Gao Family Partnership (80% Stake)

Right, I'm as concerned as anyone, and have been from the start. But the article only states that extra funds won't be made available DURING THIS TRANSFER WINDOW. But that's pretty straightforward, and as we'd expect. Don't get me wrong, I'm still concerned. But lets not wet our knickers over newspaper wording.....

Sounds about right because this window has about 10 days to run and if we suddenly tried to spend a packet it wouldn't necessarily be all that wise. Why we'd probably end up spending 65 million on Ross Barkley (injured for 3 months now) to show our intent.I'm already dubious enough about what we have bought and are apparently about to buy without clacking another packet on the spur of the moment.

First I'm sure Kat would have prefered Markusto still be running the club . It sounds like he was running part of the business (printing I think) for sentimental reasons which is why it soon got closed down when he died. Kat has kept Saints going since it fell in her lap so fair play to her , running a football club is a thankless task .

There are plenty of examples now and in the past of owners milking the club , selling off training grounds , spending loads of money then bailing out etc. On the whole Kat has done a good job.

Man U has struggled to keep up with the top 4 after being saddled with a massive debt , it is only now getting the required investment to start competing for a top 4 spot .

Debt is also seen by companies as a good way of saving tax etc . Trump has built a whole empire on debt and hasn't paid tax for years also refusing to pay back Deutsche Bank $3 billion when he couldn't afford to !! (settled out of court apparently) .

So thanks Kat , and for keeping a 20% stake to keep pressure on Gao.

I am not keen on being sold to the Chinese , they have been buying up large parts of the world inc large chunks of Africa to grow food for China . I feel it's abit like the rest of the world felt when UK took over large parts of the world and then again when USA did it .

Hopefully Saints will start scoring goals at home again and we can put all thisto the back of our minds (tiny or not).

Man U has struggled to keep up with the top 4 after being saddled with a massive debt , .

err, you what?

since the glaziers have owned united, they have won....

4 x Premier League titles

2 x FA Cups

4 x League Cup

1 x Champions League

1 x Europa League

1 x FIFA Club World Cup

also, was that another 2 Champions League finals and no doubt runners up in other cups

further more, I suspect they have finished runners up in the league a few times and broke the world transfer record

To suggest they have struggled to keep up with the top 4 is ridiculous.

It's worth pointing out that 'no extra funds this window' is a window where we've broken our record transfer fee, and since they took over have stated we won't be selling VvD, potentially turning down a world record fee for a defender.

General consensus from the media was that we wouldn't be splashing the cash, but are now a bit stronger financially than we were.

Also as has been pointed out elsewhere, it looks like their debt is secured against other assets they already had, and is theirs, not the club's.

We've seen first hand what can happen when ownership goes wrong, so it's right to be cautious, but I haven't seen anything that's actually happened to be concerned about yet.

It's worth pointing out that 'no extra funds this window' is a window where we've broken our record transfer fee, and since they took over have stated we won't be selling VvD, potentially turning down a world record fee for a defender.

 

General consensus from the media was that we wouldn't be splashing the cash, but are now a bit stronger financially than we were.

 

Also as has been pointed out elsewhere, it looks like their debt is secured against other assets they already had, and is theirs, not the club's.

 

We've seen first hand what can happen when ownership goes wrong, so it's right to be cautious, but I haven't seen anything that's actually happened to be concerned about yet.

It`s a specialised swf sport called "Jumping to conclusions" we have several gold medallists

It's worth pointing out that 'no extra funds this window' is a window where we've broken our record transfer fee, and since they took over have stated we won't be selling VvD, potentially turning down a world record fee for a defender.

 

General consensus from the media was that we wouldn't be splashing the cash, but are now a bit stronger financially than we were.

 

Also as has been pointed out elsewhere, it looks like their debt is secured against other assets they already had, and is theirs, not the club's.

 

We've seen first hand what can happen when ownership goes wrong, so it's right to be cautious, but I haven't seen anything that's actually happened to be concerned about yet.

I'm not bothered about the transfer window spending either and I'd probably be more concerned if he was saying, "we're going to spend loads this window now" as that's the sort of strategic idiocy you expect from West Ham etc.

Saying nothing has happened to be concerned about seems a bit Ostrich-like, however, when you consider:

1) The original investment vehicle could not finance the deal due to:

--- a) Chinese government intervention; and/or

--- b) a more fundamental lack of funds

2) The Premier League seemed to have some serious doubts about the chap's suitability

3) Initial reports on completion suggested the deal was paid for "out of his personal wealth", whilst subsequent reports seem to have confirmed that all the money was borrowed

* * *

Now, none of those things are "proof" that he is not going to be a good owner and none of them taken in isolation is grounds for a hysterical reaction but there are certainly reasons for a justifiable level of concern.

I'm not bothered about the transfer window spending either and I'd probably be more concerned if he was saying, "we're going to spend loads this window now" as that's the sort of strategic idiocy you expect from West Ham etc.

 

Saying nothing has happened to be concerned about seems a bit Ostrich-like, however, when you consider:

 

1) The original investment vehicle could not finance the deal due to:

 

--- a) Chinese government intervention; and/or

--- b) a more fundamental lack of funds

 

2) The Premier League seemed to have some serious doubts about the chap's suitability

 

3) Initial reports on completion suggested the deal was paid for "out of his personal wealth", whilst subsequent reports seem to have confirmed that all the money was borrowed

 

* * *

 

Now, none of those things are "proof" that he is not going to be a good owner and none of them taken in isolation is grounds for a hysterical reaction but there are certainly reasons for a justifiable level of concern.

It's 3 that concerns me greatly Benji and has done a lot of harm with the fanbase thus far that I'm not sure a few good results will erase. PL's governance has been appalling as well - they should never have approved this no matter how much KL pleaded and stuck to their original guns.

It's 3 that concerns me greatly Benji and has done a lot of harm with the fanbase thus far that I'm not sure a few good results will erase. PL's governance has been appalling as well - they should never have approved this no matter how much KL pleaded and stuck to their original guns.

Unfounded b0ll0cks. What harm to the fan base? How much did Kat plead?

And as for the three concerns

1. If the Chinese Government wanted toblock this, it wouldn't have happened. He borrowed the funds from a Chinese state backed bank in HK FFS. Plus he ain't just going to rock up and borrow £180m without the assets to back it. Very few, even wealthy individuals, have £180m hanging around in loose change. In fact, if Kat's loans have been repaid he potentially had to fund £234m.

2. The PL may have had doubts, but what ever they were have been assuaged.

3. As per point 1. So in fact there are only 2 concerns.

If you say so Batman ! I was remembering Sir Alex not having funds followed by the chosen one and the mad dutchman !

If you say so Batman ! I was remembering Sir Alex not having funds followed by the chosen one and the mad dutchman !

I do not say so, the facts say so

FACTS are you mad ????

Where did it say that the Premier League had serious doubts about the Gao family?

I've not seen that, and hopefully their solicitors haven't seen it either.

Where did it say that the Premier League had serious doubts about the Gao family?

I've not seen that, and hopefully their solicitors haven't seen it either.

It was initially reported he failed the FPP test I belive? http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/04/27/lander-grounded-saints-new-225m-deal-table/

I think then there were reports that he appealed and succeeded on review but I don't know if any of this was accurate or just paper talk.

Where did it say that the Premier League had serious doubts about the Gao family?

I've not seen that, and hopefully their solicitors haven't seen it either.

https://www.ft.com/content/5edd4f56-4d01-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43 Refers to clubs having concerns rather than the PL.

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/13/lander-back-frame-southampton-pl-clears-gao-240m-takeover/ Suggests Gao initially failed PL tests and had to appeal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/3422978/premier-league-blocked-gao-jisheng-200m-southampton/ Let's hope his lawyers never saw that one...

At the end of the day, he has clearly passed the tests now but it's still legitimate for fans to be interested in why the process appears not to have been completely straightforward.

At the end of the day, he has clearly passed the tests now but it's still legitimate for fans to be interested in why the process appears not to have been completely straightforward.

Please don't make better posts than me two seconds after me

Unfounded b0ll0cks. What harm to the fan base? How much did Kat plead?

 

And as for the three concerns

 

1. If the Chinese Government wanted toblock this, it wouldn't have happened. He borrowed the funds from a Chinese state backed bank in HK FFS. Plus he ain't just going to rock up and borrow £180m without the assets to back it. Very few, even wealthy individuals, have £180m hanging around in loose change. In fact, if Kat's loans have been repaid he potentially had to fund £234m.

 

2. The PL may have had doubts, but what ever they were have been assuaged.

 

3. As per point 1. So in fact there are only 2 concerns.

How do you know that it's unfounded? KL and Gao supposed met with the PL (according to reports) to persuade them that he was a viable buyer after he allegedly failed FAPP - alarm bells should be going off even amongst the most languid of Saints fans if even the PL had significant concerns (which allegedly from the articles they did). I don't know what they discussed in that meeting either but it can't be easily brushed away and a lot of people including me are concerned until we know more. I'm open to feeling reassured but at the moment I don't.

2. Given the PL allowed Pompey's buyers I don't take any comfort there at all in their competence or willingness to protect supporters and the game.

3. Let's see on the assets - I don't know what they are and neither do you. Remember, this was meant to be funded by Gao's own money - which hasn't quite borne scrutiny. So people are quite entitled to ask 'if that didn't match up, what else doesn't?'

I'm open minded but contingent on knowing more - whilst these issues remain opaque, I will be concerned for the future for SFC, as will thousands of others. There's always a few that won't question and just cross their fingers but that's more of a Pompey thing than our fanbase. People are saying stronger things on the UI.

No-one is saying he is as bad as one of the skate's past owners but given the sell was that there would be investment to sustain us in the top 10, this appears a stretch based on the information available, of which we'd like rather more of.

At the end of the day, he has clearly passed the tests now but it's still legitimate for fans to be interested in why the process appears not to have been completely straightforward.

Quite he has passed the tests but those articles at the time - which were posted from a range of media outlets widely on here and other sites such as the UI - caused concern and still do.

It's worth pointing out that 'no extra funds this window' is a window where we've broken our record transfer fee, .

Would we have done that if we had not sold Jay and Fonte recently?

How do you know that it's unfounded? KL and Gao supposed met with the PL (according to reports) to persuade them that he was a viable buyer after he allegedly failed FAPP - alarm bells should be going off even amongst the most languid of Saints fans if even the PL had significant concerns (which allegedly from the articles they did). I don't know what they discussed in that meeting either but it can't be easily brushed away and a lot of people including me are concerned until we know more. I'm open to feeling reassured but at the moment I don't.

 

2. Given the PL allowed Pompey's buyers I don't take any comfort there at all in their competence or willingness to protect supporters and the game.

 

3. Let's see on the assets - I don't know what they are and neither do you. Remember, this was meant to be funded by Gao's own money - which hasn't quite borne scrutiny. So people are quite entitled to ask 'if that didn't match up, what else doesn't?'

 

I'm open minded but contingent on knowing more - whilst these issues remain opaque, I will be concerned for the future for SFC, as will thousands of others. There's always a few that won't question and just cross their fingers but that's more of a Pompey thing than our fanbase. People are saying stronger things on the UI.

 

No-one is saying he is as bad as one of the skate's past owners but given the sell was that there would be investment to sustain us in the top 10, this appears a stretch based on the information available, of which we'd like rather more of.

I rest my case.

You don't come across as open-minded. You come across as taking tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo and using it to raise concerns (you're not alone in that).

I'm prepared to be open minded in that I don't know if it's good or bad. I'll wait to judge Gao by his own words and actions. I also have a degree of confidence in Kat and her aim to sell to the right party, and endorse it by retaining an interest - which incidentally by the sale price is valued at £35m-£40m. That is not an inconsiderable sum and it seems unlikely to me that she would risk that on someone she regards as a charlatan.

Time will tell I guess.

https://www.ft.com/content/5edd4f56-4d01-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43 Refers to clubs having concerns rather than the PL.

 

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2017/06/13/lander-back-frame-southampton-pl-clears-gao-240m-takeover/ Suggests Gao initially failed PL tests and had to appeal.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/3422978/premier-league-blocked-gao-jisheng-200m-southampton/ Let's hope his lawyers never saw that one...

I'm sorry butI failed my driving test three times before passing..and i've not had an accident in 15 years since. Sometimes it's better to fail these things a few times. Let's give the bloke a break, i'm sure he's a good lad.

To be honest, I feel a bit sorry for Mr Gao. Kat seems to have taken him to the cleaners. He's 65 now. I hope both he and his daughter are astute enough to clear their debts and see both Lander and SFC make progress. Chinese entrepreneurs tend to be very hard working and money and family are everything to them. In the Gaos we trust.

Thanks for that - I don't get to read stuff like The Sun very often so it's nice to catch up on proper news.

I rest my case.

 

You don't come across as open-minded. You come across as taking tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo and using it to raise concerns (you're not alone in that).

 

I'm prepared to be open minded in that I don't know if it's good or bad. I'll wait to judge Gao by his own words and actions. I also have a degree of confidence in Kat and her aim to sell to the right party, and endorse it by retaining an interest - which incidentally by the sale price is valued at £35m-£40m. That is not an inconsiderable sum and it seems unlikely to me that she would risk that on someone she regards as a charlatan.

 

Time will tell I guess.

If, as has been suggested, there's a defined, contractual timetable for her to sell her 20%, she'll be guaranteed that £52m anyway, leaving her with almost no risk at all, and the deal with the invaluable PR of having the safe, cosy European former owner sticking around a while until the new and unfamiliar owners get settled in.

I take your point that at this stage, nobody knows how it'll turn out - but all anyone else has been saying is that there are warning flags and historical precedents for why a deal of this nature could turn out particularly badly. To assume that things will probably be fine, in spite of several worrying factors, based on nothing more than your impression of the character of people you've presumably never met and know almost nothing about, is asking too much.

All of these concerns could've been assuaged from day one by the new owners giving a little more detail in their published statement. Instead both they and the outgoing owners dealt in fairly vague platitudes, leaving the full range of positive and negative outcomes firmly on the table. On top of that, as more detail emerges about the deal we're discovering that things are already not exactly as first described. A purchase funded with personal wealth becomes a purchase funded with loans secured on personal assets. A deal between friends becomes a deal between friends and an unnamed consortium from Macau. If nothing about any of gives you pause, I'd suggest you're being a touch naive.

I rest my case.

 

You don't come across as open-minded. You come across as taking tittle-tattle, gossip and innuendo and using it to raise concerns (you're not alone in that).

 

I'm prepared to be open minded in that I don't know if it's good or bad. I'll wait to judge Gao by his own words and actions. I also have a degree of confidence in Kat and her aim to sell to the right party, and endorse it by retaining an interest - which incidentally by the sale price is valued at £35m-£40m. That is not an inconsiderable sum and it seems unlikely to me that she would risk that on someone she regards as a charlatan.

 

Time will tell I guess.

well said , too many people go to some strange theories or conclusions, wait and see, you don't have a billion dollars so don't try to guess how they will spend it. Kat was ok, Reed seems the one doing the football decisions with his board. They are still here so business as usual, we MARCH ON!

If, as has been suggested, there's a defined, contractual timetable for her to sell her 20%, she'll be guaranteed that £52m anyway, leaving her with almost no risk at all, and the deal with the invaluable PR of having the safe, cosy European former owner sticking around a while until the new and unfamiliar owners get settled in.

 

I take your point that at this stage, nobody knows how it'll turn out - but all anyone else has been saying is that there are warning flags and historical precedents for why a deal of this nature could turn out particularly badly. To assume that things will probably be fine, in spite of several worrying factors, based on nothing more than your impression of the character of people you've presumably never met and know almost nothing about, is asking too much.

 

All of these concerns could've been assuaged from day one by the new owners giving a little more detail in their published statement. Instead both they and the outgoing owners dealt in fairly vague platitudes, leaving the full range of positive and negative outcomes firmly on the table. On top of that, as more detail emerges about the deal we're discovering that things are already not exactly as first described. A purchase funded with personal wealth becomes a purchase funded with loans secured on personal assets. A deal between friends becomes a deal between friends and an unnamed consortium from Macau. If nothing about any of gives you pause, I'd suggest you're being a touch naive.

But we don't have a divine right to know the ins and outs of Gao's finances, or the nature of the deal. Funded with personal wealth or loans against his personal wealth is, frankly, semantics and jumping at shadows. Even the wealthiest are unlikely to have £230m down the back of the sofa.

I've been involved in high level business for 40years and am, I promise you, anything but naive. I'm just waiting for the facts to emerge (if they ever do, which is unlikely) or I'll judge it on actions. Anything else is just howling at the moon right now.

Before, "Don't let this lot get their hands on our club".

After, "Give them a break everything we'll be fine".

Contrary bunch!

http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/chairman-gao-has-no-readies

In cash terms, he is worse than broke as he's got over £200 mill in debts to pay back to banks plus interest. It's going to tak him quite a while to get out of that mess, especially as the Chinese government are on his case. Other than selling Lander and SFC assets, there don't seem to be too many options available to him now. I wish him well and hope he can make a success of it somehow.

Southampton fans have contacted me to express their concerns that their new Chinese owner, Chairman Gao, has no money to invest in the club having borrowed large sums to acquire it. Given that from the perspective of now minority 'partner', Katharina Liebherr, the whole point of the takeover was to provide much needed investment, this has to be a concern. Instead of going to the next level, the Saints may find it harder to stay at the present one.

The £210m takeover was reliant on at least three other investors. Nanyang Commercial Bank, a Chinese-backed Hong Kong bank, is understood to have loaned Gao a significant portion of the purchase price. Several investors from Macu also contributed. Macau has an equivalent status to Hong Kong within China. A major gambling centre, the one time Portuguese colony has a somewhat dubious reputation,

Gao's backers are demanding on a return on their investment and will not grant him a transfer budget, so they may need to continue to rely on player sales. Manager Mauricio Pellegrino has been told that he must continue to sell players before he can buy. This may affect the club's determination to keep hold of Virgil van Djik given interest from Chelse and Liverpool.

In their most recent accounts for the financial year ending June 2016, Southampton recorded a post-tax profit of £4.9m, but that was reliant on the sales of Morgan Schneiderlin and Nathaniel Clyne for a combined £37.5m the previous summer. The Saints made almost £50m from player sales last summer and that will form part of their next accounts.

No direct quotes in that ?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/chairman-gao-has-no-readies

To be fair this article contains no facts at all to back up what it is saying. It might as well be a cut and paste from the Times article earlier in the week. It's a blog written by a Charlton fan - how would he have any ITK insight?

Southampton fans have contacted me to express their concerns that their new Chinese owner, Chairman Gao, has no money to invest in the club having borrowed large sums to acquire it. Given that from the perspective of now minority 'partner', Katharina Liebherr, the whole point of the takeover was to provide much needed investment, this has to be a concern. Instead of going to the next level, the Saints may find it harder to stay at the present one.

 

The £210m takeover was reliant on at least three other investors. Nanyang Commercial Bank, a Chinese-backed Hong Kong bank, is understood to have loaned Gao a significant portion of the purchase price. Several investors from Macu also contributed. Macau has an equivalent status to Hong Kong within China. A major gambling centre, the one time Portuguese colony has a somewhat dubious reputation,

 

Gao's backers are demanding on a return on their investment and will not grant him a transfer budget, so they may need to continue to rely on player sales. Manager Mauricio Pellegrino has been told that he must continue to sell players before he can buy. This may affect the club's determination to keep hold of Virgil van Djik given interest from Chelse and Liverpool.

 

In their most recent accounts for the financial year ending June 2016, Southampton recorded a post-tax profit of £4.9m, but that was reliant on the sales of Morgan Schneiderlin and Nathaniel Clyne for a combined £37.5m the previous summer. The Saints made almost £50m from player sales last summer and that will form part of their next accounts.

 

 

No direct quotes in that ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Who the **** is w.g and why would saints fans be contacting him ?

To be fair this article contains no facts at all to back up what it is saying. It might as well be a cut and paste from the Times article earlier in the week. It's a blog written by a Charlton fan - how would he have any ITK insight?

Try The New York Times instead: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/business/dealbook/china-companies-deals-debt.html

Try The New York Times instead: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/business/dealbook/china-companies-deals-debt.html

These warnings from the Chinese government on outbound investments aren't anything new. It's been going on for months. Doesn't really add anything specific as to the terms of our new partnership does it?

Who the **** is w.g and why would saints fans be contacting him ?

They won't have been and I doubt he actually knows anything about the deal short of reading what's in the press. I could have written that blog post by summarising what the Times reported and then adding on "oh and they might need to carry on selling players to make an investment return." It's hardly an insightful observation is it?!

These warnings from the Chinese government on outbound investments aren't anything new. It's been going on for months. Doesn't really add anything specific as to the terms of our new partnership does it?

You're right. I'm sure it will all be fine. I'm off to the Winchester to wait for it to all blow over.

Will the new owners be buying their own season tickets like Saint Markus & cortesse did at the start

Also were they in attendance yesterday?

Will the new owners be buying their own season tickets like Saint Markus & cortesse did at the start

 

Also were they in attendance yesterday?

Yes he was there. Wearing an under armor baseball cap.

Will the new owners be buying their own season tickets like Saint Markus & cortesse did at the start

 

Also were they in attendance yesterday?

neither had a season ticket

Kat was there y'day, that's a good sign

Yes he was there. Wearing an under armor baseball cap.

Did we ever find out who this was? Taken from Noah Liebherr's instagram from ages ago.

Enjoy this read.....or probably not actually....no huge revelations,but still,reinforces my concern along with many others....http://chinasportsinsider.com/2017/08/21/gao-jisheng-southampton-what-fans-can-expect/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Enjoy this read.....or probably not actually....no huge revelations,but still,reinforces my concern along with many others....http://chinasportsinsider.com/2017/08/21/gao-jisheng-southampton-what-fans-can-expect/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As you say, no real revelations, I suspect most, like myself, are just putting their trust in Kat Liebherr genuinely knowing something different and doing the right thing.

The Liebherrs and Gaos are obviously successful business people and buying SFC has proved very lucrative thanks to Markus' foresight and to Kat's benefit. I believe they've always wanted to make Southampton a success for the the fans but I still think the potential for development around the stadium was also a big draw. It's yet to come to that and I guess they've already done well enough to now move on and leave enough of a carrot for the future buyers where real money can still be made.

And I guess the Gaos have also acquired that potential goldmine of land at Jacksons Farm outside the city that the club own? It's probably not just about SFC.

Is anyone able to find Gao's website that is mentioned in this article? I wouldn't mind reading some of his poetry!

https://www.nst.com.my/sports/others/2017/08/270579/football-policeman-poet-farmer-%E2%80%93-and-now-southampton-owner

Presumably it may be in Cantonese/Mandarin of course.

Am I alone in thinking that now, more than a week after being purchased, that it is a little strange that we have still yet to see or hear anything from the new owner? It's like the takeover never actually happened. Or has he/they come out and said hello and I've missed it?

Am I alone in thinking that now, more than a week after being purchased, that it is a little strange that we have still yet to see or hear anything from the new owner? It's like the takeover never actually happened. Or has he/they come out and said hello and I've missed it?

Is anyone able to find Gao's website that is mentioned in this article? I wouldn't mind reading some of his poetry!

 

https://www.nst.com.my/sports/others/2017/08/270579/football-policeman-poet-farmer-%E2%80%93-and-now-southampton-owner

 

Presumably it may be in Cantonese/Mandarin of course.

http://gaojisheng.net/sw_detail.asp?id=118

This is the post mentioned in the article (in Chinese). Interesting that he was in Poole doing business with Sunseeker. Didn't we have a sponsorship deal with them at some point?

Just the most outstandingly good news. Great takeover!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10449153/filing-history

Allotted shares recently setup by Lander Sports UK