|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 20, 2020 21:32:25 GMT
I'd presume that bet365 would probably try to sell the club and the stadium to the same buyer. After all the stadium is worth more to a football club than it is to anyone else. As development land it isn't hugely valuable given that there would be a massive demoition job before it could be redeveloped for any other use. Assuming any buyer of the club also bought the stadium, it would then be up to them as to how (or if) they divided the ownership of their purchase. Why has everyone ignored the fact John Coates is a major share holder at bet365 and could afford the club without Denise? Probably because Denise is by far the largest shareholder in bet365. And rightly so, it was she who was the driving force behind the building of the company - using her dad's funds to build it up into the multi £billion giant that it is today.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Dec 20, 2020 21:35:14 GMT
That’s a very clever way for the sporting aspect (Stoke City FC) to have limited liability on properties owned by Stoke Holdings, but how would this entice a buyer if Bet365(Denise) decided to sell the club ? Would it be just the sporting aspect & assets (players) or the whole package e.g Stoke City FC, players, Stadium & Clayton woods ? I'd presume that bet365 would probably try to sell the club and the stadium to the same buyer. After all the stadium is worth more to a football club than it is to anyone else. As development land it isn't hugely valuable given that there would be a massive demoition job before it could be redeveloped for any other use. Assuming any buyer of the club also bought the stadium, it would then be up to them as to how (or if) they divided the ownership of their purchase. They would have to. Stoke own the ground but in a separate company to the football side of the operation. It is common practice I believe for clubs to put the ground in a separate company but all under one umbrella. I'm no accountant so although I've have had it all explained to me sorry I can't remember exactly how it works and why it is bebeficial to do it that way.
|
|
|
Post by bagnallboothen on Dec 20, 2020 21:35:52 GMT
Why has everyone ignored the fact John Coates is a major share holder at bet365 and could afford the club without Denise? Probably because Denise is by far the largest shareholder in bet365. And rightly so, it was she who was the driving force behind the building of the company - using her dad's funds to build it up into the multi £billion giant that it is today. John owns roughly 40%, comfortably enough to satisfy Stoke City.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 20, 2020 21:56:14 GMT
Probably because Denise is by far the largest shareholder in bet365. And rightly so, it was she who was the driving force behind the building of the company - using her dad's funds to build it up into the multi £billion giant that it is today. John owns roughly 40%, comfortably enough to satisfy Stoke City. He'd have to either borrow cash or sell some of his shares to buy the club. We also don't know if John would be able to persuade the majority of shareholders of bet365 to sell to him at the price he was prepared to offer. They might opt for a higher bid from, say, Arabs or Russians!😁
|
|
|
Post by pushon on Dec 21, 2020 10:34:30 GMT
Probably because Denise is by far the largest shareholder in bet365. And rightly so, it was she who was the driving force behind the building of the company - using her dad's funds to build it up into the multi £billion giant that it is today. John owns roughly 40%, comfortably enough to satisfy Stoke City. Are you sure about the 40%?, admittedly it's a few years since I checked,but I'm quite certain that the number credited to John equated to around 25%, with his sisters holding at least doubling this amount.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Dec 21, 2020 10:41:06 GMT
Oh I know i was answering the OP's simple question. Could she sell? the answer is yes. I know. If we were all in a pub I would be looking at the OP (not at you) whilst I was speaking! There you go again with your flights of fancy and pie in the sky ideas!
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Dec 21, 2020 18:23:04 GMT
Was thinking about ffp and the possible massive injection new owners of Derby could put in. Could Denise sell the club to another company owned by John Coates allowing us to start spending again. We won't be spending again until we sell (probably one of the Crown Jewels of Campbell, Collins or Soutar) unless FFP rules are lifted. As for selling the club, I think the Coates family would only consider that if there was a repeat of the type of situation that drove them out previously.
|
|
|
Post by bingbang on Dec 21, 2020 18:57:51 GMT
In my original post I didn’t mean to sell out to another investor, merely set up a new company and for them to form a buy out. Possibly allowing us to get over the ffp situation.
|
|
|
Post by stormin on Dec 21, 2020 19:15:47 GMT
I'd presume that bet365 would probably try to sell the club and the stadium to the same buyer. After all the stadium is worth more to a football club than it is to anyone else. As development land it isn't hugely valuable given that there would be a massive demoition job before it could be redeveloped for any other use. Assuming any buyer of the club also bought the stadium, it would then be up to them as to how (or if) they divided the ownership of their purchase. They would have to. Stoke own the ground but in a separate company to the football side of the operation. It is common practice I believe for clubs to put the ground in a separate company but all under one umbrella. I'm no accountant so although I've have had it all explained to me sorry I can't remember exactly how it works and why it is bebeficial to do it that way. The Glaziers bought Man Utd without spending any of their money, soon after they agreed to buy the club they sold the stadium at a profit.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Dec 21, 2020 19:31:02 GMT
In my original post I didn’t mean to sell out to another investor, merely set up a new company and for them to form a buy out. Possibly allowing us to get over the ffp situation. Wasn’t that exactly the kind of creative accountancy that got Sheffield Wednesday a points deduction?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 21, 2020 20:16:19 GMT
In my original post I didn’t mean to sell out to another investor, merely set up a new company and for them to form a buy out. Possibly allowing us to get over the ffp situation. Wasn’t that exactly the kind of creative accountancy that got Sheffield Wednesday a points deduction? No I think the Sheff Weds problem was they put the sale of the ground in the accounts but did not actually legally complete it in the years accounts they put it into.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 21, 2020 20:26:13 GMT
In my original post I didn’t mean to sell out to another investor, merely set up a new company and for them to form a buy out. Possibly allowing us to get over the ffp situation. No that wouldn't work Stoke Holdings own the shares in Stoke City FC any new company would buy those shares from Stoke holdings, FFP is based on the football clubs financial results a change of ownership woukd not affect that unless they can increase sponsorship, ticket sales etc
|
|
|
Post by bingbang on Dec 21, 2020 20:31:21 GMT
Just doesn’t seem right that the Coates family have so much ammunition but can’t use it. It’s like winning the lottery but not being able to spend any. I get the argument about clubs spending beyond their means but surely one look into Bet 365 accounts shows they are completely viable. Therefore my thoughts are , is there ways around it without committing an offence.
|
|
|
Post by marylandstoke on Dec 21, 2020 21:15:08 GMT
I know. If we were all in a pub I would be looking at the OP (not at you) whilst I was speaking! There you go again with your flights of fancy and pie in the sky ideas! Dirty tease is all he is.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 21, 2020 22:23:00 GMT
Just doesn’t seem right that the Coates family have so much ammunition but can’t use it. It’s like winning the lottery but not being able to spend any. I get the argument about clubs spending beyond their means but surely one look into Bet 365 accounts shows they are completely viable. Therefore my thoughts are , is there ways around it without committing an offence. The only way I could think was if say bet365 agreed to sponsor derby or sheff weds for £30m a seaaon and the derby or sheff weds owners company agreed to sponsor Stoke for £30m a season. Basically FFP is a scam to stop new money clubs from being able to compete with old money clubs, makes it incredibly difficult for a club like Leicester to establish themselves as a top 4 team even with a wealthy owner whereas Man Utd can seemingly spend whatever even though its all borrowed money. Easiest change to FFP is let the owners put in whatever cash they like but it has to be via shares or interest free loans direct from the owner with no third party borrowing / bank loans / overdrafts.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Dec 22, 2020 3:46:55 GMT
As much as I detest FFP (And I agree with folowyoudown's post above) - 5 seconds after they ditch it, agents will suddenly inflate every player's price. So only the same big clubs could still afford the top players. They'd then be forced to introduce a Salary Cap - sure! Let the mercenaries go elsewhere. It would ensure that International Football would be less competitive...for a while.
I still remember when amateur US Olympic Hockey players beat professional NHL players from Russia. I also dreamed once that some fly by night club called Leicester actually won the PL League a few years back. When stuff like this happens, it makes the victory mean all that much more.
But preventing an owner with the means from improving his club to compete with the big boys is an old mafia trick. If it smells corrupt...
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Dec 22, 2020 5:48:05 GMT
Don’t really understand how ffp works to be honest as much as I have tried. Yeah, it is quite difficult to get your head around. Especially as the rules surrounding FFP seem to function differently depending on how big of a club you are or where the owners hail from.
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Dec 22, 2020 8:11:10 GMT
Wasn’t that exactly the kind of creative accountancy that got Sheffield Wednesday a points deduction? No I think the Sheff Weds problem was they put the sale of the ground in the accounts but did not actually legally complete it in the years accounts they put it into. I've been told that the Football League told Sheffield Wednesday that if they could find auditors to allow them to put the sale into that year they would approve it which Sheffield duly did and is the reason their points deduction was reduced. The trouble is the football league are so lazy that they approve what the likes of Derby and Sheffield do and then find themselves up the creek. Until FFP is carried out with due diligence it is a farce.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Dec 22, 2020 8:32:06 GMT
Even that very good article about MON, shown on another thread, by Athletic, talks about the Coates family being akin to Jack Hayward at Blackburn, when that is patently no longer the case. Hayward effectively "bought" the title by investing his money in top players, and all that goes with it FFP would stop that now, mainly 'cos Rovers aren't a "fashionable" club whereas Liverpool, Citeh etc...hey ho
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Dec 23, 2020 11:01:54 GMT
Just doesn’t seem right that the Coates family have so much ammunition but can’t use it. It’s like winning the lottery but not being able to spend any. I get the argument about clubs spending beyond their means but surely one look into Bet 365 accounts shows they are completely viable. Therefore my thoughts are , is there ways around it without committing an offence. The only way I could think was if say bet365 agreed to sponsor derby or sheff weds for £30m a seaaon and the derby or sheff weds owners company agreed to sponsor Stoke for £30m a season. Basically FFP is a scam to stop new money clubs from being able to compete with old money clubs, makes it incredibly difficult for a club like Leicester to establish themselves as a top 4 team even with a wealthy owner whereas Man Utd can seemingly spend whatever even though its all borrowed money. Easiest change to FFP is let the owners put in whatever cash they like but it has to be via shares or interest free loans direct from the owner with no third party borrowing / bank loans / overdrafts. It's a bit unfair on Leicester to put down their achievement in winning the Prem a few years back to their having wealthy owners, isn't it? They acquired some super players (not least Vardy, the attacking midfielder who went on to Man City (?) and the defensive midfielder who went on to Chelsea (?)) for an absolute pittance and played with grit and verve. Credit where it's due and all that.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Dec 23, 2020 11:09:41 GMT
The only way I could think was if say bet365 agreed to sponsor derby or sheff weds for £30m a seaaon and the derby or sheff weds owners company agreed to sponsor Stoke for £30m a season. Basically FFP is a scam to stop new money clubs from being able to compete with old money clubs, makes it incredibly difficult for a club like Leicester to establish themselves as a top 4 team even with a wealthy owner whereas Man Utd can seemingly spend whatever even though its all borrowed money. Easiest change to FFP is let the owners put in whatever cash they like but it has to be via shares or interest free loans direct from the owner with no third party borrowing / bank loans / overdrafts. It's a bit unfair on Leicester to put down their achievement in winning the Prem a few years back to their having wealthy owners, isn't it? They acquired some super players (not least Vardy, the attacking midfielder who went on to Man City (?) and the defensive midfielder who went on to Chelsea (?)) for an absolute pittance and played with grit and verve. Credit where it's due and all that. Nonsense....agent Huth was the reason !
|
|
|
Post by onefatcopper on Dec 23, 2020 11:10:25 GMT
The only way I could think was if say bet365 agreed to sponsor derby or sheff weds for £30m a seaaon and the derby or sheff weds owners company agreed to sponsor Stoke for £30m a season. Basically FFP is a scam to stop new money clubs from being able to compete with old money clubs, makes it incredibly difficult for a club like Leicester to establish themselves as a top 4 team even with a wealthy owner whereas Man Utd can seemingly spend whatever even though its all borrowed money. Easiest change to FFP is let the owners put in whatever cash they like but it has to be via shares or interest free loans direct from the owner with no third party borrowing / bank loans / overdrafts. It's a bit unfair on Leicester to put down their achievement in winning the Prem a few years back to their having wealthy owners, isn't it? They acquired some super players (not least Vardy, the attacking midfielder who went on to Man City (?) and the defensive midfielder who went on to Chelsea (?)) for an absolute pittance and played with grit and verve. Credit where it's due and all that. I don’t know if it’s a premier league sponsorship contract that covers all clubs, but on Leicester City’s official homepage one of the clubs partnerships is with, BET365 ?
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on Dec 23, 2020 13:22:02 GMT
I think l'm right in saying that Denise owns 51 per cent of the company. Anyone know how the remaining 49 per cent is divvied up?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 23, 2020 14:20:42 GMT
It's a bit unfair on Leicester to put down their achievement in winning the Prem a few years back to their having wealthy owners, isn't it? They acquired some super players (not least Vardy, the attacking midfielder who went on to Man City (?) and the defensive midfielder who went on to Chelsea (?)) for an absolute pittance and played with grit and verve. Credit where it's due and all that. I don’t know if it’s a premier league sponsorship contract that covers all clubs, but on Leicester City’s official homepage one of the clubs partnerships is with, BET365 ? I think it's the former
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 23, 2020 20:43:04 GMT
The only way I could think was if say bet365 agreed to sponsor derby or sheff weds for £30m a seaaon and the derby or sheff weds owners company agreed to sponsor Stoke for £30m a season. Basically FFP is a scam to stop new money clubs from being able to compete with old money clubs, makes it incredibly difficult for a club like Leicester to establish themselves as a top 4 team even with a wealthy owner whereas Man Utd can seemingly spend whatever even though its all borrowed money. Easiest change to FFP is let the owners put in whatever cash they like but it has to be via shares or interest free loans direct from the owner with no third party borrowing / bank loans / overdrafts. It's a bit unfair on Leicester to put down their achievement in winning the Prem a few years back to their having wealthy owners, isn't it? They acquired some super players (not least Vardy, the attacking midfielder who went on to Man City (?) and the defensive midfielder who went on to Chelsea (?)) for an absolute pittance and played with grit and verve. Credit where it's due and all that. Huh ? Wbile what you say is right I am talking purely about Leicester trying to establish themselves as a top 4 club now. They won the title to try again they then have their spending capped because of their 30k crowds and modest commercial income so when they try and keep Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez they can tell them they are signing players like Gray, Maddison, Maguire without FFP they would then perhaps be going for internationals / proven premier league players so maybe some of them stay and Leicester become established in the top 4 instead of as will happen again shortly with Maddison, Fofana and Barnes they continually lose their top players because FFP is skewed against them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2020 22:01:25 GMT
How can she sell something she doesn’t own?
|
|