S.A.F.C. - the future
- Thread starter alan reed
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
let the fecker keep his 10% if it gets it done
You'll probably get stick for that mate but it is a possibility.
He’s got an affection for a nice little payoff if we do kick on
Smug, you say part of the delay WAS Donald wanting to sell 90% of his shares etc. Has this now been resolved do you know?
Possibly, but more like he recognises the potential of the club, the potential of the people taking over the club and making the club successful.
In short, a nice pay day for him.
If it was resolved there wouldn't be the need for a delay so I'd guess not
Just might not be ‘official’ yet
That surprised me, I wagered Donald had no friends.
Awkward but not impossible to deal with surely.
Could the new owners not just keep issuing shares to recapitalise the club, providing funds for improvement? SD would then have the option of buying these shares at a price set by the new owners, which may be uncomfortable for him, or he doesn't buy any of the new shares issued and as such his % share holding will decrease. Hopefully to a point were the new owners hold 90% of the shares and then buyout other share holders, a bit like Quinny did with us when Drumaville were in charge.
Of course this pre-supposes that SD doesn't want a clause in the sale agreement setting a price for his remaining shares, but in 10-20 years time what he thinks is a good price for his remaining shares may not look quite as daunting. Indeed given his aptitude in business he may have to come back to the new owners begging them to buy his shares.
I should stress that I know nothing about Company Law, mergers and acquisitions and anything I have said should be taken with a very large pinch of salt
He'll be looking to hang onto a percentage in case we do get competent ownership that leads us back to the PL. Suddenly that 10% is worth £20m. It's what inherently makes SAFC a good opportunity right now for the right buyer at the right price.
It is not about an affection for the club it is about money don't kid yourself. He does not care about our club it has always been about money. He used the parachute payments to buy the club then said he would pay that money back. He then uses the clubs own money to pay this back. It has been about money from the day he bought our club and is still about money now
I'm not bothered if he has a stake as long as he is not on the board and not involved in ANY football decisions, including hiring and firing.
Which I think equates to 7.4% of the club?
If SD is insisting on keeping 10% (or less) of the share ownership of SAFC, any new wealthier owners will have to ask themselves what is SD bringing to the table.
He certainly will struggle to match pound for pound any new investment to get SAFC back up to the PL and he cannot claim to offer competent knowledge and experience of running a successful football club either.
He will be a parasite asking others to make SAFC a success whilst doing nothing himself hoping for a big payoff down the line.
I cannot blame any buyers not wanting him to be a freeloader on their hard work (even if they can afford it - the principle of it would be reason to say no).
He certainly will struggle to match pound for pound any new investment to get SAFC back up to the PL and he cannot claim to offer competent knowledge and experience of running a successful football club either.
He will be a parasite asking others to make SAFC a success whilst doing nothing himself hoping for a big payoff down the line.
I cannot blame any buyers not wanting him to be a freeloader on their hard work (even if they can afford it - the principle of it would be reason to say no).
I'm not bothered either, but my concern is that his wanting to keep 10% of his shares could be a deal breaker. If I was a potential buyer who was looking to get the club back to the PL and likely spend a fortune doing so, would I **** want some ****er who has failed miserably hanging on with a good percentage of shares just in case my hard work paid off. It would likely appeal more to people who can't really afford to run the whole club (exactly the kind of people we don't want). The bloke, imo, is a danger to our chances of ever progressing.
Sorry for the delay, we're on a walk and Mrs Smug gives me hell if I post
Yes, the lad says they refused to do the deal if he insisted on caveats and retention of shares.
Please don't ask me to explain anything, I'm just repeating stuff ...
... I'm quite a smart bloke but very poorly educated