Potential Takeovers and Investors

OldCastleSwift

Thought this might require it's own thread given it's likely to rumble on for a while. Maybe one of the mods could move the pertinent comments over?

Just feel like we have enough to complain and disagree about on the transfer thread without this being discussed there too.

MrsGrey

OK, will have a go.

It may take a while...

MrsGrey

Lukerz said:

PAI Capital to release statement tomorrow about their takeover bid of West Ham

Why is this all being done publicly? Makes me think they are not genuine/legitimate.

OldCastleSwift said:

Frustrating, isn't it. I think Sullivan went public because he can't help himself. I think PAI have to try and get the fans involved in trying to force GSB out.

60,000 back at the OS soon; fuelled by the idea of new owners and new money, there may be more chance of mass protests to pressure the board to sell , particularly if the transfer window doesn't improve.

MrsGrey

OutcastLondoner said:

Yes that's very possible, Luke. Could also be that they're frustrating with G and S and they see this as their only option to force things forward.

Fortuneseeker said:

So do G & S stick or twist as very little or no incoming transfers this window is just going to increase any unrest with a lot of the fans you would imagine?

Whitehorsehammer said:

With the potential money involved, I don’t think they are going anywhere soon. I don’t think there will be many protests if the team carry on in similar form to last season, probably the opposite. If they have a very poor first 10 games, then maybe.

MrsGrey

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes said:

OldCastleSwift said:

60,000 back at the OS soon; fuelled by the idea of new owners and new money, there may be more chance of mass protests to pressure the board to sell , particularly if the transfer window doesn't improve.

This is what annoys me about quite a section of our fanbase, though.

It’s fair enough to take issue with lots of thing GSB do, but where is the evidence the new consortium will do things any better?

How much money do they have? Who are they? What is their business plan?

There have been a lot of clubs in recent years who have been sold from one bad set of owners to another - Sunderland, Portsmouth, Leeds, Derby, Wigan etc etc - so quite how any of our fans could have the confidence to try and oust GSB for a complete unknown really confuses me.

Whitehorsehammer said:

I agree Jorderz, be careful what you wish for.

OldCastleSwift said:

How much money do they have? Who are they? What is their business plan?

And therein maybe lies the answer to Luke's question. Maybe they're going public to make their intentions known and, presumably, try to get the fans onside early.

Lukerz said:

Well their recent statement referring to us as West Ham FC, with a guy who claims to have been a fan since 1986, is not great.

OldCastleSwift said:

A Google images search of Nasib Piriyev brings back zero returns of him in a Dagenham Motors shirt.

MrsGrey

claretandbluesky said:

They don't appear the type of owner we would like, I actually think as a London club we could attract a billionaire along the lines of Abromavitch at some point,and perhaps this publicity will wake up a few who may have been watching the situation.

Slacker said:

I don’t think I want billionaire owners.
When I look at what’s happened to Chelsea and Man. City they seem like fake clubs to me.
Whatever they win I always think to myself “ Doesn’t really count, they bought that”.

PrestonHammer said:

Every club buys the title. Apart from Leicester and the early days of the Premier league, the winner has spent a fortune.

Slacker said:

True Preston, but you must agree that City and Chelsea have taken that to another level?

PrestonHammer said:

They both have and Man Utd aren't too far behind them.

alderz said:

PrestonHammer said:

They both have and Man Utd aren't too far behind them.

Yeah but at least with Man Utd they were a successful side that invested heavily. Chelsea and City were mid table or worse, and now they’re powerhouses based on nothing but money

MrsGrey

As you see, the snazzy shortcut isn't functioning so I'm doing it manually. Unfortunately, it posts as 'my comment' but I'm keeping the OPs name. Also trying to do it in batches so the line of discussion is clear.

MrsGrey

MrsGrey

Lukerz said:
I think we’ll keep G&S for now

I don’t have much knowledge in ownership/business purchases, but I find this statement baffling

‘We have agreed to take control of the stadium if the owners choose to sell’

Reading that first line, is that not what the current owners have? A long term lease with main control?

How did they negotiate that behind the owners back?

This is clearly a property deal &, say what you want about G&S, I don’t want owners coming in who see the Olympic park as a treasure chest.
---

Lukerz said:

Any plans for West Ham United?

OutcastLondoner said:

Actually might be a good thing they've released that now. Can be analysed and packed away. Not much there about the club other than supposedly improving how the stadium is set up. Nothing to latch onto if you wanted to protest to increase pressure against G and S.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years said:

Not a single word on investment into the squad or anything West Ham related other than their plans for the London Stadium

Also still doesn't seem like they've made an official bid or shown they have the fund sti actually purchase the club

MrsGrey

Lukerz said:

Good to see Rio's on board.

I mean he was only begging United to sign Rice a month ago.

Fortuneseeker said:

The last paragraph is amusing, Rio is now a big Manchester United fan unlike his brother who has stayed loyal to us.

ironmike44 said:

Think Mr Sullivan was right - it’s a property deal. And I think Rio is somewhat confused - unless they are really planning to move Manure to the London Stadium. “We love this club with a passion” ……. Yeah right!

OldCastleSwift said:

To be fair, they did say that they can't share their wider vision for the club until a deal is agreed.

Maybe we just have to wait for that.

ironmike44 said:

OCS - why do you think they are unable to share their wider vision for the club until the deal is agreed? Something to hide perhaps?
And personally I’d be a lot happier if the likes of Sir Trevor and Billy Bonds were endorsing the deal rather than them die hard And passionate fans, the Ferdinand Boys.

OldCastleSwift said:

ironmike, No idea. But then I have no working knowledge of how these things go down.

MrsGrey

Hamstew said:

I'm sceptical about it but as OCS says they may only be allowed to say so much.

Pearces_Left_Foot said:

If the are entering talks for a deal there are usually Non Disclosure Agreements signed by both sides so there won't be details released unless a deal is done

Lukerz said:

They can't pick and choose what to share

They have happily released that statement, may as well go the whole way and state what else is on offer

Unless there is nothing else

OldCastleSwift said:

Maybe they have to pick and choose. Who knows. Anyone on here well-versed in corporate takeovers?

MrsGrey

Lukerz said:

No indication they have upped their offer that was rejected a week or so ago

Yeoldhammer said:

Sounds like another bunch of clowns who want to get aboard the gravy train.

Whitehorsehammer said:

PAI are just trying to build pressure on the owners to sell. They have gone behind the boards back and spoken directly to the landlords to try and get them on PAI's side. In order to do this I suspect they have said to the landlords, IF we can get control off WHU we will offer to surrender the old lease and you give us a new lease (at a higher rent to reduced the losses to the taxpayer). Any landlord would of course agree to be paid more rent, but not a good outcome for the long term future of WHU.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years said:

whitehorse,

In the sense of trying to get a deal done with G&S they've done themselves no favours by going to the LLDC....but by virtue of the deal GSB struck has allowed this to happen, as we don't own the stadium

All getting quite messy

MrsGrey

IronHerb said:

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years said:

Also still doesn't seem like they've made an official bid or shown they have the fund sti actually purchase the club

But they previously stated that they made a bid (£400m?) and showed proof of funds.

OldCastleSwift said:

Ironherb,
Yep, so again, someone's lying. Both parties should have kept it all behind closed doors.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years said:

The claim they made a bid was refuted by Sullivan, as OCS says someone is lying

So does seem some confusion, the easiest way would be for one party to show confirmation that there was/wasn't a bid and if proof of funds were/weren't shown

Say what you want about G&S, but st least we knew who they were and what they were worth

The only thing PAI Capital have as listed assets was an investment into a Chinese Video company and I believe a failed attempt at purchasing Marseille

OldCastleSwift said:

The burden of proof is with PAI. But can they prove a bid and proof of funds without disclosing the numbers involved, which may also be restricted by an NDA?

MrsGrey

ASLEFshrugged said:

First paragraph

PAI Capital can confirm that we have reached the core principles of agreement with LLDC regarding a long-term lease over the London Stadium that would see PAI taking full control of the Stadium.

So they're not buying the stadium as some have suggested.

The big question is will the stadium still have to be reconfigured for athletics whenever they need it? If that is still part of the leasing agreement there are limits to what they can do with the stadium

And obviously this is all only relevant if S&G actually wanting to sell

Whitehorsehammer said:

The LLDC (GLA) would need first to decide that they want to cut their losses and sell. It would make little sense for anyone to buy it as the existing lease would remain the same and the new owner would be in the same position as the LLDC losing 20/30m a year. It only makes sense if the tenants buy because they can then cancel or change the lease as they are also the landlords. That is why whoever has control of WHU are in the driving seat.

claretandbluesky said:

This is going nowhere, if you are reduced to trying to isolate the owners, the only people who can agree the sale, then the deal is already dead. I actually think it was dead the moment it went public as if a deal were getting done the first we would have known is a statement which started.... The owners of West ham have reached agreement with..

OldCastleSwift said:

aslef,

The LLDC statement includes:

"We have been approached by PAI Capital who we understand are putting together a serious offer to purchase West Ham.

On this basis we have entered into discussions on a set of principles that would see PAI Capital owning the stadium on a long leasehold."

IronHerb said:

So the Club (PAI) would own the stadium. That's a move in the right direction.

Whitehorsehammer said:

That must be music to GSB's ears, it means LLDC are open to selling (a long leasehold is very different from the existing lease and is virtually freehold).

ASLEFshrugged said:

" If PAI wanted to buy the freehold I suspect LLDC will not sell cheap."

That still doesn't answer whether athletics would have to be accommodated

MrsGrey

IronHerb said:

The Birmingham Commonwealth Games stadium will be ready for next years games with a capacity of 40,000. That should take the pressure off the London Stadium.

IronHerb said:

So if he has an outstanding Interpol warrant out against him how will he pass the 'Fit & Proper' test of the Prem? Of course he probably will as the Prem doesn't have much of a clue imo.

ScotHammer said:

The way PAI are behaving, and the West Ham “fans” they have on board, are making G&S seem not too bad, which is really difficult to achieve.

Surely any West Ham fan would not cause this disruption this season? Focus should be on supporting the team this year, rather than unsettling them.

IronHerb said:

Not sure how offering £400m and looking to take control of the stadium is misbehaving.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years said:

Herb,

I think it's the fact that it's all quite speculative and they've decided to do this in the middle of a transfer window which may be disrupting our current deals.....I mean if they are in the process of buying us why would G&S want to spend money?

They seem to me like they want the toxic atmosphere around the fanbase to put pressure and Gold and Sullivan, probably in the hope they don't have to pay the price those two want

Not convinced by them, to me they are some faceless consortium with unsure assets and zero football experience who are more interested in the stadium then west ham

Pearces_Left_Foot said:

G&S have said they have no intention of selling to PAI so it should n't have any affect on our business in the transfer window .

Fortuneseeker

PLF, The owners can prove it’s business as usual by funding some new players, oh sorry that doesn’t appear to be the case. ☹️

OldCastleSwift

Sterling effort Mrs G 👏

MrsGrey

OldCastleSwift said:

Sterling effort Mrs G 👏

Ta, not finished yet.

;phew

MrsGrey

OldCastleSwift said:

Lukerz,

I don't think Gold and Sullivan have "full control of the stadium", do they? 🤔

If it's a property deal that increases revenue that is re-directed into improving the infrastructure at the club and the first team squad, then I don't really see the problem.

I get the 'better the Devil you know' mindset, but GSB can't take this club forward. They clearly don't have the finances or, IMO at least, the competency to compete with the big boys.

MrsGrey said:

There was a glaring absence of any reference to the squad or football.

Configuration, catering and hospitality, facilities, transition from station to stadium...

IronHerb said:

Surely they can't talk about football plans until they own the club. A bit like when managers are asked to speculate on a potential transfer and respond with 'I won't comment on an other clubs player'.
I see nothing in that statement to be overly concerned with but the devil will be in the detail.

OldCastleSwift said:

This is the comment from PAI:



Presumably until Sullivan grants them full access to the accounts they can't do their due diligence re the finances. Without that, they can't commit to budgets etc.

OutcastLondoner said:

OCS, re 'their vision'


But it even lacks any fluff about how it will benefit the club. They could've at least sold a vision for the football side of things that wasn't "reconfigure the stadium." They hint at improving atmosphere but do a terrible job of making that something supporters can latch on to. They could have given a vision without revealing details.

I think there is some potential in there about making the stadium a proper football one but it's presented so badly that I'm not sure they're so clear on that themselves.


It all looks a bit amateur. Their PR agency should be fired.

MrsGrey

Whitehorsehammer said:

PAI are just trying to build pressure on the owners to sell. They have gone behind the boards back and spoken directly to the landlords to try and get them on PAI's side. In order to do this I suspect they have said to the landlords, IF we can get control off WHU we will offer to surrender the old lease and you give us a new lease (at a higher rent to reduced the losses to the taxpayer). Any landlord would of course agree to be paid more rent, but not a good outcome for the long term future of WHU.

IronHerb said:

I wouldn't call it going behind the boards back. Surely they would need to know how the land lies with the landlord before committing to a large spend.

alderz said:

I don’t get why they wouldn’t be able to say what their plans are. There have been dozens of takeovers where the prospective owner says “we intend to make a bunch of money available to the manager to take the club to the next level”. To me it seems like an investment firm trying to buy property

MrsGrey

IronHerb said:

So we want transfers done in private but the sale of the club to be discussed in the open?

alderz said:

No, personally I want it all done in private. But unfortunately these apparent buyers have decided that going half public is the way to go.

MrsGrey

Sorry to anyone whose comment I lost. I know there was definitely 1 that I accidentally deleted before copying it over. ;doh

PrestonHammer

Are you sure you didn't add some extra? 😄

MrsGrey

I nearly copied over pathman's post about his kid's football kit

MrsGrey

Lukerz said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57913447

Just a reminder of the owners response to this interest only a few days ago

OldCastleSwift said:

So someone's lying then.

Where's your money?

Lukerz said:

At the minute on it's way to Moyes' apartment in an envelope with a little note to say 'put it towards a CB'

OutcastLondoner said:

OldCastleSwift said:

So someone's lying then.

Where's your money?

Both of them.

Kick them all out and put the club into the hands of the people. ✊🏽

IronHerb said:

OutcastLondoner said:

OldCastleSwift said:

So someone's lying then.

Where's your money?

Both of them.

Kick them all out and put the club into the hands of the people. ✊🏽

You have seen some of the 'people' who would like to run the club then? 😂

ironmike44 said:

Hey - Outcast. We’re you Citizen “Wolfie’ Smith in an earlier life? Power To The People!
Who are these people you speak of? And are they going to buy the club or just storm the stadium and take over - perhaps have a whip round to buy some new players?

whupathman

MrsGrey said:

I nearly copied over pathman's post about his kid's football kit

that because its more interesting than GSB

epsom_bubbles

If PAI Parners are who I think they are , their assets are worth 13.5 billion Euros
Not as poor as some are making them out to be

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

epsom_bubbles said:

If PAI Parners are who I think they are , their assets are worth 13.5 billion Euros
Not as poor as some are making them out to be

PAI capital is a different group to PAI Partners, they aren't affiliated with each other

Truth is I dont think anyone knows what they're worth as their portfolio is pretty barron

ASLEFshrugged

PAI Partners (formerly Paribas Affaires Industrielles), was established in 1998 is based in Paris with offices in London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Milan, Munich, Stockholm and New York.

PAI Capital was incorporated 29th January 2021 with offices in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and London.

It has one shareholder, Silk Road Worldwide Ltd which was Monsas International Ltd (4 November 2019 - 3 September 2020) and changed its name again to PAI International Ltd on 28 July 2021.

Stancilaus Mabika and Paul Alan John Mills are the only directors of PAI Capital and PAI International, Mills is sole director of PAI Investments, Shanghai.

And now i've got to go back to work, someone else can Google

MrsGrey

If they were only established in Jan 2021, they won't have any accounts publicly viewable, will they. I'm going to look it up...


So.

A Companies House search on PAI Capital lists their business activities as
- financial services
- venture and development capital
- Fund management
- Management consultancy other than financial management

On incorporation (Jan this year, as per Aslef's post) they had a 'statement of capital' of £10 000
Their registered address is in Savile Row. Correspondence address - China.

Mabika has no other directorships, he is Zimbabwean, resident in the UK with (same) correspondence address in China.

Mills has 4 directorships: PAI International, PAI Investments, PAI Capital and 3P Technologies Ltd.

The latter is also registered at the Savile Row address, is even newer than the others having been formed in March 2021, and seems to be some kind of car and motorbike repair/leasing business. It was formed with capital declared of £100 (yes, one hundred) and 2 months after it started 2 'persons with significant control' with Russian-sounding names ceased to be involved and Mills is now the only director).

That Companies House stuff is quite interesting, but I haven't got time to read through it all for the other PAI companies. Feel free to browse and report back anything of interest :-)

I'm no expert, but doesn't it sound a bit iffy? Like they are not putting any of their own money in but pulling together venture capital/some kind of consortium? Nothing to do with football?

BubblesNeverDies

MrsGrey:
"I'm no expert, but doesn't it sound a bit iffy?"
Without a doubt winner of "Understatement of the Year" award