Apparently we can't sign anyone until the takeover is ratified..? So a real chance of not having it completed before the window closes? Surely the PL can recognise the situation and speed things up?
Some in the bag, some we're waiting on. Some we'll sign we probably couldn't have imagined considering until after monday - for better or worse. It's a constipated window for all so far. Expect a splurge before wednesday .
Stand off generally between clubs and agents regarding who should be the ultimate financial beneficiaries of the improved tv deal.
2 parties have to get their representatives to agree - investment/de-investment affects the final value of the sale transaction. Terms are now set in stone however.
If Hull City AFC has 100m cash in the bank (hypothetically) and then buys players valued at 50m, the value of the club does not change, they just now have an increase in player assets of 50m and a decrease of cash assets by 50m.
Which party is making the valuation of player purchases/sales ? Do both sides agree (Allams & (as yet unapproved by PL) new owners) ?
Doesn't matter? If you spend X amount on a player, that is their value. We have a certain amount of assets in cash, if we transfer that asset into player value, the value of the club doesn't change. Only if one of the Allams or the Chinese put their own money into player purchases.
So if the current owners spend 50 m on players before the PL approval of the potential new owners, and these potential new owners do not think the 50 m is a wise spend (for arguments sake think it's 20 m too much !), will they see their offer as getting less value than they thought they would ? If they baulk, will the Allams still sell ?
The current owners aren't the ones spending money on players, the club is. Both new and old owners have to sign off on player transfers for this exact reason.
Well it's the clubs income, not the owners money. The Allams don't own Clucas, for instance. Corporate veil and all that.
That's the corporate veil that means that the Allams can loan the club money as they are separate legal entities. The veil is not an entity, the veil is a legal concept.
You don't say. So the new owners are buying the corporate veil. New purchases will come under the corporate veil. There's an expected incoming cash flow of (what 100 m from the TV/PL deal) expected. Any new purchase need to be approved by vendor & (unapproved yet) purchaser. I suspect the asset value of this corporate exchange may be adjusted if there's any difference of opinion between the Allams and the new potential owners in potential signings - otherwise we'll miss out on them.
The corporate veil is not something that can be 'bought'. I'm not sure you understand what it is. The corporate veil is the legal term that refers to the fact that an owner and a company are separate legal entities.
Bottom line, short of both parties agreeing to borrow money to fund transfers, or invest owners' equity - which again, both parties would have to agree to - the value of the club would not change. And IF both parties agreed to the increased funds that alter the value of the club, obviously neither will get cross as they agreed to it.
I fully understand that. I've been involved for the last 30 years in corporate M & A's. I'm trying to understand why you seem to be convinced that the asset value of the sale (more the "price") may not be affected by ins/outs.
If you've been involved in corporate M&As for the last 30 years I'm concerned by your notion that you can 'buy' a corporate veil, or that transfers using club funds would affect the value of the company.
Your introduction of the corporate veil was a red herring. Hence my comments. The value of the company to the purchaser or seller may change based on activity between offer and final agreement.
