Gold and Sullivan ???

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: bristolhammerfc, sicknote, -DL-, Rio, Gnome, chalks, the pink palermo

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Fishdo on Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:34 am

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...
Fishdo
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:48 am

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
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 18621
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The one who searches and destroys

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby ToiletDuck on Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:56 am

wish the fans would have been offered the shares
User avatar
ToiletDuck
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby the pink palermo on Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:09 am

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
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 38997
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Sexy football not sexist football

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Doc H Ball on Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:13 am

I wonder why Sulli didn't buy them?
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 9006
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:15 am

PP :thup:
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 18621
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The one who searches and destroys

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby the pink palermo on Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:19 am

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
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 38997
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Sexy football not sexist football

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Macca1973 on Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:33 am

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
Macca1973
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:39 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Peaches on Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:51 pm

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.
User avatar
Peaches
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:19 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Fishdo on Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:34 pm

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??
Fishdo
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Hammer1972 on Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:02 pm

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...
User avatar
Hammer1972
 
Posts: 3722
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 8:18 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby HammerMan2004 on Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:27 pm

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
HammerMan2004
 
Posts: 20771
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: I have no idea.

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:56 pm

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
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 18621
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The one who searches and destroys

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Side of Ham on Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:17 pm

Top businessmen these two.....
User avatar
Side of Ham
 
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:30 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Diogenes on Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:52 pm

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
Diogenes
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Believer on Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:42 pm

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
Believer
 
Posts: 5178
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby e-20 on Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:47 am

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
e-20
 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:01 pm
Location: London ish

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Wembley1966 on Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:37 am

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
Wembley1966
 
Posts: 5655
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:15 pm

Cheers Wembley, that's the one.
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 18621
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: The one who searches and destroys

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby DaveWHU1964 on Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:43 am

Diogenes wrote:At this point in time they are more 'leech' than benefactors.

Like attracts like.
User avatar
DaveWHU1964
 
Posts: 10983
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Billydinho, Doyley72, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], horsham_hammer, kosherhammer, Lt. Discussion, Nawtle Iron, nickkarkie, Paddy O'Hammer, student_hammer, Tristan Shout, WestHamByTheSea and 54 guests