Thames Sports Investment

[Hampshire Royal]

What %age stake is SJM selling? That would be 51%. I am not his biggest fan but even I have confidence that he will not sell the club to a bunch of con men. After all, he would still hold a 49% stake in the club and I would expect that he would want to ensure that what is left of his investment is secure.

If these guys are not in for the long haul & want to make a quick buck, the fact remains they have first dibs to buy JM out & could then easily sell the club to god knows who for a tidy profit once/if we got to the Prem. Lets hope JM keeps his 49% for a long time.

What's to stop them selling their 51% stake in the same situation you describe?

[facaldaqui]

What %age stake is SJM selling? That would be 51%. I am not his biggest fan but even I have confidence that he will not sell the club to a bunch of con men. After all, he would still hold a 49% stake in the club and I would expect that he would want to ensure that what is left of his investment is secure.

If these guys are not in for the long haul & want to make a quick buck, the fact remains they have first dibs to buy JM out & could then easily sell the club to god knows who for a tidy profit once/if we got to the Prem. Lets hope JM keeps his 49% for a long time.

When Samuelson was asked whether the money was loans or a gift, he said that in practice it made little difference. If a club goes bust then you're likely to lose your money, whether your investment was loans or not--ask Chanrai and Gaydamak. But it makes sense for the moeny to be in the form of loans, in case you do sell the club on, in which case the new owners will pay you the money back. What rarely happens is a current owner suddenly turning round and saying "I demand my money back"; realistically, the money wouldn't be available--it would be tied up in the playing staff and the infrastructure. Someone said that TSI wouldn't make the investment if they weren't sure of getting their money back; but no one in football can expect that--usually investors see a consistent drag on their funds. The capital provided to the club is a speculation rather than a gilt-edged investment--but not an unpromising one, I suspect.

[Norfolk Royal]

What %age stake is SJM selling? That would be 51%. I am not his biggest fan but even I have confidence that he will not sell the club to a bunch of con men. After all, he would still hold a 49% stake in the club and I would expect that he would want to ensure that what is left of his investment is secure.

If these guys are not in for the long haul & want to make a quick buck, the fact remains they have first dibs to buy JM out & could then easily sell the club to god knows who for a tidy profit once/if we got to the Prem. Lets hope JM keeps his 49% for a long time.

When Samuelson was asked whether the money was loans or a gift, he said that in practice it made little difference. If a club goes bust then you're likely to lose your money, whether your investment was loans or not--ask Chanrai and Gaydamak. But it makes sense for the moeny to be in the form of loans, in case you do sell the club on, in which case the new owners will pay you the money back. What rarely happens is a current owner suddenly turning round and saying "I demand my money back"; realistically, the money wouldn't be available--it would be tied up in the playing staff and the infrastructure. Someone said that TSI wouldn't make the investment if they weren't sure of getting their money back; but no one in football can expect that--usually investors see a consistent drag on their funds. The capital provided to the club is a speculation rather than a gilt-edged investment--but not an unpromising one, I suspect.

That makes sense.

[Hampshire Royal]

This is all true. But just look at the grief Madejski got from certain people for daring to draw some money as part repayment of his loans!!

[Dare to Dr£am]

What %age stake is SJM selling? That would be 51%. I am not his biggest fan but even I have confidence that he will not sell the club to a bunch of con men. After all, he would still hold a 49% stake in the club and I would expect that he would want to ensure that what is left of his investment is secure.

Only for 2 years and then the buyout will be complete if what Samuelson has said happens, or SJM changes his mind. I think it's in two stages so SJM can oversee a sensible handover and feel comfortable TSI are doing right by us, which I feel they will be.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

When you think about what Madejski has done for this club over the last twenty years or so, I just find it impossible to believe that he would risk losing that (and his 49% stake in the club) without him being as near certain as possible that TSI are the 'real deal'. It has been common knowledge that he has been looking for a buyer for some time now, and there have been rumours that buyers had been found. For whatever reasons, these supposed deals never happened. It is because of his careful approach that I believe that all is as OK as can be and that the Due Diligence tests carried out by the FL (and by Madesjski himself) will confirm this.

If you don't honesly think that there aren't people on this board who will try and find fault in whatever Madejski does, then I would suggest that you read back over this forum, but this time look a bit more carefully.

Do you always sound this sanctimonious?

Who is having a dig at JM on here today?! No one. People are just voicing concerns over who might be our new owners in 2 weeks. They can butter him up & say all the right things now but the reality is in 2-3 years JM may not have a say at all. Just because YOU believe everything is rosy in the garden doesn't mean it is.

Due diligence by the FL? Yeah right.

They are investing in the club for one reason only - to make money. It's not for love. Get real. Football is a mug's game - you can't make money on the day to day. The only way they can make money on RFC is to sell it. Once they have the full 100% of shares & PL status then quite frankly we could get sold to any old crook & plunged into debt.

But hey as long as YOU think its okay I feel a lot better now.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

What %age stake is SJM selling? That would be 51%. I am not his biggest fan but even I have confidence that he will not sell the club to a bunch of con men. After all, he would still hold a 49% stake in the club and I would expect that he would want to ensure that what is left of his investment is secure.

If these guys are not in for the long haul & want to make a quick buck, the fact remains they have first dibs to buy JM out & could then easily sell the club to god knows who for a tidy profit once/if we got to the Prem. Lets hope JM keeps his 49% for a long time.

What's to stop them selling their 51% stake in the same situation you describe?

JM as 49% shareholder will probably hold some sort of veto for this.

[facaldaqui]

They are investing in the club for one reason only - to make money. It's not for love. Get real. Football is a mug's game - you can't make money on the day to day. The only way they can make money on RFC is to sell it. Once they have the full 100% of shares & PL status then quite frankly we could get sold to any old crook & plunged into debt.

I agree that we should be cautious. But I suspect the club would need to get "plunged into debt" under TSI before it would be sold to a crook or wannabe by the owners, because the standard of owner goes down proportionately to the degree of mess a club is in (until it ends up getting swapped around like a clapped-out whore in the back streets of Riyadh). If TSI run the club properly, they will not want to sell the club to someone for a song--or 1p, as in the case of Rangers: they will want to sell to someone with the wherewithal to pay them what their investment is worth. This is what Madejski was doing. On the one hand, yes, he was safeguarding the club by not being prepared to sell it to anyone except the mightily rich; on the other, wily fox, he was safeguarding his own investment by not selling it off in such a way as to lose his investment. At the moment, I'm reasonably optimistic this new lot would not stump up the necessary cash without wanting to protect it.

[Uke]

JM as 49% shareholder will probably hold some sort of veto for this.

The veto of a minority shareholder

[MmmMonsterMunch]

Can I just state I hope they are all a fine bunch of chaps with good intentions?

[RoyalBlue]

Agreed - watching the Rangers story unfold I just hope & pray it doesn't happen to us.

Apparently, there's no evidence that Craig Whyte ever put a ha'penny into Rangers, but we already have evidence of TSI putting money into Reading, and I expect the Mullins money comes from them too. If there were hitches in the deal, I don't think the Mullins loan would have happened.

Loaning money. not putting money

At very favourable (to the club) interest rates. So what's different? The king may be dead, long live the king (only Mrs Anton is rather more attractive than Surprise, Surprise)

JM as 49% shareholder will probably hold some sort of veto for this.

The veto of a minority shareholder

Exactly. Whilst he can't be forced to sell his shares, I don't think he can stop them selling theirs to whoever they like.

[Hampshire Royal]

I'm not really stupid, and I do believe that things may go wrong. How long had negotiations been taking place between Anton and Madejski? No, I don't know either. Given his track record with Reading, I would guess that he made proper enquiries into Anton's worth and character which is why I said that Due Diligence is being made not only by the FL (and I know what you mean when you say this isn't worth too much, or at least it hadn't been in the past) but also by his own people, who I would tend to trust more.

I don't mean to sound sanctimonious (maybe I just can't help it) but I have always believed that Madejski has had the best interests of Reading at heart and that even in these straightened times he just wouldn't sell the controlling interest in the club to anyone he hadn't investigated thoroughly.

Do you really believe that there are not people on this board who don't slag off Madejski and/or the club at the merest hint that he isn't doing things exactly as they want him to?

[MmmMonsterMunch]

I'm not really stupid, and I do believe that things may go wrong. How long had negotiations been taking place between Anton and Madejski? No, I don't know either. Given his track record with Reading, I would guess that he made proper enquiries into Anton's worth and character which is why I said that Due Diligence is being made not only by the FL (and I know what you mean when you say this isn't worth too much, or at least it hadn't been in the past) but also by his own people, who I would tend to trust more.

I don't mean to sound sanctimonious (maybe I just can't help it) but I have always believed that Madejski has had the best interests of Reading at heart and that even in these straightened times he just wouldn't sell the controlling interest in the club to anyone he hadn't investigated thoroughly.

Do you really believe that there are not people on this board who don't slag off Madejski and/or the club at the merest hint that he isn't doing things exactly as they want him to?

I really don't understand why you are going about people who slag off JM. It is completely & utterly irrelevant to what we are discussing.

As for the actual debate...Of course he has the best interests of the club at heart - everybody knows this. Doesn't mean it can't go tits up once TSI get all the shares!

[MmmMonsterMunch]

Loaning money. not putting money[/quote]


At very favourable (to the club) interest rates. So what's different? The king may be dead, long live the king (only Mrs Anton is rather more attractive than Surprise, Surprise)

JM as 49% shareholder will probably hold some sort of veto for this.

The veto of a minority shareholder

Exactly. Whilst he can't be forced to sell his shares, I don't think he can stop them selling theirs to whoever they like.[/quote]

He can't do fcuk all once TSI buy the rest though!

[Hampshire Royal]

TSI seem to be playing a very long game!!

[PieEater]

I see the fact that we are signing Mullins as further proof they are serious. If things were going awry the money for this loan wouldn't have been available

[Friday's Legacy]

I see the fact that we are signing Mullins as further proof they are serious. If things were going awry the money for this loan wouldn't have been available

i would agree with that. mullins mentioned how close we were to bringing him here last summer but it was wages that killed the move. not because the player was greedy but because we have a strict wage structure and couldn't find a happy medium with the player. that is now a thing of the past. if it's the right player at the right price then we can now go and get him. i feel very positive about the direction this club is now going. 5 months ago i was very concerned about it. it's a funny old game.

[urz13]

Just imagine if TSI hadn't come in...McDermott and possibly Hammond would be gone, Kebe would be gone, we wouldn't have any of Roberts, Mullins, Connolly or Cywka, and we'd be a struggling mid table side

[facaldaqui]

I see the fact that we are signing Mullins as further proof they are serious. If things were going awry the money for this loan wouldn't have been available

i would agree with that. mullins mentioned how close we were to bringing him here last summer but it was wages that killed the move. not because the player was greedy but because we have a strict wage structure and couldn't find a happy medium with the player.

I'd be interested to know more detail about that. Was it another case, like that of Tommy Smith, where we were outcompeted by a club who paid above the market rate when they couldn't afford it? If so, then how fitting that they now lose him to us because they can't afford to pay him. A part of me doesn't like scavenging off a wounded club, but in this case it seems like a sort of justice--maybe Brian and Hammond think that way too.

[facaldaqui]

Just imagine if TSI hadn't come in...McDermott and possibly Hammond would be gone, Kebe would be gone, we wouldn't have any of Roberts, Mullins, Connolly or Cywka, and we'd be a struggling mid table side

Possibly. Or we might have gone on a good run anyway. Because #brianpullsrabbitsoutofthehat.