Chris Samuelson

[Jareth]

This is why Samuleson is there:

Incoming chief executive Keith Wyness has confirmed Tony Xia is in active discussions to buy other clubs as the new owner aims to make Villa a global force.

http://www.expressandstar.com/sport/aston-villa-fc/2016/06/20/chief-executive-keith-wyness-aston-villa-in-talks-to-buy-foreign-clubs/

[limpid]

1 hour ago, mwj said:

I guarantee as Vice-Chairman he will have very little to do with the day to day running of the club. He will function *similar* to Hollis in that he might be rubber stamping a few things in Xia's absence, but its primarily a way for him to sit on a company board and benefit financially without doing very much. His long term goal will either be either benefiting from the sale of the club, or selling his stake to another investor.

What stake? I've seen nothing to suggest he has a stake in the company. I've seen nothing to make me believe he's "vice-chairman" or even what that means.

[mwj]

2 minutes ago, limpid said:

What stake? I've seen nothing to suggest he has a stake in the company. I've seen nothing to make me believe he's "vice-chairman" or even what that means.

As reported by Pat Murphy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36522094

Quote

The new Villa vice-chairman is Chris Samuelson, an international financier who has been involved in a failed takeover at fellow Championship club Reading.

I would be VERY surprised if he facilitated this deal without negotiating a slice of the pie for himself (ie. equity) in some capacity.

[Gary Thomas]

1 hour ago, mwj said:

I guarantee as Vice-Chairman he will have very little to do with the day to day running of the club. He will function *similar* to Hollis in that he might be rubber stamping a few things in Xia's absence, but its primarily a way for him to sit on a company board and benefit financially without doing very much. His long term goal will either be either benefiting from the sale of the club, or selling his stake to another investor.

With respect, you cannot guarantee anything; this is your 'theory' and it has very little substance.  My theory is he is there for his financial expertise in areas that Tony needs.   

[mwj]

Just now, Gary Thomas said:

With respect, you cannot guarantee anything; this is your 'theory' and it has very little substance.   

Very true, was just a figure of speech

[limpid]

Just now, mwj said:

As reported by Pat Murphy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36522094

I would be VERY surprised if he facilitated this deal without negotiating a slice of the pie for himself (ie. equity) in some capacity.

I would be even more surprised if Xai allowed any of the board to have a stake. It just makes things complicated if he wants to sell in the future. It would be very unusual for a single owner to give appointed directors a stake in the company.

I'm afraid that Pat Murphy mentioning "Vice-chairman" convinces me of nothing. The term is meaningless in such a small company. Samuelson's a director. Nothing more. His remit will be buying the small clubs Xia has mentioned numerous times. I doubt he'll be involved in running those. He'll be paid a salary and a bonus. If he keeps doing his job, the bonus will reflect that.

[mwj]

4 minutes ago, limpid said:

I would be even more surprised if Xai allowed any of the board to have a stake. It just makes things complicated if he wants to sell in the future. It would be very unusual for a single owner to give appointed directors a stake in the company.

That hasn't been my experience. Whether directly or indirectly (options etc) directors are often given stakes to ensure that everyone's motivations are "aligned".

I'm not sure if complicates a sale TBH, Xia is the controlling shareholder and can do what he likes. The rest is handled by lawyers.

[limpid]

1 minute ago, mwj said:

That hasn't been my experience. Whether directly or indirectly (options etc) directors are often given stakes to ensure that everyone's motivations are "aligned".

I can't comment on your experience or how often you've been involved with multi million pound companies owned by one individual.

1 minute ago, mwj said:

I'm not sure if complicates a sale TBH, Xia is the controlling shareholder and can do what he likes. The rest is handled by lawyers.

Of course it complicates a sale. The buyer then has to deal with these "lawyers" (solicitors) rather than directly with Xai. Don't you remember how long and painful the process of Lerner buying us was? That was caused by having to deal with all the other owners; he couldn't just buy Ellis out.

[briny_ear]

2 hours ago, mwj said:

I guarantee as Vice-Chairman he will have very little to do with the day to day running of the club. He will function *similar* to Hollis in that he might be rubber stamping a few things in Xia's absence, but its primarily a way for him to sit on a company board and benefit financially without doing very much. His long term goal will either be either benefiting from the sale of the club, or selling his stake to another investor.

 

If his role is similar to Hollis, he is basically running the club while the owner communes with the fairy folk back in his homeland.

If that was meant to be reassuring, basically it isn't!

[limpid]

31 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

If his role is similar to Hollis, he is basically running the club while the owner communes with the fairy folk back in his homeland.

If that was meant to be reassuring, basically it isn't!

That's Wyness's job, not Samuelson's.

[mwj]

40 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

If his role is similar to Hollis, he is basically running the club while the owner communes with the fairy folk back in his homeland.

If that was meant to be reassuring, basically it isn't!

Hollis ran the club at the end because he sacked the CEO, CFO etc. That's not the role of a Chairman (or vice-chairman)

[mwj]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

I can't comment on your experience or how often you've been involved with multi million pound companies owned by one individual.

Of course it complicates a sale. The buyer then has to deal with these "lawyers" (solicitors) rather than directly with Xai. Don't you remember how long and painful the process of Lerner buying us was? That was caused by having to deal with all the other owners; he couldn't just buy Ellis out.

Bringing a listed company (with thousands of shareholders) private is completely different from a majority shareholder and a couple of directors.

I'm not saying I'm vastly experienced in this area but of the handful of tech companies of sizes small to hundred million pound valuations I've worked at, all the directors (and often lower) had some form of equity or option based remuneration.

[ender4]

It might be similar to the company i work for. 

Basically their is one owner, but there are other directors with a 'stake'. The stake are Z shares (choose any letter) which have no voting rights or ownership, but on a sale give a small percentage of the sale price to the Z share owners.    Its basically like a bonus when the owner decides to sell, but formalised through a shareholding.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, mwj said:

Bringing a listed company (with thousands of shareholders) private is completely different from a majority shareholder and a couple of directors.

It's not completely different, just more owners to deal with. Several of the stages of Lerner's purchase were after it was removed from the exchanges. Getting to the compulsory purchase threshold was a biggy. Regardless, either it's a significant enough share that Xia would want to worry about who he might end up in business with or it's too small in which case why would the Director join with ideas of how to maximise his money on departure. Easier just to negotiate the money he wants as part of his contract.

1 hour ago, mwj said:

I'm not saying I'm vastly experienced in this area but of the handful of tech companies of sizes small to hundred million pound valuations I've worked at, all the directors (and often lower) had some form of equity or option based remuneration.

Did they have the same degree of equity from one individual at the point the company was created, or was this as a result of staff retention / cash saving in later years?

I don't think the comparison is a good one. I don't see any advantage to Xia giving away equity when he can recompense in other ways. It's not a sector where people expect an equity share.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

The thing I don't get is, since in essence, they are doing a JOB, shouldn't they be expecting to reap benefits? I don't see the problem!

[TrentVilla]

 

Word has it Samuelson faked Tim Peake's space visit and that the ISS was in fact a haulage container in his back garden at his maisonette in Billericay.

[Hoof hearted]

6 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

Word has it Samuelson faked Tim Peake's space visit and that the ISS was in fact a haulage container in his back garden at his maisonette in Billericay.

Some say, that The Stig is a figment of his imagination..

[limpid]

1 minute ago, ender4 said:

It might be similar to the company i work for. 

Basically their is one owner, but there are other directors with a 'stake'. The stake are Z shares (choose any letter) which have no voting rights or ownership, but on a sale give a small percentage of the sale price to the Z share owners.    Its basically like a bonus when the owner decides to sell, but formalised through a shareholding.

I think you might be right, but I don't think you understand the words you are using

What you describe are still shares in the company. They are non-voting, non-dividend shares, but they are still shares. At the end of the day such shares would be exactly the same as a contract clause saying that an individual will be paid some amount if the company is sold or merged, but would involve a lot more paperwork. It's simpler for everyone concerned if this payment is done through employment contracts rather that shareholding.

In (tech) startups, issuing shares is routinely used as a tool to retain staff (which works while the market cap is rising) and to save cash for re-investment (forcing employees to invest in their employer). The reward to the business is greater than the extra costs at the point of sale.

I don't think Xia has built his empire by making things harder for himself unnecessarily. I don't see that he needs to give away shares, so I don't think he will. I work for a billion pound turnover company and to the best of my knowledge none of the directors have shares.

[limpid]

12 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

The thing I don't get is, since in essence, they are doing a JOB, shouldn't they be expecting to reap benefits? I don't see the problem!

I would hope so. The discussion is about whether that reward should be via an shareholding or salary and bonuses.

[mwj]

2 hours ago, limpid said:

It's not completely different, just more owners to deal with. Several of the stages of Lerner's purchase were after it was removed from the exchanges. Getting to the compulsory purchase threshold was a biggy. Regardless, either it's a significant enough share that Xia would want to worry about who he might end up in business with or it's too small in which case why would the Director join with ideas of how to maximise his money on departure. Easier just to negotiate the money he wants as part of his contract.

Did they have the same degree of equity from one individual at the point the company was created, or was this as a result of staff retention / cash saving in later years?

I don't think the comparison is a good one. I don't see any advantage to Xia giving away equity when he can recompense in other ways. It's not a sector where people expect an equity share.

Well I see RNS announcements almost daily from small to mid caps about Directors exercising options but then again they are traded publicly. You're probably right, Xia's just going to give him a big wad of cash at the end of it, and it'll disappear into some Swiss bank account never to be seen again