NAZ - and pick up a comb in a case in the club shop!

No way he’s 43 either but who cares he’s giving us £86m and he’s not even letting our tinpots spend it 💪

Lol 😆

As for this money man being connected to the King's Trust, this is the same king that sought ongoing advice from Jimmy Savile over a 20 year period so I would not give any weight or credence to a recommendation or character judgement from him.

And if it all goes tits up I'm off to H&RB where you can drink on the terraces (well you could last time I was there).

PS I bought shares in 2002 which I have since transferred to my son. I have no idea if these were a worthless "donation" or if they could be worth squillions (well, hundreds).

I'm concerned about the 90% value attributed to selling of the shares SSC are buying mechanism. What is it 90% of? Something doesn't feel right to me. Is it 90% of whatever they are offered for just their shareholding or 90% of the enterprise (economic) value of the whole club? If it's just their shareholding, why wouldn't they get 100% as it's their shares and every shareholder has to complete their own stock transfer form? If it's the latter, I see a huge trojan horse with all this. If all they can sell is their shareholding, where would the cash come from to get up to 90% of the enterprise value they are entitied to? Who would calculate the enterprise value? It wouldn't come from the buyer as why would they pay the market rate for 90% but only receive 34%? Is it 90% of any uplift in value between now and when they sell? Again, where would the cash difference come from? Could they force the DT to sell some or all of their shareholding to find the cash to pay the seller, so the DT would lose control and all the cash? Who would this be to? The same buyer? This would ordinarily be a restricted action so could we be agreeing to something now unwittingly but slipping it under the radar with the current restricted action by dazzling us with high up front cash injections? My concern is the DT has to sell it's shareholding when SSC want to sell to a new investor, who will get full control, but SSC walk away with the sales proceeds and we get next to nothing and lose the club completely. Alternatively, SSC renegotiate in 5 years and say to the DT to transfer it's entire shareholding to it for £1 (which still wouldn't get to them owning 90% due to other minority shareholders) but they'll call it quits, putting them totally in control to do what they like anyway as the DT will be irrelevant and they have a big enough shareholding ()75%) to pass special resolutions. They could renegotiate sooner, knowing the club does not have the cash to pay them, even at a lower percentage.

I don't understand all the finances at all but it seems to me that investing in us in a well known and relatively upmarket (excluding our immediate area) part of one of the best known cities in the world is a good bet for both the club and the investors. If they sell out after we get to the Championship then so be it, it's better than being in admistration.

My shares are currently in the plc. The DT has 75% plus of the plc shares, NR 10% etc. Do those holdings stay the same with SSC holding no plc shares but instead having 34% of the holding company shares? If so who owns the other 66% of holding company shares?

OI, I took their shares with a return payable were for the business of the club, sponsorship, naming rights etc, not the separated assets that the 34% share that as up until now, didn't have a fiscal value as such, but figures on a page to assert a value too. A bit like the original shares in 2002, where it was stated these have no repayment value and were in effect, donations into a black hole.

If the plc is worth 100 million, then SSC have the rights to 90% of it so can sell those rights, with our approval, for a notional 90 million though they might actually get more or less. I'm still confused by shareholdings in the holding company and the plc. The only clear fact seems to be SSC owning 34% of the shares in the holding company.

No apology necessary! And to answer your question valuing football clubs is a bit smoke and mirrors there are lots of different ways to do it, none are standard. and in the end clubs are valued on what someone is willing to pay for them.

Huddersfield - I imagine it will be whatever someone else would be willing to pay if SSC wanted to sell up.

Trigger - yeah, sorry, you're quite right. Income from player sales is dealt with in the pack, and appears to stay with the club. So I'm struggling to see how economic value might be measured: if not from assets such as players or the ground, then what is it ?

OI - think I saw that confirmed as 1.25% for each

Finally from me for now as I have to travel... Companies House lists a dissolved “Sloane Street Capital Limited” (12246170, 2019) with one Jason Kow as a director. The SSC we're dealing with is company 17262271, incorporated in 2026, and Kow isn’t among the five people named. Probably too much of a coincidence re the name so I'd be interested to know what the previous SSC was about and why it was dissolved.

If SSC end up worth more then Mir gets most of the increase as he holds 95% of the shares. The management fee presumably gets split amongst the other four who are the ones giving time. It actually seems quite a small sum in the first couple of seasons (160K first year). 5th year that is 200K plus each, worth getting out of bed for.

Also should note we're asked to vote only on heads of terms. The legal documents, shareholders’ agreement and conflict-of-interest rules are agreed after the vote not before.

Serving as the Founding Principal Benefactor for a major campaign aiming to support 1 million young people through The King's Trust International implies a tier of multi-million-dollar philanthropic commitments that only ultra-high-net-worth individuals can sustain.

The proof of funds checks have been done by SSC's solicitors and our solicitors so at the moment that's a point of weakness in my mind. I'm not sure how much the IFR and EFL look into proof of funds or if they just accept the solicitors' word - I would hope they would look into it themselves otherwise they're accepting the word of two parties clearly interested in the deal happening.

Interesting that one of the only examples I can find of similar management fees in football finance is... the Glazers at Man Utd.

Donial over the 5 seasons SSC will pay themselves £870k for running the show. So you could argue the investment is 'only' £86m

AI appears to estimate Omar Mir's wealth in the $100-500m range

The plc (or holding company?) get £1million, but SSC potentially have the rights to 900K of it but they can't just extract the money when they feel like it.

I think funds from player sales are covered in the pack as to exactly how much goes into the playing budget and how much goes towards infrastructure. From what I understand the economic rights are about the value of the club. Let’s assume today the club is valued at £87m because of the deal on the table. Then assume that in 5 years time that value has gone up to £150m because we’re a competitor Championship club with a decent non-temporary stadium and an award winning cheerleading team. At that point if SSC want to sell up then they are entitled to 90% of that £150m and we get 10%