Jump to content

Have we sold our ground


Recommended Posts

On 17/05/2019 at 09:17, MallorcaOwl said:

An article in todays Times has reported that Sheffield Wednesday and 2 other Championship clubs have sold there grounds,. The article went on to say that a club spokesman said that any new arrangements regarding Hillsborough would be clear in the accounts, which they insisted would be published in the next few weeks.

YES but a new ruling say's we've to give middlesbrough half of the money.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Minton said:

Based on what?

Paxo (of Doyen) still being around. Fox in the chicken coop to stuff us?

 

Council didn't buy Norton as no dosh and not badly contaminated - was to drive down price - for mainly sports use.

 

So, can do a JV with Council and give them back Middlewood lease for Park n  Ride scheme they love at tram / transport hubs (Malin Bridge, Dore BR station). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, steveger said:

It's obvious who owns our club.....remember at the beginning ?

 

Look behind him....  coincidence ?

 

2B8019D000000578-3203892-image-a-28_1440

 

Yeah, I think that is where the idea of a consortium came from but TUF soon disappeared and didn't DC say that he was the sole owner around that time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, steveger said:

It's obvious who owns our club.....remember at the beginning ?

 

Look behind him....  coincidence ?

 

2B8019D000000578-3203892-image-a-28_1440

 

Aye, Thai Union are a public company that produces a glossy prospectus and a website, both of which are freely available in the public domain. Both also contain a full list of the company's holdings and subsidiaries. They must have overlooked SWFC Limited in the listings.

 

:Chansiri:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Aye, Thai Union are a public company that produces a glossy prospectus and a website, both of which are freely available in the public domain. Both also contain a full list of the company's holdings and subsidiaries. They must have overlooked SWFC Limited in the listings.

 

:Chansiri:

 

So do you honestly think that DC has the dosh to have downed 100m on Wednesday seemingly without blinking financially speaking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dfoster said:

 

So do you honestly think that DC has the dosh to have downed 100m on Wednesday seemingly without blinking financially speaking?

 

Two separate issues at play, money owned by Thai Union Group and money owned by the Chansiri family. Thai Union are publicly owned and would have to justify any involvement in football to the general shareholders. That justification would have to include a demonstrable and clear return on investment. What the Chansiri family (either DC individually or collectively) do with their own private wealth or privately owned companies in their possession is entirely a matter for them. It is a clear distinction. None of the Chansiri family have the authority to use T.U.G. shareholder funds outside the core disciplines of the company, namely food manufacture and processing.

Edited by ChinaOwl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Two separate issues at play, money owned by Thai Union Group and money owned by the Chansiri family. Thai Union are publicly owned and would have to justify any involvement in football to the general shareholders. That justification would have to include a demonstrable and clear return on investment. What the Chansiri family (either DC individually or collectively) do with their own private wealth or privately owned companies in their possession is entirely a matter for them. It is a clear distinction. None of the Chansiri family have the authority to use T.U.G. shareholder funds outside the core disciplines of the company, namely food manufacture and processing.

 

Yeah there's no doubt that we are not formally owned by TUF. But the suggestion is that really we are owned by a 'consortium' of some sort and I think that that must right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dfoster said:

 

Yeah there's no doubt that we are not formally owned by TUF. But the suggestion is that really we are owned by a 'consortium' of some sort and I think that that must right.

 

Consortium is an open description. There are many wealthy business people in Asia that would like to own football clubs but cannot do so outright. They operate like hedging funds. DC may or may not be involved in such a group but It would be difficult to confirm anyway. It is believed that a certain HK dude that hung around the club a lot during the Mandaric days is a go between for such deals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Consortium is an open description. There are many wealthy business people in Asia that would like to own football clubs but cannot do so outright. They operate like hedging funds. DC may or may not be involved in such a group but It would be difficult to confirm anyway. It is believed that a certain HK dude that hung around the club a lot during the Mandaric days is a go between for such deals. 

 

I agree we'll prob never get to bottom of it. All I'm really saying is that I am sure DC is the face of a group of other investors - or maybe even a singular investor. I don't think he's doing it by himself. As to the ID of the others , who knows?

 

Didn't know MM had a certain contact in this area but not surprised and that would maybe make sense looking at it again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dfoster said:

 

I agree we'll prob never get to bottom of it. All I'm really saying is that I am sure DC is the face of a group of other investors - or maybe even a singular investor. I don't think he's doing it by himself. As to the ID of the others , who knows?

 

Didn't know MM had a certain contact in this area but not surprised and that would maybe make sense looking at it again 

 

The contact I am talking about is a fan of and connected to Birmingham City. He attended practically every home match and sat in the directors' box during the period immediately leading up to MM leaving. I don't think it was an act of friendship on MM's part. There must have been something more to it than that and is confirmed by something I was told whilst out in Asia.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If DC has sold the ground (to himself or somebody else) why wouldn't there be a club statement to that affect? Why do we have to wait for the accounts to be public?

 

Whilst we don't need to know any every nook and cranny of business at the club, surely the stadium sale is something that warrants the fans knowing, that's my view anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby sold their ground for £80 million despite it being valued at £41 million and listed at that amount as an asset.

 

SWFC seem to value the ground at just under £25million in the last accounts, that's if im looking in the right place at the tangible fixed assets, land and buildings?

 

Be interesting to see what DC has valued it at if he has sold it, I hope its not the same way he values players... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, billyblack said:

If DC has sold the ground (to himself or somebody else) why wouldn't there be a club statement to that affect? Why do we have to wait for the accounts to be public?

 

Whilst we don't need to know any every nook and cranny of business at the club, surely the stadium sale is something that warrants the fans knowing, that's my view anyway.

 

Maybe the sale has been agreed but not completed for some reason. 

 

Backdating the economic effect of a transaction which hasn’t happened yet

In other cases it may be clear that the transaction has not happened yet. But there may still be a desire to backdate the economic effect. For example, an intra group transfer of business and assets may have been intended to take place on 31 March but could not take place then because regulatory approvals were not yet in place. Those approvals may be obtained in May, and the group may still want to be able to account for the transaction as if it happened as at 31 March.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

Maybe the sale has been agreed but not completed for some reason. 

 

Backdating the economic effect of a transaction which hasn’t happened yet

In other cases it may be clear that the transaction has not happened yet. But there may still be a desire to backdate the economic effect. For example, an intra group transfer of business and assets may have been intended to take place on 31 March but could not take place then because regulatory approvals were not yet in place. Those approvals may be obtained in May, and the group may still want to be able to account for the transaction as if it happened as at 31 March.

You seem to know what you are talking about with this stuff, in your opinion when do you think this will come to fruition?

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...