Late David Gold, Sullivan and Brady

The Forum for all football-related discussion, including West Ham United FC. Our busiest Forum and the place to begin if you're new to KUMB.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
Fishdo
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:23 pm
Has liked: 105 likes
Total likes: 33 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Fishdo »

The Old Man of Storr wrote:
I think I read Chalks posting about us being skint once or twice as well .
Not sure about you mate ... but when Chalks was saying that back before window opened was hard to believe that was until the window shut..!!!

But to hear that overall since they took over at Birmingham and are now with us they have a total net spend of £4milkion ....

That to me was totally unbelievable... but given the source was right on the shares purchase you can only assume that total spend comment is true...
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
Posts: 32135
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Care home dodger
Has liked: 1788 likes
Total likes: 2072 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Johnny Byrne's Boots »

The Old Man of Storr wrote:
With 10% of the shares he can make a little bit of money for himself , that would be my guess .
Only if the company declares a dividend. Does West Ham? I suppose he could jump aboard the seven percent gravy train, but couldn't he do that without being a shareholder?
User avatar
ToiletDuck
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Worcestershire
Has liked: 4 likes
Total likes: 62 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by ToiletDuck »

wish the fans would have been offered the shares
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45056
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 759 likes
Total likes: 2939 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by the pink palermo »

With regards the change in shares .

No money has been put into WHU as a result .An Icelandic investor has sold their shares to an American investor .

The Icelandic investor may have made a tidy sum on the sale i.e the American has paid them more for the shares than they paid themselves .Or they may not .....

The American Investor does not get a chance to join the 7% gravy train unless he lends money to the club, which he would be incredibly stupid to do .

As a non executive director he is entitled to nothing other than perhaps a guaranteed seat in the Directors box on match day :when Gordon Mckeag sold NUFC to John Hall he insisted as part of the deal he could continue to have access to the Boardroom on match day. The first match following his selling up he arrived at the ground to be told he couldn't enter the room he always knew as the Boardroom .John Hall had renamed the toilets "the boardroom" and the old boardroom was something like the directors lounge .

Where he may hit pay dirt is if G&S sell up it's likely the acquirer would want 100% of the shares and he will make a stack of money then .He also now represents a complication to G&S when they try to sell up , a distraction they won't particularly enjoy .

For now though he gets nothing from the deal . Usamov at Arsenal has a far larger shareholding and gets no say nor a seat on the Board, executive or non executive .
User avatar
Doc H Ball
Posts: 14692
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:29 pm
Location: on parole
Has liked: 917 likes
Total likes: 1918 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Doc H Ball »

I wonder why Sulli didn't buy them?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
Posts: 32135
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Care home dodger
Has liked: 1788 likes
Total likes: 2072 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Johnny Byrne's Boots »

PP :thup:
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45056
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 759 likes
Total likes: 2939 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by the pink palermo »

Doc H Ball wrote:I wonder why Sulli didn't buy them?
The yank probably offered more , or better payment terms .

Plus ca change
User avatar
Macca1973
Posts: 8753
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:39 pm
Has liked: 1796 likes
Total likes: 1118 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Macca1973 »

Thanks PP for p*ssing on my strawberries :lol: I got excited when I read the story, thought it was the start of the 'something big about to happen' . Fair to say I'm not the greatest business mind!
User avatar
Peaches
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:19 am
Has liked: 90 likes
Total likes: 793 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Peaches »

There must be some reason why one of the World's leading investors bought Straumer's shares. Sadly we have to wait 4 years to find out.
Fishdo
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:23 pm
Has liked: 105 likes
Total likes: 33 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Fishdo »

I read today that G&S are withdrawing their support for the top six clubs regarding the apportioning of European TV money for the PL...

It seems we had agreed with the top six about them receiving the greater share of that tv money ...

The negotiations are due to continue but the report suggests that it is now unlikely that this increased portion for the top six will be agreed between all PL clubs or rather the 14 club approval needed..

It seems this euro money will bring more money to a pl club than the current domestic pot we already get...

If that’s true, I’d imagine that amount likely to come to each club will either equal or be more than what we get from Sky currently in the PL tv deal...

What I’m not sure about is why we would have supported the top 6 clubs claim for more tv money in the first place ....,

It seems odd to me for our board to be up for that... especially the amount being talked about that clubs like us in pl will lose if that is agreed..

Anyone got more info on this please?

I can’t think why we would have agreed to it at first unless we planned/dreamed to be part of that top six group in the next few years... I can’t see any other reason why we would support this idea unless any benefit from our support would be through some other means and given to us by one or all of those top six clubs??
User avatar
Hammer1972
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 8:18 am
Has liked: 57 likes
Total likes: 213 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Hammer1972 »

Maybe they actually realised that giving the top six more money now will actually make it even harder for anyone else to ever join them in the future...
Online
User avatar
HammerMan2004
Posts: 26788
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:01 pm
Location: I have no idea.
Has liked: 500 likes
Total likes: 1275 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by HammerMan2004 »

Giving the top six more money just gives Gold and Sullivan another excuse for being “priced out” of the “world class” players we’ll never stump up the cash for.
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
Posts: 32135
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Care home dodger
Has liked: 1788 likes
Total likes: 2072 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Johnny Byrne's Boots »

I saw a table on the BBC football website which listed the increase in income from first to twentieth place, and it was around tenth or eleventh which stayed the same, above that there is a graduated increase, below it they receive less,.also depending on position.

I suppose the board could fancy us finishing in the top half more often than not, so from that point of view it makes sense to support it.
User avatar
Side of Ham
Posts: 4546
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:30 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Side of Ham »

Top businessmen these two.....
User avatar
Diogenes
Posts: 5049
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:07 pm
Has liked: 432 likes
Total likes: 1144 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Diogenes »

Peaches wrote:There must be some reason why one of the World's leading investors bought Straumer's shares. Sadly we have to wait 4 years to find out.
Investors do this all the time. Its a speculative punt with minimal risk. They may or may not get more involved depending on circumstances. They also may or may not put capital into the club but only if there is a potential benefit for them. At this point in time they are more 'leech' than benefactors.
User avatar
Believer
Posts: 9150
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:35 pm
Has liked: 1389 likes
Total likes: 735 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Believer »

HammerMan2004 wrote:Giving the top six more money just gives Gold and Sullivan another excuse for being “priced out” of the “world class” players we’ll never stump up the cash for.
:thup:
User avatar
e-20
Posts: 2835
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:01 pm
Location: London ish
Has liked: 14 likes
Total likes: 4 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by e-20 »

Diogenes wrote: Peaches" There must be some reason why one of the World's leading investors bought Straumer's shares. Sadly we have to wait 4 years to find out.

Investors do this all the time. Its a speculative punt with minimal risk. They may or may not get more involved depending on circumstances. They also may or may not put capital into the club but only if there is a potential benefit for them. At this point in time they are more 'leech' than benefactors.
May be so, but I tend to side with peaches take for with all the talk out of the owners about the (non) 'future' and all that we know about the unexciting circumstances of the club, investing money into a 10% share that no one was queuing to take, based on all we know would be like investing in the Poole Chain ferry, an asset tied to its location and going no where fast. Easy to read too much into it, but as I said before, equally easy to read too little too. There may be a plan behind it or it may be purely a punt, but I suspect it falls somewhere in-between, based on information they have and that we can only speculate on that gives them a very good chance of substantial return in the future, be it in control or financial return.
User avatar
Wembley1966
Posts: 7730
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:48 pm
Has liked: 6 likes
Total likes: 124 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Wembley1966 »

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:I saw a table on the BBC football website which listed the increase in income from first to twentieth place, and it was around tenth or eleventh which stayed the same, above that there is a graduated increase, below it they receive less,.also depending on position.

I suppose the board could fancy us finishing in the top half more often than not, so from that point of view it makes sense to support it.
It's the top 11 that get more money - it's the big 6 that were pushing for the change:

Image

Part of the reason is that international broadcasting rights are becoming an increasingly proportionate part of the total revenues available for distribution. The domestic broadcasting rights have an element of them that are based upon league position, and the proposal is to do the same with the international revenues.
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
Posts: 32135
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Care home dodger
Has liked: 1788 likes
Total likes: 2072 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Johnny Byrne's Boots »

Cheers Wembley, that's the one.
User avatar
DaveWHU1964
Posts: 14873
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:14 am
Has liked: 1302 likes
Total likes: 679 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by DaveWHU1964 »

Diogenes wrote:At this point in time they are more 'leech' than benefactors.
Like attracts like.
Post Reply