Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Butterbean_Canary

Sullivan to buy into Charlton if West Ham fails.....

Recommended Posts

According to the midlands news last night, the new owner of Birmingham City has asked the police to look into some of the financial dealings made by the previous owners of Bham City. Not sure we really want his like at City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIRMINGHAM MAIL

 

 

POLICE were today “assessing” allegations of financial irregularities with Birmingham City FC accounts after a meeting with the club’s lawyers, it has been revealed.

Detectives from West Midlands Police’s Economic Crime Team are understood to have taken away a number of documents as part of a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there was any grounds for a full police investigation.

The meeting between police and lawyers representing the club came amid growing bitterness between new president Carson Yeung and the previous owners over a list of liabilities that has been uncovered.

A West Midlands Police spokesman stressed yesterday’s meeting at St Andrew’s was exploratory and there was no criminal investigation.

The spokesman said: “West Midlands Police can confirm its officers from the Economic Crime Team yesterday met with representatives from Birmingham City FC to discuss concerns raised by the club over alleged financial irregularities in its accounts.

“Following the meeting, officers are now assessing a number of allegations that have been put forward by Birmingham City FC to try and determine whether there are any grounds for a formal police inquiry.

“The force would stress that at this early stage this is not a criminal investigation, merely a preliminary assessment of some information supplied by the club.”

It has emerged that Yeung and his group were left with £6 million of bills for transfers, agents fees, bonuses and taxes after completing their £81.5 million takeover, a figure which could spiral to £11 million by the end of December.

The new boss has already blocked the controversial £1 million pay-off and packages of perks to former MD Karren Brady.

However in an interview with the Birmingham Mail last week, David Sullivan said he was angered by the insinuations as he, the Gold brothers and Karren Brady, had operated Blues as a ‘model’ club during their reign.

And in a Sunday newspaper he questioned the thoroughness of the due diligence they carried out before buying the club.

“He merely asked us about ten questions and failed to bring in accountants or auditors,” said Sullivan.

“It’s a bit like me buying a house and failing to conduct a survey and then moaning when the damn thing collapses.”

Last week Yeung employed a team of crack lawyers to start going through Blues’ accounts, dating back to 2007 when he first bought into the club.

And it emerged yesterday that Yeung transferred £2 million of his own money into Blues’ accounts to help pay off some outstanding debts.

A Birmingham City FC spokesman said: “We can confirm that the police were here yesterday and met with our criminal lawyers. As the matter is now in the hands of the police it is not suitable to comment further about this.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]“He merely asked us about ten questions and failed to bring in accountants or auditors,” said Sullivan.

“It’s a bit like me buying a house and failing to conduct a survey and then moaning when the damn thing collapses.”[/quote]

Is Sullivan admitting to selling a collapsing house here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]“He merely asked us about ten questions and failed to bring in accountants or auditors,” said Sullivan.

“It’s a bit like me buying a house and failing to conduct a survey and then moaning when the damn thing collapses.”[/quote]

Is Sullivan admitting to selling a collapsing house here ?


[/quote]

Precisely what I was thinking. I think he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut if this is the only defence he can mount against some pretty serious accusations. I''ll be watching this story develop with some interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]“He merely asked us about ten questions and failed to bring in accountants or auditors,” said Sullivan.

“It’s a bit like me buying a house and failing to conduct a survey and then moaning when the damn thing collapses.”[/quote]

Is Sullivan admitting to selling a collapsing house here ?


[/quote]

I''ve seen it reported that we have one of the strictest medicals when prospective signings come to the club. But we''ve still managed to buy the odd one who had a "gammy leg"[:O]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He''s not saying that as i read it he''s saying that Yeung dodn''t do proper due diligence and therefore did not find out that there were a number of debts/contracts due to be paid up. If he had done he no doubt would have dropped the price or held back some money accordingly until the debts in question were all sorted but because he didn''t check it out propoerly he paid too much.

 

Sneaky and perhaps morally questionable from Sullivana and Gold if they set up the payments so they fell due after they had left the club but unlikely to be illegal and I suspect Yeung is just sounding off now as he''s realised they''ve done him!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

He''s not saying that as i read it he''s saying that Yeung dodn''t do proper due diligence and therefore did not find out that there were a number of debts/contracts due to be paid up. If he had done he no doubt would have dropped the price or held back some money accordingly until the debts in question were all sorted but because he didn''t check it out propoerly he paid too much.

 

Sneaky and perhaps morally questionable from Sullivana and Gold if they set up the payments so they fell due after they had left the club but unlikely to be illegal and I suspect Yeung is just sounding off now as he''s realised they''ve done him!

 

[/quote]That looks pretty much spot on, although I''m not certain I''d even regard it as morally questionable. Any business that gets taken over will have debts due. Caveat emptor and all that.There is another good quote from Sullivan on Carson Yeung:"The bottom line is he’s a former hairdresser from Hong

Kong who seems to think he can buy favour with the supporters by

consistently having digs at the former board and promising to fund a

£40million spending spree in January for Alex McLeish."As to Sullivan''s comments about Charlton, they look intended to put pressure on the West Ham owners. It always seemed likely that Sullivan had prioritised his shopping list so:1. West Ham2. Charlton.3. NorwichNorwich remains a distinct possibility (as opposed to a probability) because there are reasons (counted in many millions of pounds) why neither West Ham nor Charlton has been bought yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Cullum Ave A Go If You Think Youre Ard Enough"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote] There are 56 millions reasons my friend![/quote]FFS, why do people continually misquote the 56 million figure?!20 million of that was for Cullum''s "player spend", leaving 36.20 odd of that 36 (from memory) was for paying off debts that MAY be renegotiated by a new buyer, leaving 16 million.That is clearly too high a price, wihtout question, but much less than the 56 million people keep quoting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who knows better could probably tell you for sure I.S. but I think that 16m is what the club was valued at and that valuation divided by the amount of shares works out at £30. I doubt Delia did the valuation herself as much as people would like to believe she came up with that figure while the mince was browning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Are you that "someone who knows better" I was waiting for[:^)]

 

[/quote]

You were at the AGM when it was agreed.

Statement came from the board to quieten speculation about PC.

Oh was Delia on the board with her husband and holding 60 odd % of the shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="I.S."][quote user="Cullum Ave A Go If You Think Youre Ard Enough"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote] There are 56 millions reasons my friend![/quote]FFS, why do people continually misquote the 56 million figure?!20 million of that was for Cullum''s "player spend", leaving 36.20 odd of that 36 (from memory) was for paying off debts that MAY be renegotiated by a new buyer, leaving 16 million.That is clearly too high a price, wihtout question, but much less than the 56 million people keep quoting.[/quote]Don''t forget that Delia only has 60% so the figure is now down to £9.6m!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote]Puzzy Magnet, a fair question. The full

answer would be way too long for a message-board. But briefly, there

are various factors with Norwich that are either hard to quantify or

unknown. Such as the desire/willingness/desperation/need etc etc etc of

the owners to sell. Frankly only they would know if that was a

stumbling block.

Geography is another such. If we were in London would we attract more interest? Probably. But definitely?

However there are three factors that are known quantities, which apply

to most clubs - purchase price, debt and running costs. And with Norwich

the position is this:

1. Purchase price. The share price (of £30) is an irrelevance without

the context of how many shares one has to buy. What matters is the

overall price. And with Norwich there is a theoretical low price of

£8,025,030, a theoretical high price of £16m, and the actual price in

the real world of around £9.8m. Yes, Birmingham shares went for £1, but

the overall price was more than £80m. A purchase price of under £10m

when Birmingham (with whom we could be sharing a division next season)

went for more than eight times that is not a stumbling block for a

serious bidder.

2. Debt. We await the latest accounts, but it was more than double the

£9.8m purchase price. So it doesn''t take a genius to work out that is

much more of a factor.

3. Running costs post-purchase. The most important factor, with Norwich

and with most other clubs. As the chairman of West Brom has said, in

putting his club up for sale. As Preston have just confirmed as well:

"
We have once again been heavily reliant on the

assistance of our major shareholder, Guild Ventures for continuing

financial support. Without this we certainly could not

continue to compete with the cost of the squad we have maintained which

remains well in excess of our total football income."

So, finally, to answer your question,

the main reason why Norwich has not been sold is almost certainly that

no-one has yet come forward who is willing to provide "continuing

financial support". Ie, to keep bankrolling the club indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?

Owners that don''t really want to sell / give up control I would say is the top reason.

That''s now Morgan at Wolves and Sullivan at Charlton: mates of Delia who have chosen another place to invest their money.

Both clubs sold for 1 pound by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="I.S."][quote user="Cullum Ave A Go If You Think Youre Ard Enough"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote] There are 56 millions reasons my friend![/quote]FFS, why do people continually misquote the 56 million figure?!

[/quote]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article4314315.ece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Cullum ''Ave A Go If You Think You''re ''Ard Enough"][quote user="I.S."][quote user="Cullum Ave A Go If You Think Youre Ard Enough"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote] There are 56 millions reasons my friend![/quote]

FFS, why do people continually misquote the 56 million figure?!


[/quote] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article4314315.ece[/quote]

So including the 20m for players the greedy old trout wanted 76m [:O]

The closer you look the worse it gets[:@]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="CanaryPurple"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote]

Puzzy Magnet, a fair question. The full answer would be way too long for a message-board. But briefly, there are various factors with Norwich that are either hard to quantify or unknown. Such as the desire/willingness/desperation/need etc etc etc of the owners to sell. Frankly only they would know if that was a stumbling block.

Geography is another such. If we were in London would we attract more interest? Probably. But definitely?

However there are three factors that are known quantities, which apply to most clubs - purchase price, debt and running costs. And with Norwich the position is this:

1. Purchase price. The share price (of £30) is an irrelevance without the context of how many shares one has to buy. What matters is the overall price. And with Norwich there is a theoretical low price of £8,025,030, a theoretical high price of £16m, and the actual price in the real world of around £9.8m. Yes, Birmingham shares went for £1, but the overall price was more than £80m. A purchase price of under £10m when Birmingham (with whom we could be sharing a division next season) went for more than eight times that is not a stumbling block for a serious bidder.

2. Debt. We await the latest accounts, but it was more than double the £9.8m purchase price. So it doesn''t take a genius to work out that is much more of a factor.

3. Running costs post-purchase. The most important factor, with Norwich and with most other clubs. As the chairman of West Brom has said, in putting his club up for sale. As Preston have just confirmed as well:

"
We have once again been heavily reliant on the assistance of our major shareholder, Guild Ventures for continuing financial support. Without this we certainly could not continue to compete with the cost of the squad we have maintained which remains well in excess of our total football income."

So, finally, to answer your question, the main reason why Norwich has not been sold is almost certainly that no-one has yet come forward who is willing to provide "continuing financial support". Ie, to keep bankrolling the club indefinitely.[/quote]

Nice long answer. The real reason is that the old trout does not want to sell, however.

When I say sell, I mean let someone with proper money take over for £0, which is the realistic position to take re the club''s value.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Puzzy magnet "]

[quote user="CanaryPurple"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote]Puzzy Magnet, a fair question. The full answer would be way too long for a message-board. But briefly, there are various factors with Norwich that are either hard to quantify or unknown. Such as the desire/willingness/desperation/need etc etc etc of the owners to sell. Frankly only they would know if that was a stumbling block.Geography is another such. If we were in London would we attract more interest? Probably. But definitely?However there are three factors that are known quantities, which apply to most clubs - purchase price, debt and running costs. And with Norwich the position is this:1. Purchase price. The share price (of £30) is an irrelevance without the context of how many shares one has to buy. What matters is the overall price. And with Norwich there is a theoretical low price of £8,025,030, a theoretical high price of £16m, and the actual price in the real world of around £9.8m. Yes, Birmingham shares went for £1, but the overall price was more than £80m. A purchase price of under £10m when Birmingham (with whom we could be sharing a division next season) went for more than eight times that is not a stumbling block for a serious bidder.2. Debt. We await the latest accounts, but it was more than double the £9.8m purchase price. So it doesn''t take a genius to work out that is much more of a factor.3. Running costs post-purchase. The most important factor, with Norwich and with most other clubs. As the chairman of West Brom has said, in putting his club up for sale. As Preston have just confirmed as well:"We have once again been heavily reliant on the assistance of our major shareholder, Guild Ventures for continuing financial support. Without this we certainly could not continue to compete with the cost of the squad we have maintained which remains well in excess of our total football income."So, finally, to answer your question, the main reason why Norwich has not been sold is almost certainly that no-one has yet come forward who is willing to provide "continuing financial support". Ie, to keep bankrolling the club indefinitely.[/quote]

Nice long answer. The real reason is that the old trout does not want to sell, however. When I say sell, I mean let someone with proper money take over for £0, which is the realistic position to take re the club''s value.

[/quote]Puzzy magnet, answering fact with unsubstantiated opinion is certainly one way of concluding a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question I would ask people who might prefer Sullivan here is, do they feel that leaving these debts, primed to blow up in the face of the new owner upon his arrival, was in the best interests of Birmingham City FC ?  Money that Yeung might have to pay on old debts is money that he won''t have to spend on transfers in January after all...And if Yeung is a former hairdresser, what does that make Sullivan.I hope he buys Charlton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CanaryPurple"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]

[quote user="CanaryPurple"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote]

Puzzy Magnet, a fair question. The full answer would be way too long for a message-board. But briefly, there are various factors with Norwich that are either hard to quantify or unknown. Such as the desire/willingness/desperation/need etc etc etc of the owners to sell. Frankly only they would know if that was a stumbling block.

Geography is another such. If we were in London would we attract more interest? Probably. But definitely?

However there are three factors that are known quantities, which apply to most clubs - purchase price, debt and running costs. And with Norwich the position is this:

1. Purchase price. The share price (of £30) is an irrelevance without the context of how many shares one has to buy. What matters is the overall price. And with Norwich there is a theoretical low price of £8,025,030, a theoretical high price of £16m, and the actual price in the real world of around £9.8m. Yes, Birmingham shares went for £1, but the overall price was more than £80m. A purchase price of under £10m when Birmingham (with whom we could be sharing a division next season) went for more than eight times that is not a stumbling block for a serious bidder.

2. Debt. We await the latest accounts, but it was more than double the £9.8m purchase price. So it doesn''t take a genius to work out that is much more of a factor.

3. Running costs post-purchase. The most important factor, with Norwich and with most other clubs. As the chairman of West Brom has said, in putting his club up for sale. As Preston have just confirmed as well:

"
We have once again been heavily reliant on the assistance of our major shareholder, Guild Ventures for continuing financial support. Without this we certainly could not continue to compete with the cost of the squad we have maintained which remains well in excess of our total football income."

So, finally, to answer your question, the main reason why Norwich has not been sold is almost certainly that no-one has yet come forward who is willing to provide "continuing financial support". Ie, to keep bankrolling the club indefinitely.[/quote]

Nice long answer. The real reason is that the old trout does not want to sell, however.

When I say sell, I mean let someone with proper money take over for £0, which is the realistic position to take re the club''s value.


[/quote]

Puzzy magnet, answering fact with unsubstantiated opinion is certainly one way of concluding a discussion.[/quote]

 

Nil is the cash flow value of most football clubs but that is not the market value of owning a football when you look what other clubs change hands for.

She has not also not sold because no one has publicy ever offered to buy her out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the years I have never thought that I would prefer our club to be owned by "The Birmingham Lot". I still don''t! For me the love of the club must be the driving force to invest in it. Until that invester comes along i''d rather keep what we''ve got.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="CanaryPurple"][quote user="Puzzy magnet "]What''s the reason why Norwich hasn''t been bought yet then you reckon?[/quote]

Puzzy Magnet, a fair question. The full answer would be way too long for a message-board. But briefly, there are various factors with Norwich that are either hard to quantify or unknown. Such as the desire/willingness/desperation/need etc etc etc of the owners to sell. Frankly only they would know if that was a stumbling block.

Geography is another such. If we were in London would we attract more interest? Probably. But definitely?

However there are three factors that are known quantities, which apply to most clubs - purchase price, debt and running costs. And with Norwich the position is this:

1. Purchase price. The share price (of £30) is an irrelevance without the context of how many shares one has to buy. What matters is the overall price. And with Norwich there is a theoretical low price of £8,025,030, a theoretical high price of £16m, and the actual price in the real world of around £9.8m. Yes, Birmingham shares went for £1, but the overall price was more than £80m. A purchase price of under £10m when Birmingham (with whom we could be sharing a division next season) went for more than eight times that is not a stumbling block for a serious bidder.

2. Debt. We await the latest accounts, but it was more than double the £9.8m purchase price. So it doesn''t take a genius to work out that is much more of a factor.

3. Running costs post-purchase. The most important factor, with Norwich and with most other clubs. As the chairman of West Brom has said, in putting his club up for sale. As Preston have just confirmed as well:

"
We have once again been heavily reliant on the assistance of our major shareholder, Guild Ventures for continuing financial support. Without this we certainly could not continue to compete with the cost of the squad we have maintained which remains well in excess of our total football income."

So, finally, to answer your question, the main reason why Norwich has not been sold is almost certainly that no-one has yet come forward who is willing to provide "continuing financial support". Ie, to keep bankrolling the club indefinitely.[/quote]

.....or take on the (from £8+ million in 96 to the now £20+ million) gargantuan (but manageable) debt....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]So Sullivan has left his old club in the sh*t and nobody can see how thats a problem?

Some of you are completely blinded by your dislike of Delia that you would gladly take anyone.
[/quote]

So, if the majority shareholding duo of NCFC left next month.....They''d leave us in a healthy position financially?....And that they''d personally - be out of pocket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, whenever they leave, even at the best deal imaginable for them,  they''ll clearly be out of pocket.  I don''t think there''s any doubt whatsoever about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...