious about all of this. Donald could have gone for a much better candidate, and I am a bit unsure why he wouldn't if he was confident of doing the deal.

 

It could be that the loan is intended to be converted into equity at some point in the future,at which point its' need for security will no longer exist.That makes it different from SBC.
I agree with you it sounds very risky,but unless and until we know the terms of the agreement,we're not to know. The risk I suppose will be if we fail to get promoted.....which will presumably be required in order to secure the further investment.....what contingencies are in place to cover that eventuality?
I'm guessing though.