shurlock

Glad you've shown some concern for fellow Muslims in the Middle East who have been killed by these sickos - from your posts, 'updates' one could be mistaken for thinking that it's only Westerners in European cities who matter. Good lad.

Don't get your knickers in a twist pal. I have no reason to distrust the Times article - it has a good reputation for business journalism. So what if nobody is picking up the story - the complex financial arrangements of a provincial PL football club are flotsam and jetsam in the ocean of news and of scant interest to the average punter. Let's be clear: people have some concerns about a fella that as admitted multiple bribery offences and the fact that ownership rules were subsequently changed because the league had no grounds to block him. That may just be a cost of doing business in China; but it shouldn't be swept under the carpet. Likewise some of us have good contextual knowledge of China -unlike it seems some of those of who are blandly parroting the club line such as growth opportunities in China. I can tell you, even now, that the deal will virtually zero impact on our standing in China. For what it's worth, outside observers (see Mark Dreyer etc) with no emotional connection to the club also believe the deal raises various red flags. Of course, it's too early to say whether the deal will be good or bad for the club. As a result, very few here have made bold, categorical statements or slammed the deal. And of course nobody wants it to turn out badly or is ungrateful for Liebherr's past services. Still there's no harm in asking questions or maintaining some healthy scepticism.

Read Joshua Green's book 'Devil's Bargain' on Steve Bannon last week - well worth reading. Latest reporting suggests that Bannon and secretive, hedge fund billionaire donor Robert Mercer have been plotting next steps to ramp up the global populist nationalist movement. Suggests he's looking beyond a retrurn to Breitbart which either way intends to go 'thermonuclear' against the closet Democrats and globalists in the White House.

Steve Bannon - RIP the best red nose in the White House. We're all in Gary Cohn's hands now. #draintheswamp

Nothing we didn't already know: https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

Trousers, you must be devastated. No gallery of your favourite Brucey-themed memes and jpgs? R.I.P.

Who knows what this fella is worth. Chinese data is a hall of mirrors. Like you I saw the Daily Echo story, though he doesn’t appear in the latest Forbes List Of China's 400 Richest People (with a reported £1.5bn, he should do). Either way, I’m sceptical of estimates calculated on the basis of shareholdings and other forms of public information as Forbes and others do. Many rich Chinese, especially proprty tycoons are like bank executives who held shares in banks in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis. Shares have soared, propelling them up the ranks of rich list, even as their companies have accumulated more and more debt. That’s particularly true in China where stock markets are still young, less liquid and have casino characteristics. Its not unknown for billions in paper wealth to be made and wiped out in days. Gao has most of their fortune in real estate – adding to the volatility and uncertainty of his wealth. If you think prices are stretched here, go to China, though in a country where the state is ultimately both the main creditor and debtor and debt can keep getting consolidated, rolled over and shoved under the CCP's bigger budget, I’m sure the music will keep playing for a while. Still the music won't play forever - as one leading Chinese official puts it the economy has been ‘kidnapped’ by the property bubble. On one level buying an overseas football club represents a useful form of diversification, if you can get your money out of the country. Am sure Gao is very smart but he’s followed a similar route of many rich Chinese who are ex-army. They have taken advantage of political contacts to secure monopolies and other market privileges. Perhaps he’s good at navigating a highly opaque and corrupt system; but that doesn’t make him an entrepreneur or businessman in the way either you or I would understand the term.

Touch a raw nerve pal?

He may have assets in Macau (the gambling, money laundering and currency flight capital of China which makes Mos Eisley Cantina in Star Wars look like a Vicar's Tea Party); but The Times states that he has brought in at least three investors from Macau, so it may also be their assets. The difficulties and complications of moving money overseas cannot be stressed enough. https://www.ft.com/content/2809e6e0-33c2-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

Who, here, has said that they have done so? Assuming the loan is against Gao's assets, I'd speculate that he has few assets outside China (they're bloody difficult to shift) and that's why he brought in other offshore investors. I'd also speculate that the capital and collateral they've put up is very little relative to the size of the loan which will be reflected in higher borrowing costs.

My understanding is that Lander has only just entered the sports market -and his assets are nothing to write home about (a women's football team sponsoring basketball tournaments etc). In their crazy rush to buy foreign assets e.g. chicken suppliers and iron ore miners buying video games developers, Chinese businesses have been inventing synergies that often barely stand up to scrutiny. Not saying this has happened here; but the government -rightly- has become concerned about the justification for buying trophy assets. Frankly there is no brand value in Southampton in China: nobody follows or is likely to follow Southampton as a result of this transaction. Most consumers follow the big clubs -and even then tend to lump the big English clubs with the other big clubs from Spain, Italy and Germany, happily switching and mixing loyalties as they see fit. Likewise to the extent loyalty exists, it is to star players, not clubs. The idea that the odd Europa appearance is going to make a difference is wishful thinking. There maybe benefits associated with the Academy and the grassroots game in China but they are notoriously difficult to monetise and unlikely to move the dial. My guess is that their investment is a play on the Premier League's continued expansion as much as SFC. Like a property developer who'll buy a flat, install marble surfaces in the kitchen or a bit of wood flooring in the hallways before flipping it in a rising market, the owner may make a few cosmetic changes here and there but I don't see any long-term strategy other than keeping up in the PL. That the fella belongs to a consortium -with all the gridlock and disagreement it potentially brings- only makes pursuing a strategy with conviction more difficult. Of course, that might not be a bad thing if they turn out to be complete ingenues.

If the Times article is correct -that we have to sell to buy- not sure how this transfer fits in the scheme of things.

Disagree. We now have the complexity and incestuousness of a Chinese consortium. Further we will need to service debt on a hefty loan from a commercial lender (the choice of lenders being limited to offshore lenders in order to circumvent domestic restrictions). That's in contrast to the status quo ante where we borrowed a smaller amount of money from the owner, ostensibly on more generous terms. And the commercial loans we did obtain under KL, from what I recall, were secured against her personal estate. Agree, though, that Kat is smiling.

Yep bigly - I see he's peddling his general pershing story again.

I must have missed Catalonia's declaration of independence.

Drivel.

According to Batman who's intimately familiar with the gay scene in football, there isn't a problem. Hugo Scheckter is a self-indulgent virtue-signaller.

Not necessary Roger. One ALWAYS is enough pal.

Hopefully it is just that as it was the last time and the time before that you wound up making a tit of yourself. But this one doesn't look good.

What is it about this term that attracts so many halfwits? Can't we just keep it old school.

Charlottesville is being discussed on the terrorism thread.

In other deals (e.g. Wanda), the Chinese government has been telling banks not to allow clients to use their offshore assets as collateral for financing. It's a different world.

The article implies that the deal is almost wholly funded by debt (more so than the original deal that was 70% debt-financed). This would make sense given that the majority of Gao's assets are likely to be inside China and difficult to shift. And christ knows what terms he's borrowing on in order to skirt regulatory restrictions on outward investment.

Did anyone seriously think he would be back anytime soon?

Cowboys