Amanda Staveley appears to have been shut out of her attempt to buy the Gold family shares by existing shareholders.
Not long after the 5 pm deadline passed today, The Times published an article suggesting David Sullivan has purchased 1.2%, taking him to 40%.
Tripp Smith has acquired 3%, taking him to 11% of West Ham, and Křetínský’s stake has grown to 46%.
West Ham Shareholding Numbers Almost Add Up
When you add The Times’ percentages up, they add to 97%, some 3% short.
We know Terry Brown and Daniel Harris own 1.1%, which leaves 1.9%, which has most likely been sold to Czech compatriot Jakub Havrlant.
The Times might be jumping the gun with their story, as technically round 2 needs to be run, but the figures are probably the endgame, so just a matter of time until transacted.
It remains to be seen whether Amanda Staveley embarks on any legal challenge if she thinks the process has not been followed correctly.
David Sullivan has increased his West Ham shareholding
Could Staveley Now Turn To Sullivan?
It also might not be the end of Amanda Staveley, as she may approach David Sullivan to acquire his 40%.
He is unlikely to sell at a £600m valuation but probably does have a price in mind at which he would sell to her.
The threat of an increase in capital gains tax could focus his mind on selling to avoid potential increased tax liabilities.
Sounds like three cheers for David. A true supporter who does not need to sell his shares at any price. Just very happy to help and see the club he loves achieve stability and a brighter future. Well done on this one, David.
COYI
Sullivan loves to try to drive a hard bargain, often with last minute twists & turns & brinkmanship. This approach had mixed results in his transfer dealings, but overall most would say no goog, with many duds bought for inflated prices and good players missed out on. So he’s likely to take the samer approach where his shares are concerned. But he is at least a West Ham supporter which might count for something. And Kretinski is at least a genuine football man which must count for something. Staveley is an international wheeler dealer. What she brokered at Newcastle remember was highly contoversial and hasn’t turned Newcastle into big time PL contenders. She might also bring in American ownership and on the whole that has not gone down well with PL club fans. Overall it might be to the club’s benefit if the existing shareholder’s keep control among themselves. With almost 50% Kretinski will be in the driver’s seat & it’s very unlikely that Sullivan will be allowed to have an operational say again.
these people are all in this for one reason, bleed the club dry of funds…
they’re experts at it
Stavely is only trying it to get something on the cheap and develop land
until all of these shareholders are gone, the small minded approach will never change.
I find the timing quite concerning as to me it smells a lot like; avoiding the purchase until the transfer window is closed to avoid the fans pressure for greater investment in players.
Thats absolute rubbish, it doesnt work like that. Once Staveley made an offer for the Gold shares and Gold said she would accept the offer, the pre-emptive rights process and the two month timescale was unavoidable. If Gold had turned it down then the Kretinsky deal could have still gone through, but as she accepted, the Stavely offer for all of her shares and considerabley more money – the situation forced Kretinsky’s hand and messed up the transfer window.
oes that not simply mean DK had the opportunity to exercise his pre-emption rights during that two-month process, rather than that he was required to wait two months before doing so?
The club said the process would take approximately two months because there were two rounds: shareholders first had the opportunity to purchase their proportional allocation, followed by a second round for any shares left over.
So, in theory, if DK wanted to block Staveley, he could have exercised his round-one entitlement as soon as the process opened. The same applies to the other shareholders.
And that’s actually what appears to have happened today. We’ve now learned that all the existing shareholders exercised their round-one rights, meaning the entire 25.1% was accounted for and there was no second round.
So saying the transfer window was “messed up” because the pre-emption process necessarily took two months isn’t really accurate. The club estimated two months for the complete process, but that doesn’t mean shareholders had to sit on their rights for two months.
My original point was simply that the timing was curious. Gold’s agreement with Staveley was announced on 1 August, right at the beginning of the transfer window’s final month, and the pre-emption process was then allowed to run through that period. I’m not claiming that’s proof of deliberate manipulation, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for supporters to question the timing either.
Your use of the two months is entirely mute and null. Or shall I coin your phrase instead; “Thats absolute rubbish”.
I get what you are saying and misunderstood your point, but what I was trying to say is that 2 months was the quoted time for the full process. No one knew if it would go the full distance. But whether it took 2 months or 1 month is irrelevant, as either way the transfer window would have already shut. If Vanessa Gold hadnt backed out of the original agreement while also trying to blame it on Kretinsky, then the 1st round of pre-emptive rights could have been completed in 1 month as you mentioned with the transfer window still open and Kretinsky investing the £90 million. But back out she did when she got her head turned by the Staveley offer, which then delayed the 1st round – and is why we suddenly went down the route of selling players as there was no transfer budget without the £90 million being put in. And no share holder is putting in £90 million if they haven’t become the majority shareholder. So suddenly we had to pay the debts from player sales and create a transfer budget as well. So the Gold accepting the Staveley offer in itself ruined our transfer window.
Not sure how 40% would be any value to Staveley’s investors, but the more I think about the increases it does feel like a blocking vote. I don’t buy the argument that Sullivan and Tripp- Smith are looking to sell their shares to Staveley’s investors since Tripp-Smith has been aligned with Kretinsky. Perhaps Sullivan considers his holding an inheritance for his sons and 20% each is nice round number, but who really knows and I somehow doubt we won’t find out any time soon.
Would Staveley pay that much without getting a controlling interest, not sure, it may be the end of her flirtation with the club