I can't see why we can't have two major indoor arenas in Manchester, it would actually be great for the City, with two arenas we would hosts over 400 events annually, MEN hosts 250. If they can do it in Birmingham we can do it in Manchester. SMG wants to keep their monopoly so you should not really pay any attention to what they says about how Eastlands arena would kill central Manchester, its just their usual unethical comms tactics.
If we were a publicly listed company, I could understand your concerns of venture capitalists gradually increasing their stake and launching a hostile takeover, just like what happened to our unfortunate neighbours over the border in Trafford.Re Oak view / stadium ...They could definitely help but then could so many other companies and they could do this regardless of an equity stake.
RE ownership / dividends Very true. Indeed as long as the Sheik contains 51% or a controlling stake (if shareholdings are very diluted among many owners you can control a company with an even smaller share) then they can do as they please. However, they will probably have given assurances regarding future business plans and how those investors will be ultimately rewarded. This could even take the form of allowing them to increase their equity stake in the future subject to certain criteria being met. Indeed, equity firms often take small stakes to start with until they understand the business then take a controlling stake or full ownership of the business. I am not saying this will happen, but it does open up that possibility and it is something we haven't had to think about before
You could regard all of this as almost inevitable because you could argue that at the end of the day our owners would have to free up some of the capital they have put into the business and it would be too good to be true for it to continue as it was. However, that doesn't make it good news and I personally would prefer a partner that wasn't primarily a Finance house and was able to offer an alliance which was obviously much more strategic in terms of their core / underlying business. A good example of that would be the Chinese deal that was done or a deal with a pure media giant. But I guess it depends what was on the table at the time ...
Sorriano wrote a book called “Goal: The Ball Doesn’t Go In By Chance” or something similar.I don't know where to post this so it might as well go here.
Has anyone written a book that covers all this from the beginning, the business idea of Soriano/Bergestein (sp) whilst at Barca, how they found the Sheikh and the start of the ADUG takeover until as near present as can be ?
It would be a fascinating read.
Christ now i am coming across as a know it all ...
If you want to compare your credentials to mine in terms of finance just ping me a PM ...
No KTG I am not but I worked in Finance for over 25+ years (which makes me worse than a rag at least to some ) as a director for a company (which never had a single taxpayer dollar) with nearly $1.5 trillion dollars under management so I do have some understanding of the topic in question and hence views on the subject
There's absolut no risk that a new arena at Estlands would kill MEN, they are operated by the worlds largest venue management-company, its a little bit like when McDonalds builds a restaurant next to Burger King. Live Nation who will be backing our new arena owns the Apollo, so they are safe. Even if its possible to flex the cap you don't really hire a 20k arena to do a 3k show.I think it will be interesting to see if Manchester can sustain two arenas. I also wonder if they can can design a new arena in a very clever way that makes if easy to flex the capacity of the venue so that it can move from 20k to say 3k or 4k, without hanging large black sheets in front of unused sections. They could kill the Apollo off as well as damaging the MEN; not that I wish either venue ill.
Well if you're going to post the following then what can you expect?
You keep ignoring the fact that this investment would seem to be a strategic investment from both sides with Sheikh Mansour retaining full control. Given the insight provided by @Keith Moon who appears genuine surely you can see the positives from this collaboration?
So many people simply don’t understand what money laundering actually is.You have to remember that they've been pummeled with anti-city bollocks for 12 years and now just reply instinctively.
Most people dont even engage their critical thinking when things like this come up, it's just City+Financial story = Bollocks/Fiddling the numbers/sugar daddy.
I've seen people saying this is a money laundering today - which is simply a buzzword to do with Abramovich taking over Chelsea in 2003, but it all gets slumped in together, same with qatar stuff, and then gets churned out together in a anti new money word salad.
It may be more strategic than you give it credit for. Silverlake are reported to be moving in the direction of entertainment broadcasting etc. and putting less emphasis on pure technology. What we don't know is how CFG/Silverlake see their future together.Re Oak view / stadium ...They could definitely help but then could so many other companies and they could do this regardless of an equity stake.
RE ownership / dividends Very true. Indeed as long as the Sheik contains 51% or a controlling stake (if shareholdings are very diluted among many owners you can control a company with an even smaller share) then they can do as they please. However, they will probably have given assurances regarding future business plans and how those investors will be ultimately rewarded. This could even take the form of allowing them to increase their equity stake in the future subject to certain criteria being met. Indeed, equity firms often take small stakes to start with until they understand the business then take a controlling stake or full ownership of the business. I am not saying this will happen, but it does open up that possibility and it is something we haven't had to think about before
You could regard all of this as almost inevitable because you could argue that at the end of the day our owners would have to free up some of the capital they have put into the business and it would be too good to be true for it to continue as it was. However, that doesn't make it good news and I personally would prefer a partner that wasn't primarily a Finance house and was able to offer an alliance which was obviously much more strategic in terms of their core / underlying business. A good example of that would be the Chinese deal that was done or a deal with a pure media giant. But I guess it depends what was on the table at the time ...