Potential Takeovers and Investors

MunichHammer

I've always kept clear of the GSB out stuff but tbh I don't like the look of this company. They go behind the backs of the current owners to agree a different deal regarding the stadium (where the deal we have is pretty much the best thing short of owning the stadium) and then start going public, too.
If I am honest I wouldn't want them owning the club. At least GSB are a known quantity, PAI are completely shady and unknown.

whupathman

maybe if we could attract a billionaire biscuit baron

BubblesNeverDies

whupathman said:

maybe if we could attract a billionaire biscuit baron

For some reason the Silly Party candidate for Luton came to mind:

Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel

ASLEFshrugged

Their only football connection seems to be "Partner for Development" Philip Beard who was QPR's Chief Executive from 2012 until 2015 when he quit because Les Ferdinand was appointed as Director of Football

OldCastleSwift

So the latest Ex update suggests that PAI have submitted a new (and presumably improved) offer and are waiting for a response from GSB.

This really is the worst possible timing. Has it been designed that way? I mean, if Sullivan didn't want to spend any money this window then this takeover talk has given him the perfect excuse not to.

Surely a better time to do this would have been between windows?

MrsGrey

Better for whom?

OldCastleSwift

Moyes, really.

If him getting the players he wants to improve the squad is negatively affected by these shenanigans.

I just can't see the logic in unsettling the club at a time when the board's focus should be on the transfer window.

MrsGrey

I don't think PAI care about that.

It might be argued that the more mess the club is in the better (for them), as it will drive down the price and increase twitter negativity.

OutcastLondoner

I think quite a lot of the time takeovers are timed like this. Swoop in and look like the hero with a big signing before the transfer window ends. Man City with Robinho. Weren't the Saudis trying to take over Newcastle this time last year (or was it the year before?).

OldCastleSwift

That's kind of my point. Hiring celebrity West Ham fans (for a given value of 'celebrity') and ex players to back the bid implies that they see themselves as wanting what's best for the club.

Destabilising things at a time when we need the board to be absolutely focused on giving the manager the tools he needs to do his job suggests otherwise.

IronHerb

But if were to buy Abrahams for say £34m we would only pay £7or8m upfront which could be negotiated within the sale.
I don't see any impact on buying or selling players whatsoever from any takeover negotiations.

MrsGrey

OldCastleSwift said:

That's kind of my point. Hiring celebrity West Ham fans (for a given value of 'celebrity') and ex players to back the bid implies that they see themselves as wanting what's best for the club.

I drew a very different inference.

They want to present themselves as wanting what's best for the club

OldCastleSwift

Would Sullivan invest that £7m or £8m though if there was a chance the club would be sold? I mean, why would he?

Not sure how finances work at this level and whether any of the money available for transfers is his or the clubs.

I'm hoping you're right, but Sullivan does like a scapegoat, and if we fail to bring players in I have a strong suspicion he'll blame the takeover situation.

Whitehorsehammer

I would be surprised if this is going anywhere soon. It's too early for G&S to sell because of the penalty clause, and they have now been alerted to the fact the LDDC are at least prepared to talk about the ownership of the stadium, so that needs investigating first. And, for all of G&S faults I don't think they would sell the club to non football people.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

Not convinced at all by this consortium of unknowns

But yea the timing is awful, while how much this affects it is unknown but I'm sure it is some kind of hindrance

MrsGrey

OldCastleSwift said:

I'm hoping you're right, but Sullivan does like a scapegoat, and if we fail to bring players in I have a strong suspicion he'll blame the takeover situation.

And might he have justification?

OldCastleSwift

MrsGrey said:

OldCastleSwift said:

That's kind of my point. Hiring celebrity West Ham fans (for a given value of 'celebrity') and ex players to back the bid implies that they see themselves as wanting what's best for the club.

I drew a very different inference.

They want to present themselves as wanting what's best for the club

Yes, that's what I meant.

I know deep down it's just a business deal; I guess I just wanted the next owners to genuinely have the best interests of the club - and the fans - at heart, and I'm not convinced that PAI do.

OldCastleSwift

MrsGrey said:

OldCastleSwift said:

I'm hoping you're right, but Sullivan does like a scapegoat, and if we fail to bring players in I have a strong suspicion he'll blame the takeover situation.

And might he have justification?

Yes.

Which is why none of this is helpful now.

claretandbluesky

When I read consortium I think of Del boy's consortium to buy Arnie's gold chains in only fools and horses...... I would much rather they sell us to an Abromavich type, someone who wants a London plaything and a bit of adoration for being a benefactor and happy to pay for it.

Yeoldhammer

Starting to look more favourably on these leeches than our current ones.

alderz

Maybe it’s just me but I feel like the club deserves better than any leeches. I’d rather stick with the devil we know until we can find a proper buyer.

Fortuneseeker

alderz, I agree but we do need some large financial injection from somewhere as G&S are either unable to or unwilling to fund the transfers we need to build on the platform we already have which may well result in our best players leaving much sooner than later. Palace have got a large investment and surely we are a bigger club than them?

IronHerb

But we don't have owners prepared to relinquish their hold on the Club.

MrsGrey

The Palace thing - the new guy bought a stake of about 18%.

Our owners would sell that much. But they won't give up a controlling interest.

(Can't remember details, but we had someone wanting to buy a big chunk a few years back, and the owners stated then their position.)

Barney

I dont think our owners are that bad. i would prefer they found an additional investor who can help take the club forward. a lot of the criticisms about our owners are based on media snippets that probably have no truth in them at all. i will judge the owners again at the end of the transfer window but will still hope that further investment is found for the club. not convinced by the current takeover bid which seems more about property than football.

alderz

Barney said:

I dont think our owners are that bad. i would prefer they found an additional investor who can help take the club forward. a lot of the criticisms about our owners are based on media snippets that probably have no truth in them at all. i will judge the owners again at the end of the transfer window but will still hope that further investment is found for the club. not convinced by the current takeover bid which seems more about property than football.

I don't like the owners, but a lot of my dislike for them is historic. They ran the well of good will dry pretty quickly with me, and it's hard to build it back up. I think they've learned from some of their mistakes (Sullivan is a lot quieter than he used to be). I certainly have preferred their time at the club than the ten years prior.

Lukerz

If a new owner has the interests of West Ham at heart (as much as an owner can, as I appreciate a buyer of a club is a business person & is not doing it for the love of the club but mainly their self interest) then I am all for a sale, if we can push on under them.

My worry here is this sounds like a load of faceless & owner people, who aren’t showing any signs of being professional & who are interested in the wider financial benefits of the area more so than the club. There is always an element of risk with a new owner as they are unknown & we have seen many a clubs future destroyed by a sale that, in hindsight, was a mistake.

Whatever you say about the funding the owners provide, we are now entering our 10th straight season in the PL, which include 6th, 7th, 10th (x2) finishes, a couple of mid table finishes & our lowest season was 16th. We have experienced European football on 3 occasions (2015/16, 2016/17, 2021/22), have signed players over the value of £40m & have been relatively stable.

There are always disappointments. Cup runs have been underwhelming & the big issue was the stadium merge, but for them to move on we have to know the incoming group are genuine. At the moment I am not sure.

ASLEFshrugged

Sullivan owns 51.1% of the shares, even if Gold, "Tripp" Smith and Terrence Brown's group sold their shares Sullivan would still have the final word. I doubt if anyone would be willing to invest large amounts in a business where someone else has full control

MrsGrey

re Lukerz' post earlier

I think this is right: Of clubs currently in PL

6 have been in PL since it started (Arsenal Chelsea Everton Liverpool ManU, Spurs). Man City since 2002.

The only other club with a longer unbroken run that us is ... Newcastle (2010).

We came up with Southampton in 2012.

MrsGrey

ASLEFshrugged said:

I doubt if anyone would be willing to invest large amounts in a business where someone else has full control

Except the new guy at Palace. (Depending on whether r not you think £90m is a large amount in footballing pounds.)