Tom
Years ago

Adelaide Ownership Hypothetical

Was looking through old threads and saw something about the Peregrine corporation (Shahin family) being interested in purchasing the 36ers. The Peregrine corporation are dominating the Adelaide petrol station market and with their sponsorship with the Crows and their past interest in the Sixers they are clearly into their sport. Even with their new owners Adelaide are in no better financial situation.

Hypothetically, if the Shahins wanted to buy a stake in the club, say 49%, would the club agree at the right price? The club needs a shot in the arm money wise to be able to compete for marquee players. Personally I think since 2 of the 3 shareholders in the clubs are NFP's I think they would agree. What do you think?

Topic #37837 | Report this topic

Anonymous
Years ago

Mainly because you can't be an incredibly successful company by making shit decisions such as throwing money down the toilet which is only a slightly quicker way to lose money than investing in the NBL, I'd have to guess that this would never happen

The club would absolutely agree. But there's more of a chance that Nathan Jawai will get in shape than a big company deciding the NBL is worth sponsoring

Reply #546685 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

Wouldn't want them involved with the 36ers.

Reply #546687 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

they wouldn't want 49% control freaks but would at least have the money to expand the salary cap

Reply #546690 | Report this post

KingJames
Years ago

What benefit would the Shahin's get from being a part owner?

Even if we did get a marquee player crowds aren't going to necessarily go up or if they do it won't be by that much. Josh Childress is the highest profile player to play here ever and I doubt the Sydney Kings crowd went up that much. Daniel Kickert was also a Marquee player but I don't think the fans were flocking to see him play. Also neither player took their team into the finals.

Reply #546697 | Report this post

Let's be honest
Years ago

The benefit would be being able to enjoy Krispy Kremes at the stadium, apart from that they are pigs and as stated above would not take anything less than a 51% share until they can weasel the full 100%

Reply #546708 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

Wow I hope Isaac is monitoring the ferals here.
PIGS? You really can't say that.

Reply #546716 | Report this post

anonymous
Years ago

I would be concerned with that relationship building. You need to know more background and current history. Google for threads on where they live and issues in the neighbourhood. I personally try to avoid putting money in their pockets.

Reply #546725 | Report this post

Ricey
Years ago

In no way would we ever want the 6ers aligned with that family. For obvious reasons

Reply #546727 | Report this post

Sixers Fan
Years ago

Wow if you don't know them don't say things like that. OP just asked if the owners would be happy to allow someone to put some money in return for a share. If it were the the Jones'es or the Smith's it would probably be a different story. Shut down the thread.

Reply #546736 | Report this post

Matthew
Years ago

I really wish we could ban Anonymous posters on this site.

Reply #546740 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

Pop your surname up Matty boy or you're just as bad champion

Reply #546745 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

I hear Donald Sterling has some spare cash now, let's see if he wants a stake.

Reply #546748 | Report this post

FYI
Years ago

Ignorance of the hoops forum personified in one thread.

Reply #546761 | Report this post

Isaac
Years ago

Why would a new owner throw in as a minority stake unless the existing ownership looked like it knew what it was doing? If they saw potential, they'd want to control proceedings and fix things.

Reply #546769 | Report this post

Jack Toft
Years ago

Quite true Isaac, a minority owner might throw in some coin as an investment. Those sorts of guys would be looking at throwing in X an either getting a return on that investment over the market rate, or in a few years time asking for their money back at 5X. Would you get that with NBL?

Reply #546781 | Report this post

Tornado
Years ago

Weren't the Shahins interested back when SOS stepped in? They ended up pulling out though because the NBL had that rule of 1 owner not owning everything to reduce liablity and hopefully create stability.

I can understand where they are coming from and LK only did for the NBL what he has because he became the major stakeholder.

Despite their personalities why wouldn't you want them owning the 36ers - especially if it were that or nothing?

IMO they would create stability, be successful off the court and have the money to spend on the on court product as well. We as fans just have to rock up and support the boys, I don't see how their ownership would affect the fan?

Reply #546996 | Report this post

Hoops

Adelaide Ownership Hypothetical

Recent Posts