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?
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 .
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!
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??
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.