Mystery surrounds interest in a West Ham takeover. Was it a formal bid or was it an enquiry sent directly to David Sullivan?
A formal bid would usually be made via solicitors to all shareholders with proof of funds but we understand the approach was not received in this manner.
Proof of funds (POF) refers to documents that demonstrate a person or entity has the ability and funds available for a specific transaction.
It comes in the form of a bank, security, or custody statement. Its purpose is to ensure that the funds needed to execute the transaction fully are accessible and legitimate.
Club insiders say they receive unsolicited approaches for the club all the time about but proof of funds are almost never supplied leaving them to dismiss them as non-serious offers.
Meanwhile, the decision of the bidders to remain anonymous raises the “Why” question? When Newcastle was a target it was clear almost from Day One that Amanda Staveley was the prime mover.
Yesterday David Sullivan told Jim White the club was not for sale and today Claret and Hugh understands this is being treated as another non-serious offer with 1% chance of becoming anything more.
It may be that the potential bidders are leaking information to the media about their approach in early August to test the water and possibly build up pressure on the shareholders from a disgruntled fan base.
Time will tell if they make themselves known.
Hi Sean,
I’m a Corp lawyer by trade. Offers aren’t generally made by solicitors, they’re usually made by Corporate financiers but usually only after initial discussions have taken place. Solicitors often put a non-disclosure agreement in place at this point, so details shouldn’t be revealed. It’s highly likely that ‘feeler’ offers will have been put out, in an effort to gauge what figures the club would accept. It also would only be sent to major shareholders, not all shareholders at this point.
Although we’re a long way from being taken over, as you’ve said before, these feelers being put out doesn’t mean the interest isn’t serious. It just means the consortium, or individual buyer needs to know what ball park they’re playing in. Is it £350m, or £500m for example. Often is the case, if the buyer already owns sports teams or their companies are listed on Companies House (or US equivalent), the club would be able to have a very good idea whether they could afford WHU or not.
My guess is that there are a number of buyers who might be interested, but they’re all at the very early stages of working out (a) is it viable and (b) what figures does Sullivan want and structured in what way.
Let’s see what happens – no smoke without fire!
Thanks for that JB. Exactly the type of info we require. Have a great day
Would be interested to know/understand what drives the valuation of an EPL football club. Is it a combination of the current value of the assets on the balance sheet and (the expectation of) future operating profits into perpetuity? If so, not clear why the valuations are in the hundreds of millions of pounds. The West Ham balance sheet is quite light: a few players worth a few tens of millions of pounds. Importantly, it doesn’t generate much in the way of operating profits after player trading. Newcastle will be in a similar position, and was nearly bought for around £300m, let’s not forget. Am I missing something or is this par for the course on Planet Football? Perhaps the likes of GSB and Mike Ashley think that current situation – whereby football clubs are merely a vehicle for transferring some of the marketing budgets of big corporates to players – will change in the future. and that clubs will get to keep some of that money? Surely, that change can only come about if salaries are capped or EPL clubs are able to negotiate their own TV/streaming deals.
Great comment JB and really helpful to understand how it all works.
Let’s hope something concrete materialises out of this. If the Guardian story has any truth to it and those putting the feelers out are US sports team owners then that’s reassuring to know that they have experience of owning sports teams.
The current owners deserve some credit for what they did and have done but it now appears we are moving backwards and losing ground on our rivals. No shame in them facing facts and handing the club over to someone who can take us forward.
Thanks HammerJK, in short, there is much to do. There needs to be mechanisms in place for a number of eventualities – what division we’re in being the obvious one. The valuation put on the club will be contingent on a number of factors.
At this stage, what we do know is that there are parties who think we are a ‘possibility’ to buy. It’s also the equivalent of visiting car show rooms (on a bigger scale, of course) – you want to see what your money can buy you. But indicative offers means that there are people out there who want to buy a football club – whether it’s us or not remains to be seen.
These HATED BOARD MEMBERS we have as a board must sell up no excuses as they don’t want to invest and letting moyes down is not on once again. GSB OUT. ASP
Razor and others: Please try to avoid words such as hatred. We are defending nobody but constant abuse is boring and we are not that sort of site. Make your points but when uses such terms it suggests you speak for everyone. No one does. GSB out hashtag and balanced anti comment fine but let’s be less abusive.Such language will forthwith be moderated wherever it is directed – board or elsewhere
As the Small Faces famously sang ” Would’t it be nice”.The last few weeks were the perfect opportunity to build bridges with the fans and get some unity going.Unfortunately as shown on the pitch on Saturday evening there now appears to be a chasm that cannot be spanned but just a bit of activity in the transfer market would perk everybody up a touch.
Seriously – what are they feeding you Sean? If there is an ‘initial’ enquiry from someone substantial it isn’t going to come from solicitors at first stage.