THE WOLF'S DEN - Tana dei Lupi II

[maro]

Interesting. Monty should play him along with rather than instead of Vooch. He's an incomparably better player when he's not being asked to provide profondita' - which is what Benzema does up front.

[RomaShield27]

Yeh he is. It would mean having to play him on the right as well for us in place of Taddei, but I'm not sure Monty has enough confidence in our defensive capabilities as a team to do that. Are we at home or away this weekend? He'll almost surely be on the bench again either way, I suspect, which is a shame. Monty just doesn't seem to have the confidence in him at the moment, which is clearly evident in Menez's demeanor at the club, but there's little doubting his ability.

[Lupa]

Will the takeover of Roma by the Boston-based private-equity investor Thomas DiBenedetto have any implications for Liverfekkin'wankscum?

Digger only asks this question because DiBenedetto is also a stakeholder in the Fenway Sports Group, which owns 100% of the shares in the Anfield club. As the two teams' respective leagues currently stand, Roma would qualify for next season's Europa League. Liverfekkin'wankscum are four points off qualification for that competition.

If both clubs qualify, then it is possible Uefa's rules governing the integrity of its competitions would come in to play. These state: "No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition". This is defined as "holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights" or "being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club", among other things.

If any clubs fall foul of these rules the lower-ranked team (in this case Roma) would be excluded from the competition. It is possible that these rules would apply in this case, though one can not be certain because it is impossible to ascertain how much of the FSG DiBenedetto owns.

Last week FSG sent out a press release announcing that it would no longer be trading under its former guise of New England Sports Ventures LLC. However, NESV is still the name of the holding company that is registered with the Massachusetts Corporations Division. This official channel has no publicly available information relating to NESV's equity structures. Neither does the Division of Corporations of the State of Delaware, where NESV is ultimately domiciled.

Usefully for investors who do not wish to disclose their identities or the nature of their investments, Delaware never does oblige them to make public this sort of information. The Premiershit does oblige its clubs to make public the identities of any shareholders with stakes in excess of 10%. Regrettably, Liverfekkin'wankscum does not do this, saying only: "The sole owner of the Liverfekkin'wankscum Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited is New England Sports Ventures, trading as Fenway Sports Group. John Henry and Tom Werner are generally responsible for the management of Fenway Sports Group."

Ian Cotton, the Liverfekkin'wankscum executive who deals with matters relating to the club's ownership, could not be contacted. An email to FSG's generic address went unanswered. So Digger asked the media department of the Boston Red Sox what it knew of FSG, the parent it shares with Liverfekkin'wankscum. It responded that it would attempt to put Digger in touch with DiBenedetto (he did not call back last night either, although he was probably quite busy putting his deal for Roma together). It also said that the identity of the clubs' shareholders and their respective stakes "is not public information".

The one little chink of light FSG has recently shed on who owns it is as follows: "Fenway Sports Group is led by Principal Owner John Henry and Chairman Tom Werner, with additional ownership interests being held by a select number of prestigious individuals and The New York Times." Why so secret? Surely fans are entitled to know who owns their club, whether they are baseball or football fans, because sometimes it just might have an impact on the integrity of a competition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... -liverpool

[RomaShield27]

Ugh, thanks Lupa. Just when I'm kinda sorta maybe perhaps seeing the light about this whole club being sold thing you have to remind me of our prospective owners ties to that vile club. From reading that piece, the details and intricacies of it (that is, that "No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition") are quite complicated and difficult to grasp, but to me, it does portray a conflict of interests and could be a serious problem. It has been established in the past that Di Benedetto is a partner on some level with NESV (now called Fenway Sports Group), although as that article goes on to say, how much of a partner is difficult to establish. He may not have much of an input or involvement with them, but he is still one of the partners and one of the investors in them, and I'm not sure how many there can be, so it could be an issue.


EDITED TO ADD:

Stampa inglese: "Con DiBenedetto rischio esclusione dalle coppe per la Roma"
– Mercoledì 30 Marzo 2011 10:49



ForzaRoma's piece on the The Guardian's report that there could be a conflict of interest.

-----------------------

As Roma e il silenzio di advisor e legali
– Mercoledì 30 Marzo 2011 09:16



This is reporting that Di Benedetto a bit of an unknown in Boston and not all that he is made out to be and that there may be question marks over his credentials.

[Lupa]

[RomaShield27]

DiBenedetto-Roma: nessun conflitto d'interesse con il Liverfekkin'wankscum. Montali: "No comment"
– Mercoledì 30 Marzo 2011 12:30



According to the Italian press agency Adnkronos there is no risk of a conflict of interest for Di Benedetto. Damien Comolli and Montali had no comment on it.

[ASR1927]

From football-italia


Falcao: Roma must think big

Roma legend Paulo Roberto Falcao believes that his former club must think big under new owner Thomas Di Benedetto.

It was announced late last night after months of speculation that an agreement had finally been reached to buy Roma.

“Di Benedetto must understand that Roma have become a big club on a European level and, if everything goes well, I am convinced that he will do great things.

“Roma deserve to be among the great clubs on a European level and to get them to a certain standard we need to think calmly and make the right moves to build a strong team.

“We are in April, but there is time to do well,” he concluded.

[pocari_fenrir]

Di Benedetto: 'No conflict of interest'

Thomas Di Benedetto insists there is “no conflict of interest” with Liverfekkin'wankscum that would rule Roma out of Europe.

The American businessman is leading a conglomerate that agreed a takeover deal with the Giallorossi late last night.

According to The Guardian, his ownership could push Roma out of the Champions League if Liverfekkin'wankscum qualify for the same competition, because he owns shares in the Fenway Sports Group, who own the Reds.

However, this evening Di Benedetto’s legal team spoke to Italian news agency Ansa.

“Article 3 in the UEFA rules would not be brought into play in this instance. There is no conflict of interest in the purchase of AS Roma.”

The UEFA rules called on by The Guardian state: "No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition".

This is defined as "holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights" or "being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club", among other things.

Source: http://www.football-italia.net/mar30t.html


not sure how it's not entirely a conflict of interest but i thought even a minority stake could influence processions

[RomaShield27]

I agree Pocari. I don't really understand that explanation. All Di Benedetto and his people said was that “there is no conflict of interest”. They never went into any more detail or addressed any of The Guardian's queries about exactly what Di Benedetto's involvement is in Fenway Sports Group. Is that all they have to say on the issue? And more importantly, will UEFA be satisfied with that if the situation arises in the future?

Looking at the , under partners, it lists John Henry and Thomas Werner as Principal Owner and chairman respectively, and that after that it list 15 other individuals (as well as 'The New York Times Company') as being involved, one of whom is Thomas R. DiBenedetto. It doesn't go into any further detail of what level of involvement they have or what percentage they own etc (and nor do they have too, which is what the whole issue which that Guardian piece was based on), and so there is really no way of knowing what involvement Di Benedetto has in Liverfekkin'wankscum.

Like Pocari, I still can't see how thats not a conflict of interests. Di Benedetto is a partner in that group. One of 17 in total. That group owns Liverfekkin'wankscum. They won't reveal on what level or percentage their ownership is. Nor do they care, they just want to own and invest in sporting franchises. I worry that this is being brushed over and not really considered properly. UniCredit don't care as long as they get their money. Everyone else in Rome is getting carried away on the back of Uncle Sam, but this could lead to major problems down the road.

Giovanni, you're the legal expert. Whats your views on this?

[Lupa]

It seems like a potential conflict of interest to me, unless he's planning to sell his share in Liverfekkin'wankscum, but since he hasn't explained, it doesn't seem likely.

Until they are more forthcoming about the situation, it's not really sitting right with me. I don't want it to endanger Roma's european play.

[RomaShield27]

Its not sitting right with me either, Lupa, and I don't think he has any intention of giving up his shares in Fenway Sports Group.

Our Primavera side are playing in the Primavera Tim Cup Finale (return leg) at the moment, its 1-1 on aggregate. Here's the starting 11:

AS ROMA (4-2-3-1) : Pigliacelli; Sabelli, Antei, Barba, Frascatore; Viviani, Florenzi (C); Caprari, Ciciretti, Pettinari; Loenardi.

http://www.forzaroma.info/roma-primaver ... nd1-1.html?

[Italiamia]

De Benedetto would have control and influence over Roma given the fact that his group will control over 60% of the club. He does not have control or influence over the Puke. Therefore, his purchase of Roma is not violative of the UEFA 'statute'. The question is how, in practice, does UEFA enforce the rule. The wording may indicate one thing, but interpretation and practical enforcement can be quite another.

You know, this conflict issue should have been addressed much earlier. The deal is about to close at any moment. They had to have cleared this with UEFA. Right?

[Lupa]

[RomaShield27]

I can't imagine why there'd be any precedent to have had this cleared with UEFA. I mean, at this stage, whats it got to do with UEFA, they can't stop an individual or individuals from buying more than one club in different countries. Its only when those clubs are drawn together in the same European competition that it becomes an issue. So no, in fact, I wouldn't say they cleared anything with UEFA.

How do we know for certain he does not have any control or influence over the Puke? I don't think we can for certain. I'd like to find more info on the exact ownership breakdown of that FSP, but as far as I can tell all that is known is that he is a partner in that organisation along with other people, and that organisation has several members, along with a structural positions like a president, chairman, CEO etc, and so it is possible that each member has much of a say or a right to say as anyone else within the group. This is the problem, no one knows for certain, and it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence going forward. Not to mention it has to be those fucking horrible, disgusting, vile scouser wankers that we are 'involved' with here.

[Italiamia]

De Benedetto has a larger share of Roma than the Puke and he clearly has control and influence. If, for some odd reason the conflict issue was not addressed early on, then he will need to divest himself of any interest in the Puke. I cannot immagine that this issue would not have been discussed with UEFA. Certainly, with the money that is being invested in Roma, the investors would want UEFA's blessing.

[Italiamia]

[SPqR]

"This is defined as "holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights" or "being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club", among other things."

Seems fairly straightforward that there would not be a conflict of interest if this is, in fact, the correct interpretation of that section.

[ASR1927]

These are the people in charge of the Puke.

The Directors of The Liverfekkin'wankscum Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited are:

J. Henry (Principal Owner)

Director
T. Werner (Chairman)

Director
D. Ginsberg (Vice-Chairman)

Director
I. Ayre (Managing Director)

Director
P. Nash

Director
M. Gordon

Director
J. Vinik

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/corporate/directors

[ASR1927]

[stefano]

I'm sure that this 'conflict of interest' has been addressed with UEFA. These guys would not buy the club if were to be a problem. The Guardian piece is idle speculation.