Daniel Kretinsky

[h69]

Worth 2.9 billion ?

Fucking pauper.

I bet he wonders where his next meal is coming from

[tassiehammer]

Do the big 6 have to ok it first? Wouldn't want to upset them.

[Ibbyham]

Do the big 6 have to ok it first? Wouldn't want to upset them.

Now only big 3 in Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City while the rest are far behind, even Man Utd.

By year 2030, 15 clubs will have billionnaire owners of £20 Billions PLUS so there will be NO BIG 3 to 6 teams. It will be like from the start of football league 1888 to 1970 when ANY team can win the TITLE. The only way to be successful is get top training coaches, fitness coaches, recruitment staff and owners to the managers who are 100% ambition enough to win trophies. West Ham aren't far off from that as Man City manager Pep Guardiola is very IMPRESSED how West Ham transformed since the turn of the new decade of 2020 in very tight budget and Pep said West Ham is the hardest team to beat against my team. Need to continiue building and with Czech Billoinnaire closing in the 27% stake that would clear off club debt more and getting at least good funds to buy players without worrying too much on limit.

[Whiskyman]

Technically the club does not have a new owner. Only when he has a majority shareholding would that be the case

But surely WHU is a PLC and anyone who have shares in that company are in fact owners. Tripp Smith is a 10 % shareholder and therefore classed as a 10% owner of the club. If this new guy is going to invest 150 million in West Ham stock is he not classed as percentage owner of the club? Just because Sullivan is a majority shareholder doesn't make him the outright owner

Now my thoughts are by adding a new shareholder tô the club does that not been the original owners GSB and Smith have sold part of the club and therefore the original ownership has changed?

If I was part of the,LS legal team I would be looking very closely at the lease contract to see if I could claw back some money

You're right Andy West Ham is a PLC and if this Kretinsky guy wants to invest there's basically two easy ways it can be done. Let's say West Ham's value is, as the dwarf claims, £600 million. And for the sake of argument let's assume there are 60 million shares in existence at £10 each, of which the dwarf owns the majority (51.5%). Dribbly owns 35.1%. WHU LLC (Tripp Smith) owns 10% and the remaining 3.4% are owned by assorted nobodies.

Two things can happen. The dwarf and the other shareholders can each sell some of their shares to Kretinsky which may mean the dwarf no longer holds the majority, depending on how many of his personal holding he sells. Alternatively the dwarf can decide to, basically, print more share certificates and sell them to Kretinsky at an agreed price. The club would still be valued at £600 million because the club's assets are unchanged, but, bearing in mind there are now millions of new shares in existence, the individual share value would be reduced.

If the dwarf and the dribbly one sold a batch of their shareholding to Kretinsky their respective percentage holdings would be reduced and, consequently, so would their voting power. But they would, between them, still hold the majority. But I'd guess it's more likely that if Kretinsky wants to invest in the club, and the amount being quoted is apparently around £160 million, it will be the second option and new shares will be created.

But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[andyginbrasil]

But surely WHU is a PLC and anyone who have shares in that company are in fact owners. Tripp Smith is a 10 % shareholder and therefore classed as a 10% owner of the club. If this new guy is going to invest 150 million in West Ham stock is he not classed as percentage owner of the club? Just because Sullivan is a majority shareholder doesn't make him the outright owner

Now my thoughts are by adding a new shareholder tô the club does that not been the original owners GSB and Smith have sold part of the club and therefore the original ownership has changed?

If I was part of the,LS legal team I would be looking very closely at the lease contract to see if I could claw back some money

You're right Andy West Ham is a PLC and if this Kretinsky guy wants to invest there's basically two easy ways it can be done. Let's say West Ham's value is, as the dwarf claims, £600 million. And for the sake of argument let's assume there are 60 million shares in existence at £10 each, of which the dwarf owns the majority.

Two things can happen. The dwarf and the other shareholders can each sell some of their shares to Kretinsky so that the dwarf still holds the majority. Alternatively the dwarf can decide to, basically, print more share certificates, sell them to Kretinsky at an agreed price. The4 club would still be valued at £600 million because the new individual share value, bearing in mind there are now millions of new shares in existence, would be reduced.

I don't know what percentage of the shareholding the dwarf currently owns but if he was the only shareholder to sell to Kretisky to give him 27% I would guess he would no longer be the majority shareholder and could, therefore, be voted down by the others.

He could buy Dribbles part, and leave Sullivan with the majority shareholding of 51%. When the deal was done initially with the LS the club was valued at 150 million, therefore there is profit made but my argument is that there is a clear change in ownership, as Kretisky would now be a part owner.

If this is not classed as new ownership, the system is open to abuse, Sullivan and Gold could sell all their shares, barr 10 % and therefore remain as owners, albeit in a minority. They could then hang on until the clause in the contract relating to dues owed on profit from the sale of the club in 2023 and then sell them their remaining parts.

Maybe I'm far from the facts but like I said earlier if I was the Lawyer for the LS I would be delving very deeply in the small print of the lease contract

[Whiskyman]

You're right Andy West Ham is a PLC and if this Kretinsky guy wants to invest there's basically two easy ways it can be done. Let's say West Ham's value is, as the dwarf claims, £600 million. And for the sake of argument let's assume there are 60 million shares in existence at £10 each, of which the dwarf owns the majority.

Two things can happen. The dwarf and the other shareholders can each sell some of their shares to Kretinsky so that the dwarf still holds the majority. Alternatively the dwarf can decide to, basically, print more share certificates, sell them to Kretinsky at an agreed price. The4 club would still be valued at £600 million because the new individual share value, bearing in mind there are now millions of new shares in existence, would be reduced.

I don't know what percentage of the shareholding the dwarf currently owns but if he was the only shareholder to sell to Kretisky to give him 27% I would guess he would no longer be the majority shareholder and could, therefore, be voted down by the others.

He could buy Dribbles part, and leave Sullivan with the majority shareholding of 51%. When the deal was done initially with the LS the club was valued at 150 million, therefore there is profit made but my argument is that there is a clear change in ownership, as Kretisky would now be a part owner.

If this is not classed as new ownership, the system is open to abuse, Sullivan and Gold could sell all their shares, barr 10 % and therefore remain as owners, albeit in a minority. They could then hang on until the clause in the contract relating to dues owed on profit from the sale of the club in 2023 and then sell them their remaining parts.

Maybe I'm far from the facts but like I said earlier if I was the Lawyer for the LS I would be delving very deeply in the small print of the lease contract

I edited my post but you beat me to it and copied the bit before the edit, you rascal.

I get what you're saying but that's why I don't think Kretinsky , if he wants to invest, will actually BUY any shares from anyone but will instead invest a sum of money and will receive an agreed number of newly created shares for his investment. Basically if Sullivan SOLD his shares he would trouser the money. If new shares are created the PLC would receive an influx of cash which would increase it's working capital.

[andyginbrasil]

He could buy Dribbles part, and leave Sullivan with the majority shareholding of 51%. When the deal was done initially with the LS the club was valued at 150 million, therefore there is profit made but my argument is that there is a clear change in ownership, as Kretisky would now be a part owner.

If this is not classed as new ownership, the system is open to abuse, Sullivan and Gold could sell all their shares, barr 10 % and therefore remain as owners, albeit in a minority. They could then hang on until the clause in the contract relating to dues owed on profit from the sale of the club in 2023 and then sell them their remaining parts.

Maybe I'm far from the facts but like I said earlier if I was the Lawyer for the LS I would be delving very deeply in the small print of the lease contract

I edited my post but you beat me to it and copied the bit before the edit, you rascal.

I get what you're saying but that's why I don't think Kretinsky , if he wants to invest, will actually BUY any shares from anyone but will instead invest a sum of money and will receive an agreed number of newly created shares for his investment. Basically if Sullivan SOLD his shares he would trouser the money. If new shares are created the PLC would receive an influx of cash which would increase it's working capital.

He is obviously putting a lot of trust in Sullivan's integrity.....

[Whiskyman]

I edited my post but you beat me to it and copied the bit before the edit, you rascal.

I get what you're saying but that's why I don't think Kretinsky , if he wants to invest, will actually BUY any shares from anyone but will instead invest a sum of money and will receive an agreed number of newly created shares for his investment. Basically if Sullivan SOLD his shares he would trouser the money. If new shares are created the PLC would receive an influx of cash which would increase it's working capital.

He is obviously putting a lot of trust in Sullivan's integrity.....

I doubt it mate. Billionaires don't usually become billionaires by being gullible do they.

[Rick_Deckard]

Whoever buys or sells whatever and whatever the arrangements/ and setup of any "deals", certain people will make a load of dosh...they dont do this to lose money.
The lawyers etc will advise how to skirt any barriers etc, overcome any PL/FA rules etc.....
The primary objective is to make as much money as possible anyway they can, football is secondary to these people

[Whiskyman]

Whoever buys or sells whatever and whatever the arrangements/ and setup of any "deals", certain people will make a load of dosh...they dont do this to lose money.
The lawyers etc will advise how to skirt any barriers etc, overcome any PL/FA rules etc.....
The primary objective is to make as much money as possible anyway they can, football is secondary to these people

Absolutely correct. People don't invest in businesses for fun. They do it to make money, and hopefully lots of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a sharp reality check.

I exclude Sullivan and Gold from that of course because they bought West Ham because they bought the club because they love it and any profit they may eventually finish up with is completely secondary.