Yep. I'm thinking of sending my pass back cos the stripes on the new kit are too wide... We all have our line in the sand.
You totally miss the point. There are ways in which time can be saved and your comment doesn't address them. Of course any prospecrive buyer will do their own Due Diligence; I didn't think that needed explanation, it is so obvious. Where time can be saved on subsequent processes of Due Diligence is the preparation of answers to questions. For instance a list of assets might have to be prepared for buyer1, when buyer2 asks for the same information much, if not all of the information is prepared, so a response can be far quicker. Anyone who has been involved in selling a business with various properties and mixed, but acountable assets, will know the hoops and hurdles of detailed inventory; the saving is in the time it takes the selle to respond to the buyers questions. Of course a reckoning might not be accepted if it is too dated, which I don't believe will be the case at the KCOM. Just a plumbers view, mind. P.S. I still think the Dais are frontrunners, too.
Look at my response to OLM and you might realise there is more than one party involved who has to take actions to satisfy the Due Diligence; have you ever been involved in one?
There aren't actions to satisfy due diligence. It's entirely at the purchasers discretion what they do, and you never take or trust information from the seller if you can get it yourself. You always do your own research. You could chose to ask the Allams for documents. But at the price you pay you'd be an idiot not to pay your own lawyers to do it themselves. To be sure. It's like buying a house and looking for yourself.
The club will have made available all the documents required for this process.If indeed there are two sets of buyers they will have separate teams carrying out the process. They may have different check lists, depends on how process driven they are and how accountable. Some companies aren't very thorough, it's obviously in the buyers best interests to be thorough. But they are voluntary checks, and one company I used to work for - they were very acquisition centred and were fairly sloppy with the due diligence process. One chap in fmcg manufacturing was so desperate to buy a competitor manufacturing (which his grandfather had started from scratch) business he declined the opportunity to look at the books. He wanted that business almost at all costs - £48m he paid. Been involved in one? Yes one or two.
does anyone actually think anything will happen quickly now ? the window is closed , the club will be run as it has to be , don't expect anything before November and December ... its only August and January that matters now in football ...
Think you might have a point there, the WBA takeovers just been completed today, apparently its been on going for months the sale was agreed in June, but it was only given the ok today by the PL, the new owners are Chinese .
Thanks for telling me what I know. So you are agreeing that the answers, that take time to muster, may be used to answer someone else? They may not be used at all (very unlikely in this scenario), or they may be used selectively. In which case what i said was both true and accurate:
Do the Allams think they are on safe ground now... red cards Saturday...?... I wish they'd get it sorted, I said I wouldn't go to the KC until the Allams had gone and the rate this is going to be a while..
I believe they were bought for £150 million according to Talk Sport... I don't see Pullis being there long..
I don't disagree in principle, but in reality this can take various forms. For instance, let us say that the buyers want to know what medical equipment is at the club, KCOM and training ground, perhaps they might do one of these to get their answer: 1. Follow GLP's experience and ignore it and hope for the best. 2. Send in their own team to work with a club team and get their answer. (What equipment, is it owned or leased, etc.) 3. If there has been a similar question asked by another buyer and the seller knows there is multiple expeessions of interest, perhaps they might accept the answer they were given. I hope I don't need to point out that, perhaps, someone independent, a Chartered Surveyor, Solicitor, Accountant, basically someone with professional standing could compile and give qualified and trustworthy answers. Do you not agree this takes place and is a mutually beneficial timesaver? Of course, all of these various strands of information will, or should, fall under the seperate scrutiny of each prospective buyer's team of experts. I have never said that Due Diligemce would or should be given up by any prospective buyer; that was just folk not reading my post properly. You try and get back to me if you still disagree.
It's all about the balance sheet... and hidden debt or liability. Hidden being the active word. Assets and the obvious aren't really the Issue. Unless they are being horribly overvalued. It's about spotting the naughtiness and stuff under the carpet. Not the friendly things and the easily available info.
In that case you don't understand the point, or you don't understand how a seller can present required information for Due Diligence. I never said it would be the case in every scenario, but a real possibility that can and does save time. You have already given your own bizarre examples (which I believe) of extreme negligence in carrying out Due Diligence, so why are you so reluctant to believe that some organisations can adopt a structed and pragmatic approach to it that is far less extreme and a whole lot more profesional?
I have been the subject of seven due diligence processes since April last year. Although all carried out were precise in what they wanted to know they wanted different info. I tried to formulate answers to the questions I expected but ended up by doing them individually on a case by case basis. I pulled a couple of the sales due to my due diligence (I came to the conclusion they did not have the funds and the others were idiots. 3 pulled out early as they were not a match for my firm and the final 2 firms involved one wanted so much detail about things that didn't matter that a new firm came in and made me an offer that I couldn't refuse. Moral is stop fannying about but do the job properly. I found the whole process exceptional dull. By the end I would of sold to the allams just to finish with the boredom of it.
That's got nothing to do with my point, even though it is perfectly valid and I agree with it. I simply spoke of things, on subsequent sales that might reduce the Due Diligence period of the first prospective buyer's period of Due Diligence. The accounts will work on their investigations seperateky and, in the end, there will be a full asset inventory that will be incorporated into the final sale agreement. Again, are you teling me this is wrong?
