Jump to content

Rumours of takeover/investment interest


eling-saint

Recommended Posts

Just listening to Sky Sports about the latest Chinese bid to sign Diego Costa from Chelsea, rumoured £80m transfer fee and £30m pa in wages so that makes £200m cost over 4 years.

 

Would it make sense for the Chinese to invest in a Premier League team recognised for developing young talent to become a feeder club for the Chinese market? Could it be that our business model will continue but we'll sell to the Chinese market to make money which will leave the club? or invested to make us stronger in the Premier League?

 

Totally unrelated, of course, to Chelsea dropping him this weekend in a row over his fitness.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be popular, but old Rupes only had the best of intentions for the club. Maybe unorthodox but not like Orange Ken. A bullet dodged.

 

Lowe's best intentions were reserved for his ego and share dividends - I can't recall seeing him at SMS recently so his love for the club is perhaps greatly exaggerated. Granted at least he achieved something with the stadium, unlike Orange Ken who was at best a chancer and at worst a money grabbing cvnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB Salzburg showing again in Germany this season you don't really need the history and culture.

 

Yes but RB Salzburg are embedded in a long standing European league and footballing nation.

 

The Americans after all these years, can only still attract big names in the twilight of their careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither did Brazil.

Eh? Football in Brazil started at around the same time as League football in England was getting going.

 

It's not like there had been 80 odd years of world cup tournaments and decades of established football traditions and culture before Brazil suddenly joined in.

 

Other than that, great comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe did a good job for saints all in all (with hindsight and on balance).

 

He got us the ground - without which we would never have been taken over as an "attractive investment". He also pumped money into and really established the academy into the force it is today. He also secured us european football.

 

It all went wrong in the end and the fall out wasn't nice... but he wasn't that bad a chairman in truth. Especially when you consider what else we could have had.

 

The turning point was the disastrous appointment of Sturrock. Had Lowe been allowed to appoint Hoddle in 2004 SFC would have continued its unbroken run in the top league, probably to today. Imagine it !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe did a good job for saints all in all (with hindsight and on balance).

 

He got us the ground - without which we would never have been taken over as an "attractive investment". He also pumped money into and really established the academy into the force it is today. He also secured us european football.

 

It all went wrong in the end and the fall out wasn't nice... but he wasn't that bad a chairman in truth. Especially when you consider what else we could have had.

 

Ok if thats what you want to believe :mcinnes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok if thats what you want to believe :mcinnes:

 

Lowe didn't put a penny into saints and took out millions in wages. He ruined stoneham as he didn't have enough money and he wanted more retail development than were in the original plans so it didn't go through. He was then in a mess and the Southampton council basically helped club out with the land. He was a complete disaster. Spoke to him many times and he didn't have a clue and really didn't care less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe did a good job for saints all in all (with hindsight and on balance).

 

He got us the ground - without which we would never have been taken over as an "attractive investment". He also pumped money into and really established the academy into the force it is today. He also secured us european football.

 

It all went wrong in the end and the fall out wasn't nice... but he wasn't that bad a chairman in truth. Especially when you consider what else we could have had.

 

You kinda missing out the bit where he took over an established Premier League club and left it skint at the bottom of League 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe didn't put a penny into saints and took out millions in wages. He ruined stoneham as he didn't have enough money and he wanted more retail development than were in the original plans so it didn't go through. He was then in a mess and the Southampton council basically helped club out with the land. He was a complete disaster. Spoke to him many times and he didn't have a clue and really didn't care less.

 

I know, you are preaching to the converted, you missed out the bit about the Academy was in good shape before he arrived, just look at Le Tiss, Shearer, the Wallaces.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't claim to be in any way an ITK, but I have just heard from someone I trust that the deal is done, announcement imminent.

 

Kat to retain 15%

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

Hi,

 

I've asked not sure if you saw it..or you don't want to say.

 

But all I want is a number 1-10 on how reliable this is who you heard it off?...

 

I'm not asking you to out the person...just need a number.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe didn't put a penny into saints and took out millions in wages. He ruined stoneham as he didn't have enough money and he wanted more retail development than were in the original plans so it didn't go through. He was then in a mess and the Southampton council basically helped club out with the land. He was a complete disaster. Spoke to him many times and he didn't have a clue and really didn't care less.

 

Lowe (like many who emerged in that era) was a complete chancer. He made the mistake of believing at the outset that the football business was easy, football people were impressionable oiks, and supporters were gullible idiots. Only about 25% of supporters are gullible idiots, which wasn't enough to save his reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe did a good job for saints all in all (with hindsight and on balance).

 

He got us the ground - without which we would never have been taken over as an "attractive investment". He also pumped money into and really established the academy into the force it is today. He also secured us european football.

 

It all went wrong in the end and the fall out wasn't nice... but he wasn't that bad a chairman in truth. Especially when you consider what else we could have had.

 

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment - that is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

 

You spend most of your time on here slating the current set up and their lack of investment and player sales, yet the bloke who swapped a couple of retirement homes for a football club, put none of his own cash in, sold every player (Including Le Tiss) that the bigger clubs came knocking for, and actively took money out through dividends is a freaking hero :) :) :) :) .... You couldn't make it up.

 

As for the academy, I am sure that Shearer, Le Tiss and Wallace brothers might claim that was already in place, but just in case you're not convinced, take a drive to Marchwood andsee what Academy investment really looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment - that is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

 

You spend most of your time on here slating the current set up and their lack of investment and player sales, yet the bloke who swapped a couple of retirement homes for a football club, put none of his own cash in, sold every player (Including Le Tiss) that the bigger clubs came knocking for, and actively took money out through dividends is a freaking hero :) :) :) :) .... You couldn't make it up.

 

As for the academy, I am sure that Shearer, Le Tiss and Wallace brothers might claim that was already in place, but just in case you're not convinced, take a drive to Marchwood andsee what Academy investment really looks like.

 

You'll have to refresh my ageing memory - who bought Le tiss from us then? My dim old brain thought he retired ��

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowe (like many who emerged in that era) was a complete chancer. He made the mistake of believing at the outset that the football business was easy, football people were impressionable oiks, and supporters were gullible idiots. Only about 25% of supporters are gullible idiots, which wasn't enough to save his reputation.

 

In the end, like most middling football clubs, we ran out of luck. This was combined with a series of poor managerial appointments and a bloated squad of average players. We almost had to go down to get rid of all the deadwood before we could rebuild. In the end Markus came along and rescued us, but we were very very lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we even turn down a blank cheque signed by the late Matthew Harding of Chelsea fame for Le Tiss?

 

IIRC it was before that - Branfoot wanted to swap MLT for Robert Fleck (their misfit big money striker from Norwich) plus a cash adjustment to Chelsea (if you can believe that!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment - that is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

 

You spend most of your time on here slating the current set up and their lack of investment and player sales, yet the bloke who swapped a couple of retirement homes for a football club, put none of his own cash in, sold every player (Including Le Tiss) that the bigger clubs came knocking for, and actively took money out through dividends is a freaking hero :) :) :) :) .... You couldn't make it up.

 

As for the academy, I am sure that Shearer, Le Tiss and Wallace brothers might claim that was already in place, but just in case you're not convinced, take a drive to Marchwood andsee what Academy investment really looks like.

conversely if Lowe hadn't appeared on the back of a motorbike we would have been left with Askham and cronies who kept Branfoot. I doubt there was another person around who would have got involved. There is no way of telling what would have happened, RL has been part of the rich tapestry of our club
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I've asked not sure if you saw it..or you don't want to say.

 

But all I want is a number 1-10 on how reliable this is who you heard it off?...

 

I'm not asking you to out the person...just need a number.

 

Cheers

Why on earth are you trying to quantify the validity of a rumour, except to decide whether you're going to pretend, as usual, that you knew something too

 

I've no idea if this will prove to be true. I repeat what I said originally: it was passed on to me by someone who could have a source (outside the club) and doesn't normally deal in spreading rubbish.

 

But I could be wrong to give him credibility, he could be mistaken or his source may be wrong. It's just stupid to suggest quantifying the probability of any of those. Only time will tell.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth are you trying to quantify the validity of a rumour, except to decide whether you're going to pretend, as usual, that you knew something too

 

I've no idea if this will prove to be true. I repeat what I said originally: it was passed on to me by someone who could have a source (outside the club) and doesn't normally deal in spreading rubbish.

 

But I could be wrong to give him credibility, he could be mistaken or his source may be wrong. It's just stupid to suggest quantifying the probability of any of those. Only time will tell.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth are you trying to quantify the validity of a rumour, except to decide whether you're going to pretend, as usual, that you knew something too

 

I've no idea if this will prove to be true. I repeat what I said originally: it was passed on to me by someone who could have a source (outside the club) and doesn't normally deal in spreading rubbish.

 

But I could be wrong to give him credibility, he could be mistaken or his source may be wrong. It's just stupid to suggest quantifying the probability of any of those. Only time will tell.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Is that a 6 then. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth are you trying to quantify the validity of a rumour, except to decide whether you're going to pretend, as usual, that you knew something too

I've no idea if this will prove to be true. I repeat what I said originally: it was passed on to me by someone who could have a source (outside the club) and doesn't normally deal in spreading rubbish.

 

But I could be wrong to give him credibility, he could be mistaken or his source may be wrong. It's just stupid to suggest quantifying the probability of any of those. Only time will tell.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

If I was trying to do that, asking this question would be a pretty dumb way of going about trying to actually do THAT wouldn't it

....don't you think?..

 

The amount of doubt I get.

 

I was asking because 15% is a very specific number and I **thought** the bid was about £60M BELOW what Liebherr was asking,

and I also **thought** that was flat out turned down.. so it's pretty interesting that 15% was mentioned as it would tie-in.

 

Other than that I don't know anything else about it and I'm as interested as anybody else, but for probably different reasons.

 

For all the doubters, I'm extremely close to one of the current regular first team players..read into that whatever you like.

(no I'm not his Wife or Girlfriend either)

 

Some flipping idiots on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was trying to do that, asking this question would be a pretty dumb way of going about trying to actually do THAT wouldn't it

....don't you think?..

 

The amount of doubt I get.

 

I was asking because 15% is a very specific number and I **thought** the bid was about £60M BELOW what Liebherr was asking,

and I also **thought** that was flat out turned down.. so it's pretty interesting that 15% was mentioned as it would tie-in.

 

Other than that I don't know anything else about it and I'm as interested as anybody else, but for probably different reasons.

 

For all the doubters, I'm extremely close to one of the current regular first team players..read into that whatever you like.

(no I'm not his Wife or Girlfriend either)

 

Some flipping idiots on here.

 

 

I wish there was a Like button........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was trying to do that, asking this question would be a pretty dumb way of going about trying to actually do THAT wouldn't it

....don't you think?..

 

The amount of doubt I get.

 

I was asking because 15% is a very specific number and I **thought** the bid was about £60M BELOW what Liebherr was asking,

and I also **thought** that was flat out turned down.. so it's pretty interesting that 15% was mentioned as it would tie-in.

 

Other than that I don't know anything else about it and I'm as interested as anybody else, but for probably different reasons.

 

For all the doubters, I'm extremely close to one of the current regular first team players..read into that whatever you like.

(no I'm not his Wife or Girlfriend either)

 

Some flipping idiots on here.

 

Boyfriend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheeeeeet I wished I was that informed as an employee when the board of the company was making decisions

Indeed. I'm sure the players are being consulted on ownership and kept informed of negotiations on a daily basis.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically says

 

BRIEF-Lander Sports Development to buy assets from controlling shareholder

 

 

With a PDF in Chinese... no idea what it's about tho

Ah. That was posted a few days ago - doesn't seem to refer to Saints.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently noticed that on 11th November 2016, 5 days before 'Southampton Football Club Limited' took out a new charge on 16th November 2016, 'St Marys Stadium Limited' satisfied a charge dating back to the year 2000. The 'persons entitled' to the satisfied charge was 'St Marys SPV Limited' (what does SPV stand for..?). All three companies are owned by Katharina Liebherr. Does this add another piece to the 'possible takeover' jigsaw or is it just 'business as usual'?

 

The 'St Marys Stadium Limited' charge:

 

e5CdOz26Khf-nJluLZg_e3pN4c5fDXgUBjRocmduNHcdGZ-Sf7wY__iO5bUrh_DznjsPZQGPWhY_mC-ZTqx0x3ThGsQPBuhiKNZ1Mnn5v6yo44ta2xioOtkaO7k7Gcol3XInq0qodu7K9emGrk-Vqajjx7O1tQxYHVbDXUCrYs0FJPbyG6XQs6WG_kFd8cT3z5t7rcbP67soT4B7oOsEzkbO6JrRqhainPwp4Ok745gg9wm3sAcnMJ6gCMKG-MPHiOFHIWTo_OBuDnC-BxrnQ5YZBWtidFCVaBYDXkXHXstasc6uHN4tOnty7BwtAQ3Jh--xfoEWEXGfG8gMyJPPvIktc7MuxIRXYBYk2fBkZxOmLu79Q98dj3oH6BTywZ9PNJzb078jH8cxH77VP6QnM5_Fbx7W7QRiU0XhMC1phE3EMXUWEPiKMf3QKsBlIGAOhdxHj6vfrI_a_7gJFGh8SD18gug4kuCfy5_Y3RgvQOksfN7YqOLxjCSlvy97WILIRT-q5CqpmnY3habahMlf8sWDkHcu3h4G4QWV8HzziXSJnoNx02ZJTAvfh49vqs7oMT88UPT9AtNX0ErC8sGzo7XxR6ABAHLX3IiJuP7aXwlQ69V0Ahlv6A=w873-h893-no

 

 

 

A reminder of the new 'Southampton Football Club Limited' charge:

 

2nAZBokL2cItt6lgioxZySsxDJ8Tgqewz5TEKPu4DCcOT_bj62n1oerCPdcGwKvvVFygNZa09afv_E_VuaSXyL9kH2UkACmA5Rg_hU3PCdaF4NpGlLMjXKq70Cr6jwgEskLzWdSXo6A36j_YGH5k8ZzOHMOGO-vatgKwEUuF0rogS8G0SXixKpMfW8Fa11WJQn0BBvb_dMFI9Gn_t9Vj4rEL5H_Jr6IoisiNKFbiBt9jkHUs3W-iOEnpTQ8iBK5e0YJmDyGDRrmpF1vM1dNDlGx39P1Z5Z84ruYxaJ64e0hcqdw-SvDeu4JrxyGBVA-H-VwBq_XKngJGHw6WHNOuKCaXyUK1gVElyErsVuxDX0jRW8mVWgGifCO_U1iIY1OOKskrYrCocdMvz-rq4gIWFJAowoBBvFOZY-JzVz1iV0o8o2ValSgGfw8dVELp9Pkv36pq5qv6lQ5enzC3mBdxa0nImzG1UhLyI5J2PfD6S9lnUeqF7Py4RdfRHpn-DjCjymWpuqctz4ULvmNzvgazqrKxcNtL1EzFasVOa0pXtX3yrFgMfgEPbc8aPmlc1fHmzYs7tR7R0Nzp0qnJkVj0O9RhseJh2dfTShL1PQHIeKYZP5AYKw=w859-h893-no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently noticed that on 11th November 2016, 5 days before 'Southampton Football Club Limited' took out a new charge on 16th November 2016, 'St Marys Stadium Limited' satisfied a charge dating back to the year 2000. The 'persons entitled' to the satisfied charge was 'St Marys SPV Limited' (what does SPV stand for..?). All three companies are owned by Katharina Liebherr. Does this add another piece to the 'possible takeover' jigsaw or is it just 'business as usual'?

 

The 'St Marys Stadium Limited' charge:

 

e5CdOz26Khf-nJluLZg_e3pN4c5fDXgUBjRocmduNHcdGZ-Sf7wY__iO5bUrh_DznjsPZQGPWhY_mC-ZTqx0x3ThGsQPBuhiKNZ1Mnn5v6yo44ta2xioOtkaO7k7Gcol3XInq0qodu7K9emGrk-Vqajjx7O1tQxYHVbDXUCrYs0FJPbyG6XQs6WG_kFd8cT3z5t7rcbP67soT4B7oOsEzkbO6JrRqhainPwp4Ok745gg9wm3sAcnMJ6gCMKG-MPHiOFHIWTo_OBuDnC-BxrnQ5YZBWtidFCVaBYDXkXHXstasc6uHN4tOnty7BwtAQ3Jh--xfoEWEXGfG8gMyJPPvIktc7MuxIRXYBYk2fBkZxOmLu79Q98dj3oH6BTywZ9PNJzb078jH8cxH77VP6QnM5_Fbx7W7QRiU0XhMC1phE3EMXUWEPiKMf3QKsBlIGAOhdxHj6vfrI_a_7gJFGh8SD18gug4kuCfy5_Y3RgvQOksfN7YqOLxjCSlvy97WILIRT-q5CqpmnY3habahMlf8sWDkHcu3h4G4QWV8HzziXSJnoNx02ZJTAvfh49vqs7oMT88UPT9AtNX0ErC8sGzo7XxR6ABAHLX3IiJuP7aXwlQ69V0Ahlv6A=w873-h893-no

 

 

 

A reminder of the new 'Southampton Football Club Limited' charge:

 

2nAZBokL2cItt6lgioxZySsxDJ8Tgqewz5TEKPu4DCcOT_bj62n1oerCPdcGwKvvVFygNZa09afv_E_VuaSXyL9kH2UkACmA5Rg_hU3PCdaF4NpGlLMjXKq70Cr6jwgEskLzWdSXo6A36j_YGH5k8ZzOHMOGO-vatgKwEUuF0rogS8G0SXixKpMfW8Fa11WJQn0BBvb_dMFI9Gn_t9Vj4rEL5H_Jr6IoisiNKFbiBt9jkHUs3W-iOEnpTQ8iBK5e0YJmDyGDRrmpF1vM1dNDlGx39P1Z5Z84ruYxaJ64e0hcqdw-SvDeu4JrxyGBVA-H-VwBq_XKngJGHw6WHNOuKCaXyUK1gVElyErsVuxDX0jRW8mVWgGifCO_U1iIY1OOKskrYrCocdMvz-rq4gIWFJAowoBBvFOZY-JzVz1iV0o8o2ValSgGfw8dVELp9Pkv36pq5qv6lQ5enzC3mBdxa0nImzG1UhLyI5J2PfD6S9lnUeqF7Py4RdfRHpn-DjCjymWpuqctz4ULvmNzvgazqrKxcNtL1EzFasVOa0pXtX3yrFgMfgEPbc8aPmlc1fHmzYs7tR7R0Nzp0qnJkVj0O9RhseJh2dfTShL1PQHIeKYZP5AYKw=w859-h893-no

 

Specialist Purchase Vehicle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently noticed that on 11th November 2016, 5 days before 'Southampton Football Club Limited' took out a new charge on 16th November 2016, 'St Marys Stadium Limited' satisfied a charge dating back to the year 2000. The 'persons entitled' to the satisfied charge was 'St Marys SPV Limited' (what does SPV stand for..?). All three companies are owned by Katharina Liebherr. Does this add another piece to the 'possible takeover' jigsaw or is it just 'business as usual'?

 

Edit: just spotted that the new charge was actually 'created' on the 4th November, not the 16th November (that's when it was 'delivered'), so my observation should've been worded thus:

 

I recently noticed that on 11th November 2016, 7 days after 'Southampton Football Club Limited' took out a new charge on 4th November 2016, 'St Marys Stadium Limited' satisfied a charge dating back to the year 2000. The 'persons entitled' to the satisfied charge was 'St Marys SPV Limited' (what does SPV stand for..?). All three companies are owned by Katharina Liebherr. Does this add another piece to the 'possible takeover' jigsaw or is it just 'business as usual'?

 

So, could/does that mean the new loan was taken out to satisfy the original stadium charge and, if so, could that be significant in the general scheme of things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})