NSWE Investment

[pauliewalnuts]

Do we own our own ground or do the owners?

The same people who own the club you mean.

It's not necessarily the same thing.

[ChicagoLion]

Do we own our own ground or do the owners?

The same people who own the club you mean.

It's not necessarily the same thing.

If the owners own the shares in the company that owns the club and also in the company that owns the ground, how so?

[pauliewalnuts]

Do we own our own ground or do the owners?

The same people who own the club you mean.

It's not necessarily the same thing.

If the owners own the shares in the company that owns the club and also in the company that owns the ground, how so?

Because it's not the owners who own the club, it's the companies which they control. Legally, those are not the same thing.

On top of that, they could be two different entities, one owning the club and one the ground, and even having the same people ultimately controlling them, that does not mean they have to always move in lock-step.

They could, for example, sell the company owning the stadium to a third party tomorrow. That's not something they could do so easily if it was all in the ownership of the same company.

I am not saying they would want to do that, or are intending to do so, just that it's not quite as simple as you made out.

[ChicagoLion]

Do we own our own ground or do the owners?

The same people who own the club you mean.

It's not necessarily the same thing.

If the owners own the shares in the company that owns the club and also in the company that owns the ground, how so?

Because it's not the owners who own the club, it's the companies which they control. Legally, those are not the same thing.

On top of that, they could be two different entities, one owning the club and one the ground, and even having the same people ultimately controlling them, that does not mean they have to always move in lock-step.

They could, for example, sell the company owning the stadium to a third party tomorrow. That's not something they could do so easily if it was all in the ownership of the same company.

I am not saying they would want to do that, or are intending to do so, just that it's not quite as simple as you made out.

The owners of the companies that own the Club and the Ground are Wes Edens and Nashe Swaris.
So they control both. Even if the ground was in the same entity as the club they would if they were inclined be able to sell it, Companies do this all the time.
Explain one thing that the owners could not do with the ground or the club because of the fact that they are in separate Legal entities that they control and own?

[Risso]

Explain one thing that the owners could not do with the ground or the club because of the fact that they are in separate Legal entities that they control and own?

Sell the company with the ground to a completely unrelated entity? I don't think they will, and I understand why they had to do what they did, but obviously if they weren't such good owners the possibility would be there that somebody more unscrupulous could end up owning it.

[paul_e]

Either way the question was whether the club own the ground and the answer is no. In context of this richest clubs list that will move us down the list.

[ChicagoLion]

Explain one thing that the owners could not do with the ground or the club because of the fact that they are in separate Legal entities that they control and own?

Sell the company with the ground to a completely unrelated entity? I don't think they will, and I understand why they had to do what they did, but obviously if they weren't such good owners the possibility would be there that somebody more unscrupulous could end up owning it.

if that was possible or desirable there is nothing regarding which entity the ground is under that could stop them doing that.

[ChicagoLion]

Either way the question was whether the club own the ground and the answer is no. In context of this richest clubs list that will move us down the list.

But the club and the ground is owned by the same people through ther ownership of the entities that own the club and the ground.

[paul_e]

Either way the question was whether the club own the ground and the answer is no. In context of this richest clubs list that will move us down the list.

But the club and the ground is owned by the same people.

Which is completely irrelevant for the purpose of a richest clubs list and isn't the same as the club owning the ground. The difference is meaningless in most cases but legally the club and ground are different companies, with seperate finances, etc.

[ChicagoLion]

Either way the question was whether the club own the ground and the answer is no. In context of this richest clubs list that will move us down the list.

But the club and the ground is owned by the same people.

Which is completely irrelevant for the purpose of a richest clubs list and isn't the same as the club owning the ground. The difference is meaningless in most cases but legally the club and ground are different companies, with seperate finances, etc.

I didn’t bring the richest club list into it which is irrelevant.
Yes I think I have explained multiple times that the club and the ground are in separate legal entities both of which are owned by the same people.

[paul_e]

Either way the question was whether the club own the ground and the answer is no. In context of this richest clubs list that will move us down the list.

But the club and the ground is owned by the same people.

Which is completely irrelevant for the purpose of a richest clubs list and isn't the same as the club owning the ground. The difference is meaningless in most cases but legally the club and ground are different companies, with seperate finances, etc.

I didn’t bring the richest club list into it which is irrelevant.
Yes I think I have explained multiple times that the club and the ground are in separate legal entities both of which are owned by the same people.

You answered a question about the ownership of the ground that came up after the top 20 list was mentioned, that was clearly the context for it.

[ChicagoLion]

Either way the question was whether the club own the ground and the answer is no. In context of this richest clubs list that will move us down the list.

But the club and the ground is owned by the same people.

Which is completely irrelevant for the purpose of a richest clubs list and isn't the same as the club owning the ground. The difference is meaningless in most cases but legally the club and ground are different companies, with seperate finances, etc.

I didn’t bring the richest club list into it which is irrelevant.
Yes I think I have explained multiple times that the club and the ground are in separate legal entities both of which are owned by the same people.

You answered a question about the ownership of the ground that came up after the top 20 list was mentioned, that was clearly the context for it.

I was dealing specifically with the question regarding ownership that’s all.

[paul_e]

You answered a question about the ownership of the ground that came up after the top 20 list was mentioned, that was clearly the context for it.

I was dealing specifically with the question regarding ownership that’s all.

and the answer is that the club don't own the ground, it's really that simple, I don't see why you've decided to argue about this.

[eamonn]

Think I've opened a can of worms with the initial question. Sorry! I was just thinking back to when our owners put their purchase of Villa Park on the books of the club (i.e as a sale) to help with FFP (presumably) and I remember there being a little unease at the time as Derby were having issues with Mel Morris' ownership of Pride Park scuppering new investment into the club.

[paul_e]

Think I've opened a can of worms with the initial question. Sorry! I was just thinking back to when our owners put their purchase of Villa Park on the books of the club (i.e as a sale) to help with FFP (presumably) and I remember there being a little unease at the time as Derby were having issues with Mel Morris' ownership of Pride Park scuppering new investment into the club.

In normal operation, and with owners who are invested and want to progress (which ours clearly do, it's a bit odd that we haven't seen much of the fella claiming they were 'doing a lerner' since Emery joined) the ground ownership doesn't really matter much beyond some financial nerdery. Derby were different because he wasn't investing and was trying to sell but wanted to negotiate seperately for the club and ground.