David Sullivan

1234568

Comments

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    edited August 1
    Perhaps they did then Staveley came along with a higher bid for the lot, but as has been stated, DK can come back and match the offer.
  • LukerzLukerz
    Kretinsky wanted to buy a proportion of Gold’s shares, around 16%. It seemed he didn’t want all of them, but enough to become majority shareholder. I assume the fact Staveley has offered to buy all of Gold’s shares is more appealing - she can withdraw from the club & gets a larger sum of money.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    That’s obviously true but Kretinsky could also have said ok I’ll buy the lot. Maybe he can’t raise the funds especially as he’s involved in umpteen organisations such as Sainsbury’s, Royal Mail
  • LukerzLukerz
    He doesn’t have the money
  • stevesteve
    Does Staveley have enough money to buy out Kretinskiy
  • stevesteve
    is that her end plan
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    Didn’t Bowen have a meeting with Kretinsky which was part of his reason ( perhaps ) of staying as he liked what he heard, where does this leave Bowen now.

    I know Kretinsky can still match this new offer, but for me it all sounds a bit sketchy…

    Oh well, guess it will sort itself out one way or another…
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    Statement from the club on the OS:

    https://www.whufc.com/en/news/club-statement-1-august-2026

    "The proposed transaction will now be subject to a pre-emption rights process. This provides all existing shareholders with the opportunity to acquire their proportional percentage of shares in round one, and any remaining shares in round two. This process will take approximately two months and, until it is completed, nothing will change regarding the ownership structure of the Club."

    Looks like it will be a while before anything concrete happens.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    It looked like some form of stability and future strategy when Kretinsky and Gold came to what seemed to be a deal. This is what led to Bowen agreeing to stay after he went to Prague and discussed things with Kretinsky and had the future plans outlined to him.
    After this Waverley thing, if there is no pre-emption right exercised we are back to where we started and the only difference being Waverley instead of Gold.
    As far as we were aware Kretinsky and Gold had, albeit maybe only verbally, an alliance to take the club forward but from the reports outlined in the BBC articles Waverley and Kretinsky seem somewhere away from an alliance.
    This may spark Bowen to feel like nothing’s changed and decide to leave after all.
  • DJ HammerDJ Hammer
    Looks like it will be a while before anything concrete happens

    Are we talking “concrete” as in something being dropped into the river Thames? Know what I mean gov?
  • LukerzLukerz
    thornburyiron said:

    It looked like some form of stability and future strategy when Kretinsky and Gold came to what seemed to be a deal. This is what led to Bowen agreeing to stay after he went to Prague and discussed things with Kretinsky and had the future plans outlined to him.
    After this Waverley thing, if there is no pre-emption right exercised we are back to where we started and the only difference being Waverley instead of Gold.
    As far as we were aware Kretinsky and Gold had, albeit maybe only verbally, an alliance to take the club forward but from the reports outlined in the BBC articles Waverley and Kretinsky seem somewhere away from an alliance.
    This may spark Bowen to feel like nothing’s changed and decide to leave after all.

    Bowen isn’t still here because Kretinksy had a chat with him
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    That’s not the only reason but he actually said it was part of the reason. Why else would he fly to Prague to speak to him about what the future held and to be convinced that things would change.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    I agree thorn and there are two ways things can change & atm it's not at all positive.
  • WhitehorsehammerWhitehorsehammer
    What do people think of Amanda Staverley's potential purchase of 25.1% of ownership? Good, bad or wait and see.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    IF she could repeat want she managed to do at Newcastle then ...... but it's how she funds it which will be the biggest problem for many in where will be money come from?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    She's backed by a Chicago based hedge fund that deals in sports businesses.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Thanks IronHerb that is more positive news.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    I believe this is the one -

    https://ashlandforest.com
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    The stadium owners have advised Sullivan to stay away from home games but it appears, with the club’s agreement, that he will be attending games.
    As the major shareholder it’s his right but if he wanted to do more damage to the club reputation than he’s already done then he’s found the perfect way.
    It’s going to be hard enough this season without off field antics getting in the way.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Whitehorsehammer said:

    What do people think of Amanda Staverley's potential purchase of 25.1% of ownership? Good, bad or wait and see.

    She's well dodgy, imo
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    edited August 3
    MrsGrey said:

    Whitehorsehammer said:

    What do people think of Amanda Staverley's potential purchase of 25.1% of ownership? Good, bad or wait and see.

    She's well dodgy, imo
    Out of interest, what do base that on ?
    I know very little about her TBH
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    It's mainly because she seems to be very involved in getting dodgy (yes, pejorative term I know) middle eastern regimes investing in PL clubs.
  • WhitehorsehammerWhitehorsehammer
    MrsGrey said:

    Whitehorsehammer said:

    What do people think of Amanda Staverley's potential purchase of 25.1% of ownership? Good, bad or wait and see.

    She's well dodgy, imo
    You may well be right Mrs Grey, are you suggesting that she picks up the odd million here and there for putting a consortium together, or is there more to her plans?
  • LukerzLukerz
    So DK has sold 2% to his mate, which now allows him to buy the Gold shares & stay at 50% ownership. Does he have to pay for the Gold shares at the same rate as the deal agreed between Gold & AS?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Lukerz said:

    So DK has sold 2% to his mate, which now allows him to buy the Gold shares & stay at 50% ownership. Does he have to pay for the Gold shares at the same rate as the deal agreed between Gold & AS?

    I would guess so. VG had a deal so DK would need to match it. This still depends upon the other shareholders not taking up their rights though.
  • LukerzLukerz
    What if DK agrees to buy some of VG’s shares but Staveley ups the bid? Does the process reset?
  • Giant_HammerGiant_Hammer
    🚨Just seen this on Facebook (I know) but if true, things are getting interesting.

    💣 MAJOR BREAKING: A HUGE POWER SHIFT IS UNDERWAY AT WEST HAM! ⚒️

    Daniel Křetínský has reduced his ownership from 27% to below 25%, a strategic move that now allows him to purchase the Gold family's entire stake without taking his ownership above the 50% threshold.

    If the plan succeeds, Křetínský would become the controlling figure at West Ham United. 👀

    To make it happen, he has agreed to sell more than 2% of his shares to Czech entrepreneur and investor Jakub Havrlant.

    The move is a calculated gamble, with Křetínský reportedly confident that David Sullivan will be unable to increase his own stake, clearing the path for him to take control of the club.

    🗞️ @thetimes

    It's getting a lot interesting guys😏
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Lukerz said:

    What if DK agrees to buy some of VG’s shares but Staveley ups the bid? Does the process reset?

    I would guess the process restarts.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Depends who you listen to & believe. DK made an offer for VG shares at a lower price she was agreeable to but the conspiracists are saying AS has agreed a price at the valuation DS has set for the club thereby protecting his share price. They also believe it's being funded by some of his mates so he can still have a say in how the club is being run.

    If DK purchaes VG shares (25.1%) doesn't that take him to owning over half the club?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Fortuneseeker said:

    Depends who you listen to & believe. DK made an offer for VG shares at a lower price she was agreeable to but the conspiracists are saying AS has agreed a price at the valuation DS has set for the club thereby protecting his share price. They also believe it's being funded by some of his mates so he can still have a say in how the club is being run.

    If DK purchaes VG shares (25.1%) doesn't that take him to owning over half the club?

    No. He is allegedly selling 2.1 % of his holding to a Czech billionaire mate, taking him to 24.9%. He then buys Golds 25.1% taking him to 50%. He can't go over 50% without having to buy the rest.
    So he will have 50% and his close friend 2.1%. He therefore controls the club, by paying for 50% of it and at the same time makes Sullys shares worthless.

    This is all subject to the pre-emptive rights process.
Sign In or Register to comment.