Jump to content
Delmary

Gao FT article

Recommended Posts

No Benji I am not confusing the black hole facility at all

 

Let me ask you these three questions .

 

1. What do you think the Bank has secured a 200 million loan against ? What else worth that money does Gao have ?

2. Affordability of Loan ? The Loan interest Only will be costing Circa 10 m PA if its int+ Cap over say 10 years then it will be 30 M....a prerequisite of underwriting a loan is that the client can afford the repayments .....where is Gao gonna get the money if not from Saints income ?

3. Securitization of repayments ......There is always another level of security on a loan to reduce the risk in the case of a default by the borrower this is normal. If a borrower had a monthly income from leases then the bank would lien against these in the event of a default ..... the only income they can do this against in this case is the premiership income.

All normal bank structuring and the only way Gao could borrow the money tbh as he has no other asset barr 24% of Lander sports

If we get relegated we have a huge problem

 

As has been asked before.

 

What is your source of info to confirm existence of this £200m loan?

 

 

As above, what proof is there of existence of this £200m loan, whoever it may have been lent to?

 

Also, what proof do you have of a Chinese national's assets (public or hidden, fixed or liquid) and their value ? What records have you been able to access to make that statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As above, what proof is there of existence of this £200m loan, whoever it may have been lent to?

 

Also, what proof do you have of a Chinese national's assets (public or hidden, fixed or liquid) and their value ? What records have you been able to access to make that statement?

 

 

If you Google New Southampton owner gets china backed funding you will find a bloomberg report , The funds were provided by Nanyang commercial bank backed by Mcquarrie Bank Hong kong.

 

The "Boss" company is Lander Sports investment co limited Hong Kong this is where liens and charges and the loan are registered.

 

Which owns the holding Parent in the UK ....Lander Sports {uk} international investment co Ltd 10449153 ( the accounts on this company are interesting reading) This company owns all the assets of Southampton football club and is 100% owned by Gao who is not a director.

 

184m was transfered in cash to purchase 100 % of Southampton Football club , maybe 240 M was representative to comply with 80% lend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you Google New Southampton owner gets china backed funding you will find a bloomberg report , The funds were provided by Nanyang commercial bank backed by Mcquarrie Bank Hong kong.

 

The "Boss" company is Lander Sports investment co limited Hong Kong this is where liens and charges and the loan are registered.

 

Which owns the holding Parent in the UK ....Lander Sports {uk} international investment co Ltd 10449153 ( the accounts on this company are interesting reading) This company owns all the assets of Southampton football club and is 100% owned by Gao who is not a director.

 

184m was transfered in cash to purchase 100 % of Southampton Football club , maybe 240 M was representative to comply with 80% lend

 

Interesting posts. So stepping back and assuming your thesis is correct, what are the main implications for the club and our ability to compete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you Google New Southampton owner gets china backed funding you will find a bloomberg report , The funds were provided by Nanyang commercial bank backed by Mcquarrie Bank Hong kong.

 

The "Boss" company is Lander Sports investment co limited Hong Kong this is where liens and charges and the loan are registered.

 

Which owns the holding Parent in the UK ....Lander Sports {uk} international investment co Ltd 10449153 ( the accounts on this company are interesting reading) This company owns all the assets of Southampton football club and is 100% owned by Gao who is not a director.

 

184m was transfered in cash to purchase 100 % of Southampton Football club , maybe 240 M was representative to comply with 80% lend

 

You have proved precisely nothing.

 

Just because £184m was transferred to purchase 80% (not 100% as you state) of the share capital does not mean £184m was borrowed.

 

It was always known Gao himself is not a Director (his daughter is).

 

Please advise what charges and liens are registered against the HK company and how they relate to SFC. I think we’ll all appreciate links and details rather than conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you Google New Southampton owner gets china backed funding you will find a bloomberg report , The funds were provided by Nanyang commercial bank backed by Mcquarrie Bank Hong kong.

 

The "Boss" company is Lander Sports investment co limited Hong Kong this is where liens and charges and the loan are registered.

Which owns the holding Parent in the UK ....Lander Sports {uk} international investment co Ltd 10449153 ( the accounts on this company are interesting reading) This company owns all the assets of Southampton football club and is 100% owned by Gao who is not a director.

 

184m was transfered in cash to purchase 100 % of Southampton Football club , maybe 240 M was representative to comply with 80% lend

 

Any security taken over the assets of Southampton Football Club Limited (or indeed St Marys Stadium Limited per Benji's comment above regarding stadium ownership) would be registered at Companies House against those companies though, not against the parent (be it in Hong Kong or the United Kingdom). Those companies would still own those assets regardless of the corporate structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have proved precisely nothing.

 

Just because £184m was transferred to purchase 80% (not 100% as you state) of the share capital does not mean £184m was borrowed.

 

It was always known Gao himself is not a Director (his daughter is).

 

Please advise what charges and liens are registered against the HK company and how they relate to SFC. I think we’ll all appreciate links and details rather than conjecture.

 

 

Go read the accounts for the Lander UK company before you tell me i am wrong ....it says very clearly 184 m for 100 % , also 20m in the southampton football club accounts was transferred to the parent company to pay a loan instalment go check for yourself , it matches up to the loan repayment listed in the lander uk accounts . The Lander Uk accounts list a 30 m plus profit also that was retained . Go on companies house and read it yourself .

 

The Hong Kong Company I have access to wordwide accounts and I can tell you it is the parent of the UK company and holds the debt of the loan and the charges ...I am not posting a link because its my company search account for underwriting and I pay for it ......go pay for a international company search yourself lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have proved precisely nothing.

 

Just because £184m was transferred to purchase 80% (not 100% as you state) of the share capital does not mean £184m was borrowed.

 

It was always known Gao himself is not a Director (his daughter is).

 

Please advise what charges and liens are registered against the HK company and how they relate to SFC. I think we’ll all appreciate links and details rather than conjecture.

 

Do you have reason to believe that the loan described by Bloomberg (and widely reported elsewhere at the time) doesn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go read the accounts for the Lander UK company before you tell me i am wrong ....it says very clearly 184 m for 100 % , also 20m in the southampton football club accounts was transferred to the parent company to pay a loan instalment go check for yourself , it matches up to the loan repayment listed in the lander uk accounts . The Lander Uk accounts list a 30 m plus profit also that was retained . Go on companies house and read it.

 

The Hong Kong Company I have access to wordwide accounts and I can tell you it is the parent of the UK company and holds the debt of the loan and the charges ...I am not posting a link because its my company search account for underwriting and I pay for it ......go pay for a international company search yourself lol.

 

Look, I, not an accountant and neither, I suspect, are you. I think we would all like to know whether what you say is correct or not.

 

The Holding Company acquired 100% of St Mary’s Football Group Ltd. Southampton Football Club Ltd is a subsidiary of St Mary’s Football Club, it’s not possible to tell from the public record what percentage of the shares in the football club is owned by St Mary’s Football Group Ltd, although it was widely reported the Gao purchased 80%.

 

When looking at the Lander Sports holding company, have you considered the the accounts filed are consolidated group accounts? The only loan I can see in the football club accounts is one which was subsequently transferred to the holding company and converted to equity - is that the £20m loan you mean?

 

Fine, don’t provide links, but just tell us all please what assets of SFC are charged to support the HK company loan. Also, I don’t doubt there is a loan, but can you confirm the HK company accounts show bank loans (ie not shareholder loans) of £200m as you stated previously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I, not an accountant and neither, I suspect, are you. I think we would all like to know whether what you say is correct or not.

 

The Holding Company acquired 100% of St Mary’s Football Group Ltd. Southampton Football Club Ltd is a subsidiary of St Mary’s Football Club, it’s not possible to tell from the public record what percentage of the shares in the football club is owned by St Mary’s Football Group Ltd, although it was widely reported the Gao purchased 80%.

 

When looking at the Lander Sports holding company, have you considered the the accounts filed are consolidated group accounts? The only loan I can see in the football club accounts is one which was subsequently transferred to the holding company and converted to equity - is that the £20m loan you mean?

 

Fine, don’t provide links, but just tell us all please what assets of SFC are charged to support the HK company loan. Also, I don’t doubt there is a loan, but can you confirm the HK company accounts show bank loans (ie not shareholder loans) of £200m as you stated previously?

 

I have confirmed twice now all assets and assets of companys owned by the Hong Kong company are charged ....that shouldnt be difficult to understand.

 

Also cash as in 20m was transferred to the parent where and how can that convert to equity it clearly states 20m was paid to a loan in the parent company accounts .

 

If you deal with these structures daily its not hard to work out how it happened and what happened it really isnt .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I, not an accountant and neither, I suspect, are you. I think we would all like to know whether what you say is correct or not.

 

The Holding Company acquired 100% of St Mary’s Football Group Ltd. Southampton Football Club Ltd is a subsidiary of St Mary’s Football Club, it’s not possible to tell from the public record what percentage of the shares in the football club is owned by St Mary’s Football Group Ltd, although it was widely reported the Gao purchased 80%.

 

When looking at the Lander Sports holding company, have you considered the the accounts filed are consolidated group accounts? The only loan I can see in the football club accounts is one which was subsequently transferred to the holding company and converted to equity - is that the £20m loan you mean?

 

Fine, don’t provide links, but just tell us all please what assets of SFC are charged to support the HK company loan. Also, I don’t doubt there is a loan, but can you confirm the HK company accounts show bank loans (ie not shareholder loans) of £200m as you stated previously?

 

 

I was just about to post a similar comment. The Lander accounts are for the whole group on the left, and Lander themselves on the right. I'm no accountant either but I think CM is confusing the fact the SFC Ltd figures are included in those group figures.

 

I can see that £184338M share capital was introduced into Lander. I can't find any mention in Lander's accounts of that coming from a loan. It may well have been a loan to Gao personally or one of the Chinese/HK companies but that doesn't show in these accounts. Agree it does show Lander as holding 100% of SFC and all the other subsidiaries not 80% (or does KL now own 20% of Lander?)

 

As you say a £20m loan was converted to share equity, think that was KL's final loan but could be wrong. Alternatively is CM meaning the £20.5m "other loan" which on page 4 of SFC accounts under "Liquidity risk" is clearly described as the usual cashflow loan (which I and others have previously referred to), subsequently repaid and then a new facility taken out for the coming season covered by a new charge. This is the one and only charge against the company registered, as has been done every year, but which CM is insisting covers the £200m loan. This £20.5m other loan also of course shows in the group accounts but not Lander's.

 

Hands up, maybe CM has got everything correct but I think it's a case of finding what he wants to find.

 

Still waiting for evidence of his claim for Gao's lack of assets . I see that question has been ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask the swiss rambler to go through the accounts to see if we are being mugged off

 

twitter = @SwissRamble hes done are accounts before in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have confirmed twice now all assets and assets of companys owned by the Hong Kong company are charged ....that shouldnt be difficult to understand.

 

Also cash as in 20m was transferred to the parent where and how can that convert to equity it clearly states 20m was paid to a loan in the parent company accounts .

 

If you deal with these structures daily its not hard to work out how it happened and what happened it really isnt .

 

Sorry, but I do deal with finance on a daily basis, and you’re mistaken and a few points.

 

The assets of SFC Ltd or St Mary’s Stadium Ltd cannot just be charged without registration at Companies House - or rather they can, but the charge is invalid if not registered within 28 days.

 

You appear to have been confused by the consolidated accounts. No loan has been transferred to the detriment of SFC Ltd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the 20m loan repayment was repayment of our previous working capital loan that Kat had underwritten. Repayment of that was part of the sale I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you Google New Southampton owner gets china backed funding you will find a bloomberg report , The funds were provided by Nanyang commercial bank backed by Mcquarrie Bank Hong kong.

 

The "Boss" company is Lander Sports investment co limited Hong Kong this is where liens and charges and the loan are registered.

 

Which owns the holding Parent in the UK ....Lander Sports {uk} international investment co Ltd 10449153 ( the accounts on this company are interesting reading) This company owns all the assets of Southampton football club and is 100% owned by Gao who is not a director.

 

184m was transfered in cash to purchase 100 % of Southampton Football club , maybe 240 M was representative to comply with 80% lend

 

Why do you say there is a link between Nanyang and Macquarie? This is not something in the public domain as far as I can see. I can't find any link between Nanyang, or it's owner, China Cinda and Macquarie.

 

This link says the loan was backed by Gao's assets in Macau (whatever they are).

 

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Global/Issues/2017/08/18/Finance/Southampton.aspx

 

Are you saying it was a syndicated loan and Macquarie was a participant? Seems like an odd thing to syndicate and for a bank like Macquarie to get involved with.

 

I don't doubt Gao has debt. And I worry about his ability to act as a good custodian of the football club. I still think you're barking up the wrong tree linking the acquisition with Macquarie bank, which remains the holder of security over the football club, and saying that the accounts indicate any sort of repayment towards Gao's loan.

Edited by benjii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just out of interest apart from the accountancy lessons what points are trying to prove about Gao ?

 

It seems accepted he took out a loan to be able to buy us and he has no intention of investing what he could under ffp into the club each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just out of interest apart from the accountancy lessons what points are trying to prove about Gao ?

 

It seems accepted he took out a loan to be able to buy us and he has no intention of investing what he could under ffp into the club each year.

 

The existential fear is that he'll have to start using club revenue to service the loans he used to buy us. All of this debate and speculation is really about trying to figure out how likely that scenario actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The existential fear is that he'll have to start using club revenue to service the loans he used to buy us. All of this debate and speculation is really about trying to figure out how likely that scenario actually is.

Undoubtedly it's very likely. We know that there is no secured borrowing against the club, but that doesn't mean no borrowing / directors loans. If there is its nothing unusual - businesses borrow and directors loan money. There really is a load of worrying over nothing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of many stories about a buy out of i us I think

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Here’s hoping, and that a few become firm interest. Sooner Gao is gone the better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shall we stamp our feet as well ;)
I'm a bit of a sheep in these situations, you know, like part of the problem and all that. But I'm more than willing to bash my keyboard very hard more than a few times if that will help...!

 

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here’s hoping, and that a few become firm interest. Sooner Gao is gone the better

 

Curious how many interested parties there would be for £200m+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious how many interested parties there would be for £200m+

 

It looked overvalued at the time, but then as we know nothing of Gao’s reasons for buying it it’s hard to say what benefits he has had from doing so since. Would be similar decision for any new buyer and their reasons might dictate the price they pay (or not).

 

Whole Gao purchase is odd, and any sale price might reflect changes in his circumstances. Lander hasn’t done too well it would appear over the last couple of years.

 

One day perhaps we will know the full story, club probably won’t be sold at the moment. Would I like it to be? Yes, I don’t know what Gao is bringing to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of many stories about a buy out of i us I think

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How will he complete the Mayflower Park redevelopment if he sells us?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Undoubtedly it's very likely. We know that there is no secured borrowing against the club, but that doesn't mean no borrowing / directors loans. If there is its nothing unusual - businesses borrow and directors loan money. There really is a load of worrying over nothing here.

 

The worry is over having a useless and indebted owner.

 

Your desperation to adopt a voice-of-reason persona is making you look like a condescending, ignorant plum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worry is over having a useless and indebted owner.

 

Your desperation to adopt a voice-of-reason persona is making you look like a condescending, ignorant plum.

 

Whilst you just look like an ignorant person with an agenda. “Useless and indebted owner?” How much are ManU in debt? As for useless, how can you judge after such a short time in charge? It seems to me that he has spent some time checking things out and is now beginning to make his mark. There is more to running a football club than throwing money at it. Let’s see how things shape up. You seem to have a problem with people who try to be reasonable. Perhaps you should give it a try rather than to look for negatives all the time? If Gao wasn’t bothered about the club why replace Hughes with a quality manager?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst you just look like an ignorant person with an agenda. “Useless and indebted owner?” How much are ManU in debt? As for useless, how can you judge after such a short time in charge? It seems to me that he has spent some time checking things out and is now beginning to make his mark. There is more to running a football club than throwing money at it. Let’s see how things shape up. You seem to have a problem with people who try to be reasonable. Perhaps you should give it a try rather than to look for negatives all the time? If Gao wasn’t bothered about the club why replace Hughes with a quality manager?

 

Oh, look, here’s the other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worry is over having a useless and indebted owner.

 

Your desperation to adopt a voice-of-reason persona is making you look like a condescending, ignorant plum.

 

Ha!! Your wish to scare monger and suggest it's armageddon does you no favours.

 

As has been pointed out, our club has no registered security to Gao. None. Nil. Zero. Yet despite that idiots like you seek to suggest that we are/may be/could be exposed by our mysterious owner. Why? What is the basis of your worry? Ignorance probably.

 

When you have some evidence that we as a club are financially exposed come back with a link to the evidence. If Gao has issues (if) it doesn't mean the club has to worry - it is self sufficient and doesn't need outside money despite our spoiled fans believing our "community club" deserves it cos Bournemouth got cash form their owner.

 

In what way is Gao "useless". Binning off Hughes? Securing Ralph? How about moving Les and the other Ralph out of our club? That's all useful imo.

 

Let's assume Gao is indebted (of which we have no proof). How does that impact on our unsecured club? Please remember that Gao and teh club are separate legal entities so if Gao has personal debt then that's not the club in debt.

 

There's been a few sensible posts above re the clubs lack of security. Try reading them. If you don't understand what they mean ask and people who do understand will explain. Apologies if that's condescending but for a fella who likes to shout the odds and patronise you seem to lack understanding. In the meantime, wind your neck in and don't shoot down people who look at the facts rather than forming misguided opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha!! Your wish to scare monger and suggest it's armageddon does you no favours.

 

As has been pointed out, our club has no registered security to Gao. None. Nil. Zero. Yet despite that idiots like you seek to suggest that we are/may be/could be exposed by our mysterious owner. Why? What is the basis of your worry? Ignorance probably.

 

When you have some evidence that we as a club are financially exposed come back with a link to the evidence. If Gao has issues (if) it doesn't mean the club has to worry - it is self sufficient and doesn't need outside money despite our spoiled fans believing our "community club" deserves it cos Bournemouth got cash form their owner.

 

In what way is Gao "useless". Binning off Hughes? Securing Ralph? How about moving Les and the other Ralph out of our club? That's all useful imo.

 

Let's assume Gao is indebted (of which we have no proof). How does that impact on our unsecured club? Please remember that Gao and teh club are separate legal entities so if Gao has personal debt then that's not the club in debt.

 

There's been a few sensible posts above re the clubs lack of security. Try reading them. If you don't understand what they mean ask and people who do understand will explain. Apologies if that's condescending but for a fella who likes to shout the odds and patronise you seem to lack understanding. In the meantime, wind your neck in and don't shoot down people who look at the facts rather than forming misguided opinion.

 

You should read what I’ve actually written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Errr rich Mexicans...

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

Not sure I like the idea of us being 'probed'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“As long as the money reaches Southampton’s bank account and it’s in Pounds Sterling then it’s ok.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point here is that there is no definitive evidence either way on what the position is, certainly limited available that most of us can access.

 

Possible scenario - whilst there are no charges against SFC itself, if we assume Charlie M is correct, then Gao borrowed money through his Hong Kong Company (which in itself is owned by a BVI company). Those debts may be secured against the assets of the Hong Kong company, these are presumably the UK Lander company and ultimately Saints. So the HK company may have to rely on revenues from Saints to service and repay the loan. None of this would show at Companies House. In this case it is a concern as any profit would have to be used to fund the loans. If the HK company defaults then Saints could end up being owned by the HK bank

 

Or alternatively - the loans are true but will be serviced by other income Gao has so reduced risk to Saints. Or the loans don't exist.

 

What we do know is that 1) we have secrecy over our ultimate ownership, 2) our owner's motives are unknown, 3) he is not putting any funds in, 4) we have a strange sponsorship deal in place which raises further questions

 

So given the above, I think having concerns is fully justified - the frustrating part, so what can we do about them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole point here is that there is no definitive evidence either way on what the position is, certainly limited available that most of us can access.

 

Possible scenario - whilst there are no charges against SFC itself, if we assume Charlie M is correct, then Gao borrowed money through his Hong Kong Company (which in itself is owned by a BVI company). Those debts may be secured against the assets of the Hong Kong company, these are presumably the UK Lander company and ultimately Saints. So the HK company may have to rely on revenues from Saints to service and repay the loan. None of this would show at Companies House. In this case it is a concern as any profit would have to be used to fund the loans. If the HK company defaults then Saints could end up being owned by the HK bank

 

Or alternatively - the loans are true but will be serviced by other income Gao has so reduced risk to Saints. Or the loans don't exist.

 

What we do know is that 1) we have secrecy over our ultimate ownership, 2) our owner's motives are unknown, 3) he is not putting any funds in, 4) we have a strange sponsorship deal in place which raises further questions

 

So given the above, I think having concerns is fully justified - the frustrating part, so what can we do about them?

You say:

"If the HK company defaults then Saints could end up being owned by the HK bank"

 

That's the kind of scare mongering that makes threads like this carry on. It's wrong. Individuals and companies are entirely separate legal things and unless there are charges, debentures, loan agreements or other contractual links they have no impact upon each other. There is no evidence to suggest a link, just conjecture on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, why have reasonable when you can have a conspiracy theory instead?

 

What conspiracy theory am I advocating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole point here is that there is no definitive evidence either way on what the position is, certainly limited available that most of us can access.

 

Possible scenario - whilst there are no charges against SFC itself, if we assume Charlie M is correct, then Gao borrowed money through his Hong Kong Company (which in itself is owned by a BVI company). Those debts may be secured against the assets of the Hong Kong company, these are presumably the UK Lander company and ultimately Saints. So the HK company may have to rely on revenues from Saints to service and repay the loan. None of this would show at Companies House. In this case it is a concern as any profit would have to be used to fund the loans. If the HK company defaults then Saints could end up being owned by the HK bank

 

Or alternatively - the loans are true but will be serviced by other income Gao has so reduced risk to Saints. Or the loans don't exist.

 

What we do know is that 1) we have secrecy over our ultimate ownership, 2) our owner's motives are unknown, 3) he is not putting any funds in, 4) we have a strange sponsorship deal in place which raises further questions

 

So given the above, I think having concerns is fully justified - the frustrating part, so what can we do about them?

 

Exactly!

 

Dumb people like Egg and Soggy seem to think that:

 

- this isn't the place for conjecture (er, it's a fakcin footbaw message board); or

 

- conjecture is necessarily the preserve of the ill-informed and unthinking.

 

When, in fact, there is plenty to merit conjecture. You didn't even mention the Chinese bribery cases or the PL's reluctance to have him join the club.

 

Then there is the FT's use of "flamboyant", which is clearly code, as he appears anything but flamboyant.

 

The only person posting things as fact is Charlie Miller. Everyone else is conjecturing because there are plenty of questions to consider. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I haven't said he's done anything wrong or there is any great conspiracy. I am saying, in a level-headed and intelligent manner that these dimwits (Egg, Soggy) would do well to learn from, that there are legitimate questions and concerns.

Edited by benjii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly!

 

Dumb peipke like Egg and Soggy seem to think that:

 

- this isn't the place for conjecture (er, it's a fakcin footbaw message board); or

 

- conjecture is necessarily the preserve of the ill-informed and unthinking.

 

When, in fact, there is plenty to merit conjecture. You didn't even mention the Chinese bribery cases or the PL's reluctance to have him join the club.

 

Then there is the FT's use of "flamboyant", which is clearly code, as he appears anything but flamboyant.

 

The only person posting things as fact is Charlie Miller. Everyone else is conjecturing because there are plenty of questions to consider. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Benjii, where's the link between some apparent loan overseas and the club? And don't say Gao, I mean an actual relevant financial/contractual link that would jeopardise the club if the apparent loan was not serviced.

 

A sensible/factual response would make a welcome change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What conspiracy theory am I advocating?

 

What are you actually advocating if it's not a theory/concern/conjecture that the club are somehow in jeopardy/exposed by something to do with Gao? Frankly I haven't got a clue what your point is, and if you have one, what is based on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benjii, where's the link between some apparent loan overseas and the club? And don't say Gao, I mean an actual relevant financial/contractual link that would jeopardise the club if the apparent loan was not serviced.

 

A sensible/factual response would make a welcome change.

 

I have never said there was one. Read the thread. Charlie Miller says there is. I have been saying there is no evidence for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you actually advocating if it's not a theory/concern/conjecture that the club are somehow in jeopardy/exposed by something to do with Gao? Frankly I haven't got a clue what your point is, and if you have one, what is based on.

 

My point is that I have concerns about an owner:

 

- with a history connected with criminal bribery, according to reports

 

- who has not once made any effort to show he gives a shiny **** about the fans; what are his plans, what is his vision, why is he here?

 

- who struggled to complete the initial purchase either due to lack of funds or inability to expatriate the funds

 

- who's main source of wealth, as far as we know, has absolutely tanked in China over recent years

 

- who has implied his sole reason for buying the club was to get some money out of China

 

- who adopts an extremely opaque overseas ownership structure: why is his daughter the sole director of the ultimate UK holding company and why are the groups accounts consolidated in BVI?

 

- who doesn't appear to offer anything in terms of impetus (that's not "feeling entitled", it's just observing that compared to a number of rival team owners (Brighton, AFCB, Wolves, Leicester, Watford etc..) he appears to bring nothing at all to the table, which is obviously a shame)

 

- plus a very odd sponsorship deal with a company with a very odd website; that's not the biggest problem in the world but feeds into the narrative that there are odd things going on.

 

You might find none of that worrying but if you think it's not sub-optimal then that's very strange indeed. Ultimately, sub-optinal ownership and lack of executive direction in an era of power-house ownership will lead to regression.

 

So, at worst, I think there are things to be wary of that are deeper than just footballing. At best, I think we may continue to regress in footballing terms, simply because there will be an ever-increasing number of clubs we can't compete with. We are lucky that, at the moment, we seem to have a very good coach so we will probably survive next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, at worst, I think there are things to be wary of that are deeper than just footballing. At best, I think we may continue to regress in footballing terms, simply because there will be an ever-increasing number of clubs we can't compete with. We are lucky that, at the moment, we seem to have a very good coach so we will probably survive next season.

This is my concern also. Should the inevitable happen, and Ralph leaves the end of the coming season or next, we may find the club has very little to fall back on in terms of momentum.

 

The best option for the club would be to back Ralph, and hope we can keep hold of him for longer than the usual couple of seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly!

 

Dumb people like Egg and Soggy seem to think that:

 

- this isn't the place for conjecture (er, it's a fakcin footbaw message board); or

 

- conjecture is necessarily the preserve of the ill-informed and unthinking.

 

When, in fact, there is plenty to merit conjecture. You didn't even mention the Chinese bribery cases or the PL's reluctance to have him join the club.

 

Then there is the FT's use of "flamboyant", which is clearly code, as he appears anything but flamboyant.

 

The only person posting things as fact is Charlie Miller. Everyone else is conjecturing because there are plenty of questions to consider. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I haven't said he's done anything wrong or there is any great conspiracy. I am saying, in a level-headed and intelligent manner that these dimwits (Egg, Soggy) would do well to learn from, that there are legitimate questions and concerns.

 

Perhaps you need to ask the “dimwits” at the FA why they found him to be a fit and proper person to own a football club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that I have concerns about an owner:

 

- with a history connected with criminal bribery, according to reports

 

- who has not once made any effort to show he gives a shiny **** about the fans; what are his plans, what is his vision, why is he here?

 

- who struggled to complete the initial purchase either due to lack of funds or inability to expatriate the funds

 

- who's main source of wealth, as far as we know, has absolutely tanked in China over recent years

 

- who has implied his sole reason for buying the club was to get some money out of China

 

- who adopts an extremely opaque overseas ownership structure: why is his daughter the sole director of the ultimate UK holding company and why are the groups accounts consolidated in BVI?

 

- who doesn't appear to offer anything in terms of impetus (that's not "feeling entitled", it's just observing that compared to a number of rival team owners (Brighton, AFCB, Wolves, Leicester, Watford etc..) he appears to bring nothing at all to the table, which is obviously a shame)

 

- plus a very odd sponsorship deal with a company with a very odd website; that's not the biggest problem in the world but feeds into the narrative that there are odd things going on.

 

You might find none of that worrying but if you think it's not sub-optimal then that's very strange indeed. Ultimately, sub-optinal ownership and lack of executive direction in an era of power-house ownership will lead to regression.

 

So, at worst, I think there are things to be wary of that are deeper than just footballing. At best, I think we may continue to regress in footballing terms, simply because there will be an ever-increasing number of clubs we can't compete with. We are lucky that, at the moment, we seem to have a very good coach so we will probably survive next season.

 

With you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you need to ask the “dimwits” at the FA why they found him to be a fit and proper person to own a football club?

 

Nothing to do with the FA, numb-nuts.

 

The PL reluctantly passed him then changed the rules to refer to prohibited conduct that would constitute an offence were it to have occurred in the UK. This has been reported in the press and if you can be bothered you can read the PL rules and find the relevant section that was added (I have done this before but can't remember the reference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that I have concerns about an owner:

 

- with a history connected with criminal bribery, according to reports

 

- who has not once made any effort to show he gives a shiny **** about the fans; what are his plans, what is his vision, why is he here?

 

- who struggled to complete the initial purchase either due to lack of funds or inability to expatriate the funds

 

- who's main source of wealth, as far as we know, has absolutely tanked in China over recent years

 

- who has implied his sole reason for buying the club was to get some money out of China

 

- who adopts an extremely opaque overseas ownership structure: why is his daughter the sole director of the ultimate UK holding company and why are the groups accounts consolidated in BVI?

 

- who doesn't appear to offer anything in terms of impetus (that's not "feeling entitled", it's just observing that compared to a number of rival team owners (Brighton, AFCB, Wolves, Leicester, Watford etc..) he appears to bring nothing at all to the table, which is obviously a shame)

 

- plus a very odd sponsorship deal with a company with a very odd website; that's not the biggest problem in the world but feeds into the narrative that there are odd things going on.

 

You might find none of that worrying but if you think it's not sub-optimal then that's very strange indeed. Ultimately, sub-optinal ownership and lack of executive direction in an era of power-house ownership will lead to regression.

 

So, at worst, I think there are things to be wary of that are deeper than just footballing. At best, I think we may continue to regress in footballing terms, simply because there will be an ever-increasing number of clubs we can't compete with. We are lucky that, at the moment, we seem to have a very good coach so we will probably survive next season.

 

Thanks, I get all of that and it's helpful to have some clarity from you rather than opinions of personalities.

 

The bit I've highlighted "sub-optinal ownership and lack of executive direction in an era of power-house ownership will lead to regression" is an interesting comment. I'm not sure how those matters would lead to regression, or indeed how a lack of "impetus" (which I interpret to mean capital injection) would necessarily lead to regression. If, however, income is not used to enhance the playing staff then yes regression and ultimately relegation are a concern. However, suggesting (in a very roundabout way, whilst disputing a sense of entitlement) that an owner should be expected to inject capital absolutely represents nothing but a sense of entitlement. The owner wants us to be self sufficient and there's no reason why we cannot be competitive within our mini league in the premier league. Our issue has not been monies for players, its been recruitment.

 

Other than what I've said above I'm not sure why anything else you say is a concern and how it could impact on our club. Gao's credibility, or lack of if that's the case, doesn't impact on the football club.

Share this post


Link to post
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})