Takeover talk

The Forum for all football-related discussion, including West Ham United FC. Our busiest Forum and the place to begin if you're new to KUMB.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
YeOldHammer
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:20 am
Total likes: 51 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by YeOldHammer »

jastons wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:05 am I'm for the taxpayer as well but you can't expect Gold & Sully to suffer a 'financial penalty' when they haven't sold the club.
I think the LLDC will be arguing that a sale has been done at an X price but payment deferred till after a fixed period of time. It will come down to what is written in the agreement signed. If the wording has anything such as "intent" to sell or anything along those lines that muddies the water around what constitutes the sale of the club and when that triggers, then the LLDC will have a case when taking WHU to court over payments not been made with the 2023 clause.
User avatar
paulhs1
Posts: 11560
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Just South of the Thames
Has liked: 1736 likes
Total likes: 1483 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by paulhs1 »

YeOldHammer wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:01 am I think the LLDC will be arguing that a sale has been done at an X price but payment deferred till after a fixed period of time. It will come down to what is written in the agreement signed. If the wording has anything such as "intent" to sell or anything along those lines that muddies the water around what constitutes the sale of the club and when that triggers, then the LLDC will have a case when taking WHU to court over payments not been made with the 2023 clause.
I personally would like our muggy owners to cough up and lose a few quid but legally they have no obligation to do so.

As a property developer I've dealt with numerous option agreements, its how many (most deals) are done and I can tell you categorically that theres no legs in this argument.

Imagine going down the pub later and agreeing with your mate that you'll get a round of shots in if Antonio scores the first goal. Knowing you're a tight git he asks you to confirm it in writing so you write it on the back of a beer mat and both sign it.
You've not bought any drinks, you've just agreed that you MIGHT buy some drinks and if you do have to buy the drinks you wont do so until after 2pm when theres a happy hour at the pub and you get it at a discount.

A contract has been entered into which entails that Kretinsky MIGHT buy the club in 2023. That is all.
User avatar
RichieRiv
Posts: 20858
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 2:35 pm
Location: https://www.hireahero.org.uk/
Has liked: 307 likes
Total likes: 803 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by RichieRiv »

It would bd interesting to see the contract, but I would wager that owners (all of em) can afford far superior legal counsel than the LLDC.
YeOldHammer
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:20 am
Total likes: 51 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by YeOldHammer »

paulhs1 wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:27 am I personally would like our muggy owners to cough up and lose a few quid but legally they have no obligation to do so.

As a property developer I've dealt with numerous option agreements, its how many (most deals) are done and I can tell you categorically that theres no legs in this argument.

Imagine going down the pub later and agreeing with your mate that you'll get a round of shots in if Antonio scores the first goal. Knowing you're a tight git he asks you to confirm it in writing so you write it on the back of a beer mat and both sign it.
You've not bought any drinks, you've just agreed that you MIGHT buy some drinks and if you do have to buy the drinks you wont do so until after 2pm when theres a happy hour at the pub and you get it at a discount.

A contract has been entered into which entails that Kretinsky MIGHT buy the club in 2023. That is all.
I don't disagree, I was playing devils advocate on the side of LLDC. Their line of attack will be to say what constitutes a sale of the club. Much like has been done in football transfers with the "Obligation to buy" when a team loans a player with a potential sale at the end of the season with said clause inserted. This is what the LLDC will be looking to attack as the "potential sale of the club" to and whether he has entered negotiations to agree to fully buy the club at a future date.

Whilst I am not a legal expert, if like in your analogy someone did make that bet and write down on the back of beer mat with both parties signing it to commit to such a "deal." I have seen in a small claims court that that is actually a valid contract. It wouldn't come down to "might" buy some drinks if you have agreed that, the trigger of the bet is Antonio scoring first. You could argue that "it wasn't the first goal in this specific game," "the timeframe for shots to be paid." But the expectation in a small claims court would make the expectation that both parties were at said pub to watch said game and the bet was made before said game, I don't think either of those arguments would wash and payment of said round of shots would be expected to be paid if Antonio did score the goal first and provide those shots on the same day that the bet was made unless stipulated otherwise.
You don't for example bet a tenner that West Ham will beat Man City with a mate with an intention to pay that money in 40 years time unless that time frame for payment was originally agreed upon by both parties, it would never hold up in a small claims court to simply say i will give you the tenner in 40 years time.
User avatar
HamburgHammer
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, Hamburg, Germany, to be precise
Has liked: 2 likes
Total likes: 7 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by HamburgHammer »

Daniel Kretinsky is a lawyer by trade. He is also owning various companies, in part or full, running some of them.
Which means he will know every legal trick in the book when it comes to business transactions and if he himself doesn't know for sure he will be in touch with a legal expert who knows.

I think with Kretinsky we can be certain that West Ham will be safe in terms of having watertight contracts which will stand up in court.
Unless we get the old chap from the Sheffield United tribunal again...
User avatar
paulhs1
Posts: 11560
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Just South of the Thames
Has liked: 1736 likes
Total likes: 1483 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by paulhs1 »

Yeoldhammer

Let's say you're correct. What's to say that at 12.01 pm on the said day in 2023 that agreement is ripped up and that at 12.01 and 1 second a new agreement is signed at an additional cost to Kretinsky of £1.
YeOldHammer
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:20 am
Total likes: 51 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by YeOldHammer »

If its after the allotted time period. Then there would be no legal leg to stand on. The problem is with newspaper speculation and other media sources, the narrative is that a deal for the sale and majority ownership for the club has already been made, but to take effect at a later date. That is what is what I imagine the LLDC is kicking a fuss over and is trying to prove whether that is a factual statement and is what is happening.

I personally cannot see how the LLDC would be able to ever prove it, beyond similar to a Club trying to prove that another Club has "tapped" up a player without some iron clad evidence. I doubt the LLDC has anything beyond trying to Muddy the waters over wording in the contract to say the clause has been triggered already.
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
Posts: 9644
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:15 am
Location: In exile up north
Has liked: 111 likes
Total likes: 149 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by York Ham(mer) »

As I understand it, Kretinsky has an option to buy shares. He may never exercise that option. That being so, it cannot be said that there’s an obligation to buy the club or that it has been sold.
User avatar
paulhs1
Posts: 11560
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Just South of the Thames
Has liked: 1736 likes
Total likes: 1483 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by paulhs1 »

Also likely that the LLDC contract played a huge part in this and that the clubs lawyers would have made sure that any clauses in that contract was adhered to in the option agreement
User avatar
bonzosbeard
Posts: 13224
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:48 am
Location: somerset
Has liked: 2115 likes
Total likes: 1336 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by bonzosbeard »

He might be asking for a bit of discount if not signed yet.

Joking aside, and I liked our effort against Spurs, hopefully the recent performances will show we are glaringly missing in central defence, left back, striker, and even a spare in defensive midfield positions.

I dont mind loans but next summer some improvements to push on.
User avatar
Shabu
Posts: 11940
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:38 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Has liked: 4167 likes
Total likes: 2019 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Shabu »

Since this Kretinsky bloke joined the club we've won one game out of eight.

I'm not saying he's a **** but he's definitely a ****.

Brady needs to boot him in the b*llocks.
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
Posts: 40715
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
Has liked: 1905 likes
Total likes: 1614 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Cuenca 'ammer »

Shabu wrote: Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:11 pm Since this Kretinsky bloke joined the club we've won one game out of eight.

I'm not saying he's a **** but he's definitely a ****.

Brady needs to boot him in the b*llocks.
she probably got another 1M bonus for finding him....

:crylol:
User avatar
Vic_Watson
Posts: 8033
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:25 pm
Location: Brazil
Has liked: 167 likes
Total likes: 259 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Vic_Watson »

Must think he's been sold a bum steer. Hope he kept the receipt.
User avatar
Shabu
Posts: 11940
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:38 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Has liked: 4167 likes
Total likes: 2019 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Shabu »

Cuenca 'ammer wrote: Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:18 pm she probably got another 1M bonus for finding him....

:crylol:
She has him under her complete control now.

https://images.perthnow.com.au/publicat ... 2.jpeg.jpg
Last edited by Up the Junction on Mon Dec 27, 2021 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Image changed to link.
User avatar
Albie Beck
Posts: 9648
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:42 am
Has liked: 617 likes
Total likes: 639 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Albie Beck »

Shabu wrote: Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:27 pm She has him under her complete control now.
Not 'ouston surely?
User avatar
Cuenca 'ammer
ex 'ouston 'ammer
Posts: 40715
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
Has liked: 1905 likes
Total likes: 1614 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Cuenca 'ammer »

Albie Beck wrote: Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:28 pm Not 'ouston surely?
nah, mine's red....

:crylol:
User avatar
funky chicken
Posts: 9761
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:36 pm
Has liked: 320 likes
Total likes: 1232 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by funky chicken »

We’re 6th in the table, 7 points away from 4th spot. But equally hanging in a European place by just 3 points, ahead of the team currently in 8th. If Kretinsky doesn’t give as much support to Moyes as possible in January, then what was the actual point of him investing in the club?
User avatar
aaronhammer
Posts: 10052
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Milton Keynes
Has liked: 168 likes
Total likes: 38 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by aaronhammer »

User avatar
S-H
Posts: 49113
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:05 am
Location: Kumb Inn
Has liked: 5739 likes
Total likes: 9649 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by S-H »

Interesting, cheers aaron.
User avatar
aaronhammer
Posts: 10052
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Milton Keynes
Has liked: 168 likes
Total likes: 38 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by aaronhammer »

S-H wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:41 pm Interesting, cheers aaron.
Agreed.

Comparing to pre Kretinsky, there are 688 new shares which he was allocated. He’s now up to 928 (the reported 27%), which have come from:
  • Gold decreasing by 103 shares
    (-100 Gold Group International and -3 David Gold)
  • Sullivan decreasing by 84 shares
    (-84 Sullivan Trust)
  • Harris decreasing by 44
  • Brown halving to 9
Post Reply