It could be a trust in his name, with either a board of members, or a single person with power of attorney.
So who authorised this then? http://http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/17547804 Anyone still thinking of KL as an asset stripper needs to look at this.
We will always have to sell players, but that need not be the end of the clubs progression up the league. You only have to look at the examples of Dortmund and Atletico Madrid who seem to sell there star player every summer. What's important is that the club control those sales and the sales never become an exodus. You need to keep the core of the team together because it's very difficult to form a team with 5 or 6 new players in it.
Great post Channon, I'm just not quite sure yet is the answer. All I do know is that from a PR perspective, the club needs to be doing something positive pretty quickly now.
Just to clarify, it wasn't a real name. It's a joke name. Quite a subtle one, and at the same time not actually that funny. At least not to my standards.
What I find extraordinary is that nobody seems to know who owns 50% of our club. In a case where there is exactly 50/50 division of equity, one party must be running it. I would assume that the other half is in trust for children? In any case, it doesn't really change my point that when the 33m debt was converted to equity, KL was effectively writing it off and any debt that the club takes on, she is effectively spending half the money, the other half of that liability probably being levied against family or others close to Markus..
KL has put money into the club....don't know why people doubt it. Doesn't matter if it came from her father...it's still her money now. I know it's an accounting thing, but I always find it hard to grasp that you own a whole club, yet you swap money for equity...in a club you already own 100%. Weird.
It makes it more difficult to recoup the money if you were looking to asset strip! A loan is simply repaid, to take other funds out before selling the business would generally need to be done via dividends, these are paid from distributable reserves (profits) so it theoretically prevents someone taking cash out of a business making a loss by way of dividends.
Chelsea's owner did the same thing. It is effectively gifting the money to the club. Hardly the action of someone who didn't care about the club!
