| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push 19:14 - Jan 4 with 1670 views | Butty101 |
I’ve heard Nick repeating these nuggets on radio Solent….
1) he could of taken the transfer money.
Yes he could of taken the transfer money, but this summer Saints would of had a down payment of 5 or 6mill for Ings. As he bought us for 200+ mill, not reinventing the transfer money would have seen us relegated and the club bankrupt. So taking a few mill here and there would not have been plausible. I’m sure Kat would have been able to stop this baring in mind she still had 20%
2) we are in a better position now than when he bought us!
No we were an established top 10 club that didn’t have 100mill debt.
3) he could of sold to any chancer
It’s widely reported that Kat had the power to veto any deal. So no he couldn’t. |  |
| |  |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 19:48 - Jan 4 with 1587 views | DorsetIan |
4) Gao was gagging to invest millions in the Club and would have done were it not for the pesky Chinese government. |  |
| |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 20:01 - Jan 4 with 1559 views | cocklebreath |
5 because of pandemic he couldn’t get to games, he would have loved to as he was very passionate about Saints |  |
| |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 22:05 - Jan 4 with 1372 views | SaintNick |
Sarcasm as they say is the lowest form of wit and what i say on here or anywhere else I have always said with respect to the views of others, I have offered opinions and not just the Gao out rhetoric, based purely on the fact he didn't pump hundreds of millions in.
1. yes he could have taken the transfer money, you keep on about how the ings money was paid in installments but fail too mention so was the Van Dijk money..
2. We had a brief burst in the top 10 for four seasons and Claude Puel's 8th place and a league cup final was not good enough for a large section of the fans, 2014-17 were full of people moaning we were a selling club and how we sold our best best players etc, yet now it is a golden period. The £100 mill debt is due to lost income from Covid, every club has similar figures. Apologies if i do insult your iintelligence here but have you not noticed whst been going on in the World and all the businesses not only in football that are now in debt, the £100 million(if it is that high) is not a Saints thing due to Gao its a world pandemic
3.Show me the widely reported fact evidence that Kat had the power of veto, its all heresay, if that was the case then he would have even more reason to syphon out transfer money.
I have moved on from Gao, i knew there was no use moaning about a situation that could only change when a buyer was bought, even now with a new owner you and others are obsessed that Gao gets no credit from his time as owner, he is a villain and you will hear no good about him, time to let it go and look to the future, that is what I am doing, that is why when Blackmore and Semmens stated that the fact that Saints being well run was a major reason in Sport Republic buying us did not appear on this forum under the headline 3 Gao Myths Butty 101 likes to push, I don't care about the past, only the future, petty points scoring doesnt interest me |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 22:49 - Jan 4 with 1322 views | Butty101 |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 22:05 - Jan 4 by SaintNick |
Sarcasm as they say is the lowest form of wit and what i say on here or anywhere else I have always said with respect to the views of others, I have offered opinions and not just the Gao out rhetoric, based purely on the fact he didn't pump hundreds of millions in.
1. yes he could have taken the transfer money, you keep on about how the ings money was paid in installments but fail too mention so was the Van Dijk money..
2. We had a brief burst in the top 10 for four seasons and Claude Puel's 8th place and a league cup final was not good enough for a large section of the fans, 2014-17 were full of people moaning we were a selling club and how we sold our best best players etc, yet now it is a golden period. The £100 mill debt is due to lost income from Covid, every club has similar figures. Apologies if i do insult your iintelligence here but have you not noticed whst been going on in the World and all the businesses not only in football that are now in debt, the £100 million(if it is that high) is not a Saints thing due to Gao its a world pandemic
3.Show me the widely reported fact evidence that Kat had the power of veto, its all heresay, if that was the case then he would have even more reason to syphon out transfer money.
I have moved on from Gao, i knew there was no use moaning about a situation that could only change when a buyer was bought, even now with a new owner you and others are obsessed that Gao gets no credit from his time as owner, he is a villain and you will hear no good about him, time to let it go and look to the future, that is what I am doing, that is why when Blackmore and Semmens stated that the fact that Saints being well run was a major reason in Sport Republic buying us did not appear on this forum under the headline 3 Gao Myths Butty 101 likes to push, I don't care about the past, only the future, petty points scoring doesnt interest me |
Nick you said these 3 things on Radio Solent this afternoon and have repeated them multiple times. I strongly disagree with them.
The fact Kat still had 20% would of stopped him taking out the money. Shes hardy going to sell 80% of the stake then let her part get devalued as the majority owner runs amock.
With regards to the debt, if we had an owner that wanted/could invest in the club, he could of loaned the money to the club at a favourable rate. from what ive read the terms are less than favourable and costing us several million in interest a year. | |
| |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 09:41 - Jan 5 with 1103 views | saints__fan__73 |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 22:05 - Jan 4 by SaintNick |
Sarcasm as they say is the lowest form of wit and what i say on here or anywhere else I have always said with respect to the views of others, I have offered opinions and not just the Gao out rhetoric, based purely on the fact he didn't pump hundreds of millions in.
1. yes he could have taken the transfer money, you keep on about how the ings money was paid in installments but fail too mention so was the Van Dijk money..
2. We had a brief burst in the top 10 for four seasons and Claude Puel's 8th place and a league cup final was not good enough for a large section of the fans, 2014-17 were full of people moaning we were a selling club and how we sold our best best players etc, yet now it is a golden period. The £100 mill debt is due to lost income from Covid, every club has similar figures. Apologies if i do insult your iintelligence here but have you not noticed whst been going on in the World and all the businesses not only in football that are now in debt, the £100 million(if it is that high) is not a Saints thing due to Gao its a world pandemic
3.Show me the widely reported fact evidence that Kat had the power of veto, its all heresay, if that was the case then he would have even more reason to syphon out transfer money.
I have moved on from Gao, i knew there was no use moaning about a situation that could only change when a buyer was bought, even now with a new owner you and others are obsessed that Gao gets no credit from his time as owner, he is a villain and you will hear no good about him, time to let it go and look to the future, that is what I am doing, that is why when Blackmore and Semmens stated that the fact that Saints being well run was a major reason in Sport Republic buying us did not appear on this forum under the headline 3 Gao Myths Butty 101 likes to push, I don't care about the past, only the future, petty points scoring doesnt interest me |
Trying to say the £100m+ debt is just down to covid is untrue.
Try the transfer fees and wages of Carrillo, Hoedt, Lemina, Gunn, Boufal, etc, etc, etc. |  |
| |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 10:16 - Jan 5 with 1069 views | MytchettSaint |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 09:41 - Jan 5 by saints__fan__73 |
Trying to say the £100m+ debt is just down to covid is untrue.
Try the transfer fees and wages of Carrillo, Hoedt, Lemina, Gunn, Boufal, etc, etc, etc. |
Just out of interest (if you know?) What was our debt level just before Covid?
It was rumoured that we were losing £3M a month due to Covid. Just say we suffered that for 18 months from March 2020 to September 2021 18x£3M is £54M. That’s still a sizeable figure due to Covid although I’ve not taken into account the off season where we have no match day income.
Were we £46M in debt pre Covid? |  |
| Block 13; Curva Itchen Sud |
| |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 10:23 - Jan 5 with 1046 views | clunk76 |
Dont forget the 8m sponsorship cash that went mysteriously missing. Only 8m but it all adds to the rest of the vanishing cash. | | | |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 10:25 - Jan 5 with 1043 views | Bazza |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 22:49 - Jan 4 by Butty101 |
Nick you said these 3 things on Radio Solent this afternoon and have repeated them multiple times. I strongly disagree with them.
The fact Kat still had 20% would of stopped him taking out the money. Shes hardy going to sell 80% of the stake then let her part get devalued as the majority owner runs amock.
With regards to the debt, if we had an owner that wanted/could invest in the club, he could of loaned the money to the club at a favourable rate. from what ive read the terms are less than favourable and costing us several million in interest a year. |
What evidence do you have that Kat's 20% shares has veto over the other 80% shares?
It would be extremely unusual, maybe impossible to put into a contract.
On a pedantic issue; please stop writing 'would of' and 'should of', you should have written should have or would have. Years ago an old gorgeous girlfriend corrected me on this and then dumped me so I never forget! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 11:00 - Jan 5 with 1020 views | SouthSeaSaint |
With regard to the loan I wonder if someone could provide guidance on the following:
1. Is it approx £70m?
2. Has the liability been covered in the purchase price?
3. Is the interest rate 9%?
4. Has all the loan money been spent to cover ongoing (covid related) losses? | | | |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 17:00 - Jan 5 with 863 views | darthvader |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 10:25 - Jan 5 by Bazza |
What evidence do you have that Kat's 20% shares has veto over the other 80% shares?
It would be extremely unusual, maybe impossible to put into a contract.
On a pedantic issue; please stop writing 'would of' and 'should of', you should have written should have or would have. Years ago an old gorgeous girlfriend corrected me on this and then dumped me so I never forget! |
You should of dumped her first |  |
| |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 09:00 - Jan 6 with 720 views | SonicBoom |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 10:25 - Jan 5 by Bazza |
What evidence do you have that Kat's 20% shares has veto over the other 80% shares?
It would be extremely unusual, maybe impossible to put into a contract.
On a pedantic issue; please stop writing 'would of' and 'should of', you should have written should have or would have. Years ago an old gorgeous girlfriend corrected me on this and then dumped me so I never forget! |
Kat had the power of veto over any deal to sell the club to new owners.
Now that the club has been sold she no longer holds that same veto for the future.
My source for this info is Dan Sheldon who explained it in an article on The Athletic. |  | | |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 10:51 - Jan 6 with 643 views | SaintNick |
| 3 Gao Myths Nick likes to push on 09:00 - Jan 6 by SonicBoom |
Kat had the power of veto over any deal to sell the club to new owners.
Now that the club has been sold she no longer holds that same veto for the future.
My source for this info is Dan Sheldon who explained it in an article on The Athletic. |
Everything about this deal is all speculation, the only clear fact is that Sport Republic now own 80% of the club, whether Kat still has a power of veto, how much was paid etc etc are all just speculation, the only people who really know are those on both sides who were involved in the transaction. | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
