Who actually owns City?

Gary James said:
I disagree. The stadium was a key factor. Khaldoon said that to me in an interview I did with him. If we’d have been at Maine Rd we would not have been bought.

The key factors expressed directly to me were:
- ‘sleeping’ giant
- Stadium
- development potential of both surrounding land and of the wider club in markets around the globe
- fans and loyalty over decades
- Manchester already known as a major footballing city and, like it or not, the ability to challenge ‘world famous’ MUFC elevated our appeal above others

In essence investing a (relatively) small amount would grow the club significantly. In comparison LFC were already a giant and certain growth areas were not possible. Invest in them and growth in value etc would not be too great but invest in another club with all the attributes listed and in a bigger, more financially appealing city and huge growth can come. Which it has.

They looked at Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle and Everton. Knowing what appealed you can see why the others offered less than City. LFC - little growth (& stadium issues at the time); Everton - stadium issues and Liverpool not as appealing as Manchester but had they had a stadium who knows; Newcastle - lots of positives but global stage/major profile not there; Arsenal - similar to LFC in terms of growth.

We were lucky that we’d been unlucky all those years beforehand and the stadium move lifted us above Everton.
Click to expand...
Did ADUG also look at buying Villa, Gary?
 
BlueMoonRisin’ said:
Did ADUG also look at buying Villa, Gary?
Click to expand...
That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).

What they did which I think was genius was say to him ‘you can have your 10% but every shareholder will be expected to invest at the same rate as us, so if you can’t do that your percentage will reduce on a pro rata basis’ (I’m paraphrasing of course).

That meant that every time they spent £10m he was committed to spend £1m and if he couldn’t his shareholding would reduce accordingly. By the time they made the big investments he struggled to even buy a chip muffin/barm/bap/teacake (delete as applicable).

It says it all about the post takeover position of Thaksin that for the 2012 derby he was sat/stood in the South Stand level 1 because there were no places available to him in director/corporate areas.
 
Blue Llama said:
Think you are mixing Eddie up with Bernard.
Click to expand...
A slight diversion but interesting story…. When I interviewed Eddie at his flat a few years back he told me about his match day ritual if he’s at home watching City on TV. He had a framed photo of Bernard Manning which he used to move and turn so that Bernard could watch City. i thought it was a nice touch that he’d think about him every time City was on. Mind you there must have been games when the old Manning joke (they’ve built a new stand at Maine Rd. Only problem is it faces the wrong way… it faces the pitch!) must have been in Eddie’s head. I wonder if he turned Bernard’s photo around so that he faced the other way on those sort of days!
 
Gary James said:
That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).

What they did which I think was genius was say to him ‘you can have your 10% but every shareholder will be expected to invest at the same rate as us, so if you can’t do that your percentage will reduce on a pro rata basis’ (I’m paraphrasing of course).

That meant that every time they spent £10m he was committed to spend £1m and if he couldn’t his shareholding would reduce accordingly. By the time they made the big investments he struggled to even buy a chip muffin/barm/bap/teacake (delete as applicable).

It says it all about the post takeover position of Thaksin that for the 2012 derby he was sat/stood in the South Stand level 1 because there were no places available to him in director/corporate areas.
Click to expand...
Who the hell says teacake?

;-)
 
Gary James said:
That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).

What they did which I think was genius was say to him ‘you can have your 10% but every shareholder will be expected to invest at the same rate as us, so if you can’t do that your percentage will reduce on a pro rata basis’ (I’m paraphrasing of course).

That meant that every time they spent £10m he was committed to spend £1m and if he couldn’t his shareholding would reduce accordingly. By the time they made the big investments he struggled to even buy a chip muffin/barm/bap/teacake (delete as applicable).

It says it all about the post takeover position of Thaksin that for the 2012 derby he was sat/stood in the South Stand level 1 because there were no places available to him in director/corporate areas.
Click to expand...
That spoke volumes at the time. It can only be described as a total snub.
 
Gary James said:
That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).

What they did which I think was genius was say to him ‘you can have your 10% but every shareholder will be expected to invest at the same rate as us, so if you can’t do that your percentage will reduce on a pro rata basis’ (I’m paraphrasing of course).

That meant that every time they spent £10m he was committed to spend £1m and if he couldn’t his shareholding would reduce accordingly. By the time they made the big investments he struggled to even buy a chip muffin/barm/bap/teacake (delete as applicable).

It says it all about the post takeover position of Thaksin that for the 2012 derby he was sat/stood in the South Stand level 1 because there were no places available to him in director/corporate areas.
Click to expand...
I think i read something years ago ADUG looked at buying Villa and when they bought us Villa fans soon became bitter and jealous towards us, hence them waving fake notes at us at a few games after the takeover.

And it's muffin btw; )
 
BlueMoonRisin’ said:
I think i read something years ago ADUG looked at buying Villa and when they bought us Villa fans soon became bitter and jealous towards us, hence them waving fake notes at us at a few games after the takeover.

And it's muffin btw; )
Click to expand...
I agree - on the muffin. You’re possibly right on the Villa stuff too. They would’ve looked at most clubs but the real contenders were LFC, NUFC, EFC, AFC and us. There’s lots been said in the papers (and elsewhere) about that time and the involvement of various people (much of it wrong or a story put out to create a different narrative) but consistent messages came from Cook, Simon Pearce, Khaldoon, Vicky and others in interviews…. They all agreed it was a chip muffin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.