Matt

Maybe we're planning to bring in the 'stick the centre-half up front' tactic, but for the whole game and not just the last 5 minutes.

He couldn't give a shit about the fans, this line of thinking is born of self-importance. He wants to run a low-quality, bargain bin football club which aims to scrape by- as that's the only way he's ever done business. He thought it would be a laugh- it wasn't- and now he's trying to minimise the risk of him needing to put any more cash into the business.

All this extra TV money does nothing to the value of the club if it disappears into the pockets of players and agents.

Ashley came out and effectively labelled her a time-waster. This is her way of showing (with the permission of the backers) that they were people of real substance- it might not save this deal but it may help the next one.

Is it though if he can actually buy so much more back? You obviously know more than me. I just wouldn’t poo poo his postings as drivel. He’s probably well intentioned just like this drivel spouting gob shite He's talking about a shareholders vote which would allow SD (not Ashley) to buy back shares. Where do they get those shares? Existing shareholders, at the shareholder's election if they want to sell. If anything, increasing this cap would be useful if Ashley were planning to SELL his personally held shares in SD back to the company to give him cash in hand, not the other way round.

Ashley is just selling the shares in NUFC etc, unless all those contracts have change of control provisions then they shouldn’t have any issues. One of the reasons it’s handy to have a holding company. As for Benbow’s latest drivel, he concludes that Ashley will buy more shares because Sports Direct can buy more back. It’s just daft.

Haven’t got time to go into more detail just now, but that Benbow piece is miles off the mark. He’s also effectively accusing MA of market abuse. I can write a bit more later if anyone actually cares.

Those are resolutions passed at the AGM and are similar to those passed in previous years. They expire each year and must be renewed. The disapplication of preemption rights gives the company flexibility to raise new cash through issue of new shares quickly without going through a full public placement- for example if the opportunity arises to buy another business but such a deal must be done within a short timeframe. The AGM notice states no such transaction is currently envisaged in the opinion of the Board (which includes MA). SD have a rolling share buyback programme, which again must be authorised by shareholders annually. So it all means very little.

The ultimate beneficial owners are subject to the fit & proper tests so their identity will be known to the FA at least and I doubt it could be kept quiet for that long. As for if we'll ever find out how much cash actually changes hands- possibly if it's all done via MASH Holdings for example, as that info would appear in their next set of accounts (that could be up to 18 months to be filed and public). At present, the full chain from NUFC to Ashley is all UK-registered and the amount would be material to the accounts of MASH.

Compliance professionals of course being notorious for leaking info to no-mark regional crayon-scribblers.

Yep. And the same guy who was involved in that deal (Craig Eadie) runs the company which registered Cantervale at Companies House. There is not a track record of setting up companies all over the place for no good reason so that is a positive sign. However it's not that expensive to do and I'm sure she can afford the £50 or whatever to wind it back down again if the deal fell away. I would have thought most of the Saudi clans are more worried about purging / being purged right now to worry about football?

From an article on the notorious Barclays deal:

Absolutely standard to incorporate a new legal entity to buy the shares in another- various reasons for doing so- to limit liability impacting any other businesses ultimately owned by the same people (this often needs a whole chain of entities), to bring together consortium members into a common vehicle or for tax structuring purposes.

Wheres that from ? Family member who's a ST holder. He reckons it's the only way for short to cut his losses. Short doing that would make no sense. More likely it will be Guggenheim doing it and cutting Short off completely.

It's most likely that we are targeting players at clubs higher up in the table who are not getting much game time- in which case we need to get the deals over the line as soon as possible to help them get up to speed but that also allows us to have those deals agreed in principle ready to go through once the window opens.

Valued by whom? Man Utd's main shirt sponsorship is £50m a year for the most exposure on the world's most visible team. A few ground boards for a struggling / Championship team is worth half of that? Do people really think a bunch of flashing ground boards at SJP has been pivotal to the growth of SDI? Come off it.

This thread seems to come around to this point on a weekly basis. They didn't meet the first asking price, therefore they mustn't have much money. If I had enough cash to buy a Mercedes but I decide to buy a Ford, do I just walk onto the forecourt and pay the sticker price? With every passing week the 'fair value' based on the probability of survival is falling. Someone charging in would have already seen £40-50m paid to Ashley that could otherwise have been invested in the squad and club facilities. My gut instinct is that the deal is largely done, there is no point announcing it and losing any 'new owner bounce' while the current squad continues to struggle. Most likely to be announced between the Man City and Brighton home games. There is also no reason why the potential owners have not already gone through the FA/PL processes in parallel such that the deal can be completed in the minimal possible timeframe.

How do you work that one out?

Totally agreed. But I still don't understand anyone getting sniffy about a new owner, because they aren't going to pay Ashley all that cash then let it crash and burn. That's a given.

Maybe we should wait for one of the other zero interested parties to come in? And what's the hurry? We just need to stablise and build over time. I'm assuming this is a joke? whats the hurry? we are currently headed down The they clearly aren't going to buy the club and just let the squad sink. Otherwise they could wait until the summer when it has. But even if they weren't going to funnel colossal amounts amounts into future kitties, just running the club properly and acting with some kind of integrity should be enough for us all to be over the moon.

Maybe we should wait for one of the other zero interested parties to come in? And what's the hurry? We just need to stablise and build over time.

Actually I’m fairly certain that a penalty is only for denying a goal scoring opportunity. There have been cases where a foul has been given in the box and as the attacking player was moving away from goal, only an indirect free kick was given. The most common cause of free kicks being given in the box is the backpass rule. It just happens to be that most fouls in the box can be deemed as denying a goal scoring opportunity. :lol: Jesus, Stifler man. That is incredible.

It's not impossible for them to provide funding at the start of January if the deal is only awaiting PL ratification, but any contingent loan structure could only be done with Ashley's consent.

Logic doesn't state that at all tbh Agreed. They aren't spending £250+ in the first place to not invest, because that's the only way they can make this work in the longer-term. Just because they aren't prepared to spend money they don't need to, doesn't mean they won't spend where it's needed.

I don't undertand the thinking here- a few others have said similar. You have your doubts about potential owners who have done extensive due diligence, who are clearly have the upper hand in negotiations, and prefer them to cave and pay more than they need to? We have someone in charge who did the opposite when buying the club. That hasn't worked out well. If anything, it gives me heart that they are doing things properly and as would be expected for a transaction of this size.