backofthenet Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 having re-read that reading article again though is it not possible that samuelson may have approached (or even been approached by) lerner offering to find him a buyer with his price being a place on the new board i dont really have a clue how business works or even what benefits he will get apart from a comfy seat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Pilchard said: Samuelson's involvement does cause a few doubts. However - the Reading 'situation' doesn't seem to be the same as what we have here - specifically The Doctor has enough money not to need to borrow etc. Which eases my concern somewhat. RFC106 just said above that he didn't think Reading didn't need the loan either. Sounds like Samuelson was out to line his pockets. Another relegated club, another takeover and another set of parachute payments to set off loan repayments against. Its all too similar. I'm in a constant cycle between delight and despair over this. Edited May 25, 2016 by Duck 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, Duck said: RFC106 just said above that he didn't think Reading didn't need the loan either. Sounds like Samuelson was out to line his pockets. Another relegated club, another takeover and another set of parachute payments to set off loan repayments against. Its all too similar. I'm in a constant cycle between delight and despair over this. The BBC article, where Samuelson says what happened, states that the loan was a short term fix in the absence of the promised funds by their Russian owner - looks like they wanted to stay in the prem and spent accordingly - which to be fair was a bit reckless, nobody held a gun to their head to accept that wonga loan - think they gambled and lost. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC106 Posted May 25, 2016 Visiting Supporter Share Posted May 25, 2016 21 minutes ago, Jareth said: The BBC article, where Samuelson says what happened, states that the loan was a short term fix in the absence of the promised funds by their Russian owner - looks like they wanted to stay in the prem and spent accordingly - which to be fair was a bit reckless, nobody held a gun to their head to accept that wonga loan - think they gambled and lost. We spent hardly any money when in the Prem. Wages weren't that high either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, RFC106 said: We spent hardly any money when in the Prem. Wages weren't that high either. Just looked up the stats for Reading that season - 13 players in at cost of £7.5 mill, 6 out bringing in £700k - granted that's off a quick internet search. Not much at all for a premier league season. But, the loan was for £10 million wasn't it? Looks like it could have covered that season's spending plus the additional wages of 7 extra players. Not big spending agreed but then £10 mill isn;t that big a loan in the scheme of premiership football.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) On 24 May 2016 at 12:10, villa89 said: If, as I suspect, Dr. X is just a front man for chinese government involvment then we would need someone like Samuelsson who can move money around without any fuss. I don't think transparency will be Villa's way in the future but as long as the money flows then who cares. Have we ever had transparency......what bit we have had, folk debate the validity. We just want good decisions with sensible backing that leads to decent performance......not much to ask. How we get it is really of little concern to us. Edited May 25, 2016 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 4 hours ago, Pilchard said: Samuelson's involvement does cause a few doubts. However - the Reading 'situation' doesn't seem to be the same as what we have here - specifically The Doctor has enough money not to need to borrow etc. Which eases my concern somewhat. The Dr says he has the money. Much in the same way the Russian oligarch had the money at Reading, only to say he didn't have the money when push came to shove. Now I'm not saying there will be a repeat of that happening but there is very little to confirm the Doctor actually has the money. The only thing we know for a fact is that Lotus Health lost a shed load of money last year and he is linked to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 51 minutes ago, KHV said: The Dr says he has the money. Much in the same way the Russian oligarch had the money at Reading, only to say he didn't have the money when push came to shove. Now I'm not saying there will be a repeat of that happening but there is very little to confirm the Doctor actually has the money. The only thing we know for a fact is that Lotus Health lost a shed load of money last year and he is linked to that. To be fair to Tony here though, I think Hollis and Lerner are fairly happy that they have the money already. Nothing so far has given me the impression that we couldn't be sold. The only problem I have with this deal is Samuelsons involvement and what part he plays exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubberman Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 13 hours ago, KHV said: The Dr says he has the money. Much in the same way the Russian oligarch had the money at Reading, only to say he didn't have the money when push came to shove. Now I'm not saying there will be a repeat of that happening but there is very little to confirm the Doctor actually has the money. The only thing we know for a fact is that Lotus Health lost a shed load of money last year and he is linked to that. Not at all comparable situations. Zingarevich is the feckless son of an oligarch who seemed to think his dad would fund his plaything. When daddy didn't cough up, he did a runner leaving the club up the creek. Dr X has (whatever the exact details) a holding company that owns many companies in part or outright. However much he is actually worth, he's provided proof of the funds to buys us to Lerner, the press and imminently to the FA / Premier league. Not sure there's much more he can, or should, do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Thomas Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 Samuelson is the unknown factor - but I don't doubt Xia has the money having read the various articles and interviews. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 28 minutes ago, Gary Thomas said: Samuelson is the unknown factor - but I don't doubt Xia has the money having read the various articles and interviews. I have to say that having looked at Reading's financial situation in their premiership season, and looking at Samuelson's actions, I'm of the opinion that his involvement is quite 'known' and that there was nothing untoward about it. Not just trying to fit this to my optimism about Tony, just trying to demystify the sinister enigma of Samuelson and how much of that is unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwj Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 Did he not also pay himself or his company a fee for organising the loan? And? Do mortgage brokers get paid for organising your mortgage? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysAVFC Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 You can see that it's possible to pick holes in the case that the Reading situation was all Samuelson's doing. Reading fans naturally are going to want someone to blame and untill now all the info is aimed at blaming Samuelson with no real need to have a fair debate. That's not to say he wasn't to blame or that he doesn't push/cross the legality boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 http://socfin.gi According to this site it's his business partnered with jamie banfill who will make up some of our board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Whilst I appreciate that there are genuine reasons for some concern I also think that maybe some of those are a bit overdone (this stinks, etc). We are in a world where even the most 'legitimate' businessman is only a legal interpretation away from a custodial sentence (trust me, I've prosecuted enough of them) and often the 'better' (i.e. more likely to make you/himself money) ones are the closest to falling foul of both opinion and the law. It doesn't of itself mean they are 'bad' or a danger. (Of course, it doesn't mean they aren't either..) In this guy we do clearly have someone familiar with the small print of the law and familiar with money. Of itself I say, "about time too". Don't get me wrong, morally I'm opposed to capitalism, but if you want success in football you need to be, or at least consider being, a bit of a 'schemer'. Some of these schemes will work, some wont. So I will reserve judgement. As I say, there are many many well known business names whose financial dealings would cause concern were they known. I have looked but haven't seen this anywhere, apologies if already linked......... http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/villa-line-up-new-board-member/ar-BBtp4cP Quote ; "Both Banfill and Samuelson are chairmen of a Swiss based business called Socfin Group which helps potential buyers of football clubs complete deals and also carry out due diligence on the club in question for the new owner." Had a look at Socfins sites and entries, quite interesting... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Ha ! Sorry read the whole thread except the very last Post before mine which does also mention Socfin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, terrytini said: Had a look at Socfins sites and entries, quite interesting... Got distracted by the Socfin who deal in rubber trees etc there. http://socfin.gi/ Sounds largely what I expected the new board to do so makes sense I guess. As long as it's not Tom Fox Mk II. "Debt and equity financing and restructuring ♣ Sale and purchase of clubs, primarily football/soccer in Europe and the Americas ♣ Due diligence on clubs on behalf of buyers ♣ Stadium and academy naming rights, shirt & kit sponsorship ♣ Sourcing players with particular emphasis on Latin America, Africa and continental and Eastern Europe" Edited June 1, 2016 by Duck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Socfin was also involved in the sale of Mallorca so it seems they're more facilitators than anything else. It'd be strange for them to take on board positions though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted June 1, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 1, 2016 14 minutes ago, terrytini said: Whilst I appreciate that there are genuine reasons for some concern I also think that maybe some of those are a bit overdone (this stinks, etc). We are in a world where even the most 'legitimate' businessman is only a legal interpretation away from a custodial sentence (trust me, I've prosecuted enough of them) and often the 'better' (i.e. more likely to make you/himself money) ones are the closest to falling foul of both opinion and the law. It doesn't of itself mean they are 'bad' or a danger. (Of course, it doesn't mean they aren't either..) In this guy we do clearly have someone familiar with the small print of the law and familiar with money. Of itself I say, "about time too". Don't get me wrong, morally I'm opposed to capitalism, but if you want success in football you need to be, or at least consider being, a bit of a 'schemer'. Some of these schemes will work, some wont. So I will reserve judgement. As I say, there are many many well known business names whose financial dealings would cause concern were they known. I have looked but haven't seen this anywhere, apologies if already linked......... http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/villa-line-up-new-board-member/ar-BBtp4cP Quote ; "Both Banfill and Samuelson are chairmen of a Swiss based business called Socfin Group which helps potential buyers of football clubs complete deals and also carry out due diligence on the club in question for the new owner." Had a look at Socfins sites and entries, quite interesting... HAving looked at the website, it would appear SocFins simply assist in the purchase, finding buyers clubs and clubs buyers. It would appear that they would not have involvement in the future. Would this mean that Samuelson is simply a middle man and won't be on the board? Can see reference to Real Mallorca purchase being done by these guys. Do they have any involvement with them now? Looking at this I don't think Samuelson will be on the board and he has just simply helped out being a middle man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Looks to me like they'd jump at the chance to be on the Board ! ( I don't see much evidence that they have a string of successes behind them...and it wouldn't be hard to imagine they've had a bit of luck with involvement in an acquisition or two but would rather be on the inside...) But again, of itself doesn't have to mean bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts