| American owners 20:58 - Sep 25 with 31490 views | westx |
Any truth in the rumours that we are about to be sold to some Americans? |  |
| |  |
| American owners on 13:38 - Oct 2 with 2444 views | Shaky |
| American owners on 12:10 - Oct 2 by Spratty |
Excellent I raised this question in the other thread about investment a few days ago. It seemed obvious there had to be some way of circumventing any acquisition block that may be put on the Trust by other shareholders (presumably due to concern that any additional control it would transfer would significantly dilute the attractiveness and therefore value of their shares).
Perhaps we need to forearm ourselves with more detail re viability / effectiveness / mechanism (if we have not already) so we could be prepared to move quickly should such and opportunity present itself. Of course would depend on the likelihood of the shareholders blocking such a Trust acquisition in the first place — but where potentially partially limiting massive shareholder profits, it is best to be prepared for all outcomes. |
The issue as I explained several pages ago is that if the potential acquiror is a Financial investor the actions that can be blocked with a 25% + 1 share holding become significantly less important.
If it were a strategic acquiror the approach would typically be to set up a new company "Newco" and finance it with debt and equity, acquire the target then seek to merge the two so that for example you could reduce the corporation tax payable by the interest on the debt. In such a situation the ability to be able to block special resolutions of the company would offer significant defences.
With an investment company that all changes, for example in terms of tax planning they could simply raise debt at the fund level generating a tax shield for overall fund profits, while indirectly achieving their target leverage.
Furthermore the ability Lisa mentions to block share issues without preemption rights is likely to to trivial, since I bet the shareholders agreement' and quite possibly the statutes of the company make provisions for what is known as a right of first refusal on share sales, that might just apply to rights not taken up say by the Trust because they don't have enough dosh in the event new share capital is raised.
There are a number of interesting possible implications arising from all this. However, not only have I not received my customary huge fee from anybody, but more importantly it seems highly unwise to discuss elements of a coherent response strategy in the event an actual offer does in fact materialise.
Oh and Lisa you may have been unfairly caught in the crossfire, when all you were doing was parroting Jackinoclue's waffle cum bollocks. [Post edited 2 Oct 2014 13:42]
|  |
| |
| American owners on 13:47 - Oct 2 with 2417 views | Spratty |
| American owners on 13:38 - Oct 2 by Shaky |
The issue as I explained several pages ago is that if the potential acquiror is a Financial investor the actions that can be blocked with a 25% + 1 share holding become significantly less important.
If it were a strategic acquiror the approach would typically be to set up a new company "Newco" and finance it with debt and equity, acquire the target then seek to merge the two so that for example you could reduce the corporation tax payable by the interest on the debt. In such a situation the ability to be able to block special resolutions of the company would offer significant defences.
With an investment company that all changes, for example in terms of tax planning they could simply raise debt at the fund level generating a tax shield for overall fund profits, while indirectly achieving their target leverage.
Furthermore the ability Lisa mentions to block share issues without preemption rights is likely to to trivial, since I bet the shareholders agreement' and quite possibly the statutes of the company make provisions for what is known as a right of first refusal on share sales, that might just apply to rights not taken up say by the Trust because they don't have enough dosh in the event new share capital is raised.
There are a number of interesting possible implications arising from all this. However, not only have I not received my customary huge fee from anybody, but more importantly it seems highly unwise to discuss elements of a coherent response strategy in the event an actual offer does in fact materialise.
Oh and Lisa you may have been unfairly caught in the crossfire, when all you were doing was parroting Jackinoclue's waffle cum bollocks. [Post edited 2 Oct 2014 13:42]
|
Thanks, agree about not publicising that is why I did not push my initial question to this effect, until it was brought up again here. |  | | |
| American owners on 14:01 - Oct 2 with 2377 views | londonlisa2001 |
| American owners on 13:38 - Oct 2 by Shaky |
The issue as I explained several pages ago is that if the potential acquiror is a Financial investor the actions that can be blocked with a 25% + 1 share holding become significantly less important.
If it were a strategic acquiror the approach would typically be to set up a new company "Newco" and finance it with debt and equity, acquire the target then seek to merge the two so that for example you could reduce the corporation tax payable by the interest on the debt. In such a situation the ability to be able to block special resolutions of the company would offer significant defences.
With an investment company that all changes, for example in terms of tax planning they could simply raise debt at the fund level generating a tax shield for overall fund profits, while indirectly achieving their target leverage.
Furthermore the ability Lisa mentions to block share issues without preemption rights is likely to to trivial, since I bet the shareholders agreement' and quite possibly the statutes of the company make provisions for what is known as a right of first refusal on share sales, that might just apply to rights not taken up say by the Trust because they don't have enough dosh in the event new share capital is raised.
There are a number of interesting possible implications arising from all this. However, not only have I not received my customary huge fee from anybody, but more importantly it seems highly unwise to discuss elements of a coherent response strategy in the event an actual offer does in fact materialise.
Oh and Lisa you may have been unfairly caught in the crossfire, when all you were doing was parroting Jackinoclue's waffle cum bollocks. [Post edited 2 Oct 2014 13:42]
|
to be fair Shaky, you can tell that you usually command a 'huge fee' for such insights as 'I hope that the purchasers remember that the enterprise value of the company should be equity value plus net debt' and 'having updated my valuation figure (based on what exactly??) I find that the value of the club is somewhere between £100m and £150m giving a mid point valuation of £125m' ....
Anyway, shouldn't you be spending your hugely valuable time somewhere other than chatting nonsense about a club you have little interest in or knowledge of? You may want to instead spend it paying Sky bills, or gas bills or something similar for your friend the time lord - or was it crime lord ...!! | | | |
| American owners on 14:07 - Oct 2 with 2360 views | Watchman |
| American owners on 12:07 - Oct 2 by Spratty |
Funny how we beat quite a few of them under him huh (including as I recall the Champions League Champions, plus the Premier League Champions, plus Arsenal plus Liverpool all at theirs) as well as our first ever major cup and great European run — think what we could have done if he really had ambition  .
As for mention by another poster of never achieving 8th except by fluke….. we were one disallowed good goal (Brom at theirs) away from it the season before last (despite our disappointing final game against Fulham). We had a great Europa and FA cup run last season and a decent PL finish, despite our major key injuries. The likes of ManU, Liverpool and Everton are looking to be on poor form this season and the latter 2 distracted by Europe. Spurs are looking wobbly too. Even ManC not at their best and we outclassed the current main contenders Chelsea in the first half at theirs. Do we truly believe we cannot have a hope to emulate our previous achievements (made when the top teams were strong) with our current team and currently fortuitous downturn in some of the higher teams?
Laudrup said we needed more investment to realistically compete at the very top level of the PL in an ongoing basis, but his stated desire was merely to strengthen. Seems the Board agree. We have already upped our investment to get the team we currently have (which many see as our strongest team ever) including 2 quality strikers. As the post says “Swansea’s wage bill is bigger than it has been at any stage in their history” and quality free transfers are rarely free.
Personally I would rather the cut and thrust of achieving over the odds rather than the bland expectation of winning every game and being disappointed if we did not. Throwing masses of money at spoilt millionaires when at the end of the day they still may not perform — as we have in the past proved against them with heart, skill, style and overachievement — the latter is the greatest joy of our team for me. |
Spratty you tinker take my comment out of context naughty Jack you :D
The comment is not a dig at Laudrup the point being made is that competing/ competition is in the mind if a person keeps on saying that we are not competing then they and others start to believe it. That is true of anyone
If we were in L1 now we would be competion agst the likes of Swindon etc. Even if were were in L1 we are still competing( as a business/club) agst Prem clubs. Remember Martin Edwards' words there is no place in football for smaller clubs that is what he said at the very start of the life of the EPL!
SCFC is a commercial concern it competes for each and every day! on every level! that is what we all fought for |  |
| |
| American owners on 22:14 - Oct 2 with 2228 views | latchford |
It's martin Morgan who wants his money out for personal reasons not other directors. The club have apparently halted work at fair wood because of cash flow issues. | | | |
| American owners on 22:39 - Oct 2 with 2190 views | raynor94 |
| American owners on 22:14 - Oct 2 by latchford |
It's martin Morgan who wants his money out for personal reasons not other directors. The club have apparently halted work at fair wood because of cash flow issues. |
Clever use of the word apparently, careful what you post |  |
| |
| American owners on 22:43 - Oct 2 with 2176 views | Spratty |
| American owners on 14:07 - Oct 2 by Watchman |
Spratty you tinker take my comment out of context naughty Jack you :D
The comment is not a dig at Laudrup the point being made is that competing/ competition is in the mind if a person keeps on saying that we are not competing then they and others start to believe it. That is true of anyone
If we were in L1 now we would be competion agst the likes of Swindon etc. Even if were were in L1 we are still competing( as a business/club) agst Prem clubs. Remember Martin Edwards' words there is no place in football for smaller clubs that is what he said at the very start of the life of the EPL!
SCFC is a commercial concern it competes for each and every day! on every level! that is what we all fought for |
Well said | | | |
| American owners on 23:35 - Oct 2 with 2141 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 22:14 - Oct 2 by latchford |
It's martin Morgan who wants his money out for personal reasons not other directors. The club have apparently halted work at fair wood because of cash flow issues. |
Yeah, Morgans broke. That'll be it. That's probably the daftest rumour to date. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| American owners on 23:43 - Oct 2 with 2117 views | perchrockjack |
Little sign of any discussion then ...
Just as well.
Still, if it ain't your money uou won't be truly arsed.
Easier to bitch from sidelines.
Serious question, we ve seen the board questioned as to their ability now their motives.
If I was reading this stuff on here I d out my money out and let those who know best get on with it.
If we have people who don't make money on their investment then we re in shuite.
If we weren't making money is the time to worry | |
| |
| American owners on 23:53 - Oct 2 with 2109 views | jackonicko |
| American owners on 23:35 - Oct 2 by Uxbridge |
Yeah, Morgans broke. That'll be it. That's probably the daftest rumour to date. |
Hope not. Those American investors will have nowhere to stay after the game Saturday... |  | | |
| American owners on 00:05 - Oct 3 with 2085 views | Spratty |
| American owners on 23:43 - Oct 2 by perchrockjack |
Little sign of any discussion then ...
Just as well.
Still, if it ain't your money uou won't be truly arsed.
Easier to bitch from sidelines.
Serious question, we ve seen the board questioned as to their ability now their motives.
If I was reading this stuff on here I d out my money out and let those who know best get on with it.
If we have people who don't make money on their investment then we re in shuite.
If we weren't making money is the time to worry |
Thought there was a lot of balanced argument and few could question what the Board have achieved
However prudence would have us prepare for all eventualities especially where such massive profits are on offer, that would be difficult for many to ignore when they come to a potentially optimum level
Unless you prefer our forum to look like this
 | | | |
| American owners on 00:11 - Oct 3 with 2076 views | perchrockjack |
That s a truly good reply and one I appreciate.
Sorry but again the thread was soured by insults.
It's a good subject as it hoes to the heart of the club..
You have to bear in mind I've seen some complete tosses running our club in the past .at least this lot have our club interest at heart and have done, I would say, a good job in attracting players and managers so I d rather not feck them off and have them pull the plug. It could happen and plenty of chairmen have walked away at other clubs.
Anyway, a very goodnight to uou and hope we both see the new dawn | |
| |
| American owners on 00:17 - Oct 3 with 2072 views | Spratty |
| American owners on 00:11 - Oct 3 by perchrockjack |
That s a truly good reply and one I appreciate.
Sorry but again the thread was soured by insults.
It's a good subject as it hoes to the heart of the club..
You have to bear in mind I've seen some complete tosses running our club in the past .at least this lot have our club interest at heart and have done, I would say, a good job in attracting players and managers so I d rather not feck them off and have them pull the plug. It could happen and plenty of chairmen have walked away at other clubs.
Anyway, a very goodnight to uou and hope we both see the new dawn |
Fair points
Nighty night PRJ sleep tight | | | |
| American owners on 00:10 - Dec 14 with 1814 views | BobJack |
Apart from some directors wishing to sell some shares, any new news ? [Post edited 14 Dec 2014 0:21]
| |
| |
| American owners on 00:19 - Dec 14 with 1788 views | BobJack |
I don't have much time to read it all. Has anything significant changed in last few months ? | |
| |
| American owners on 00:28 - Dec 14 with 1769 views | DJack |
| American owners on 00:19 - Dec 14 by BobJack |
I don't have much time to read it all. Has anything significant changed in last few months ? |
T2C is still ranting, so no there... but to be fair, his heart is in the right place (I think). Apparently the investment is actually the yanks buying some existing shares, so no investment and HJ rates the chances of this happening as 50/50. HJ has also expressed his support for the Trust - so at least one ally.
So keep up to date and when we have news rally support and act accordingly! |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| American owners on 00:45 - Dec 14 with 1736 views | BobJack |
| American owners on 00:28 - Dec 14 by DJack |
T2C is still ranting, so no there... but to be fair, his heart is in the right place (I think). Apparently the investment is actually the yanks buying some existing shares, so no investment and HJ rates the chances of this happening as 50/50. HJ has also expressed his support for the Trust - so at least one ally.
So keep up to date and when we have news rally support and act accordingly! |
Cheers.
If someone who owns shares in tesco wants to sell, and I buy them. Tesco have no more money to invest, just ownership has changed.
Simple really. Is this any different ?
Apart from the fact that the Trust and Huw ( the board ) can ensure a complete knob head, does not buy the shares ? They have control, whereas any plonker can buy Tesco shares.
They would be a plonker too, as Aldi and Lidl sell better food for less, going off track a bit. Apologies. [Post edited 14 Dec 2014 0:48]
| |
| |
| American owners on 00:49 - Dec 14 with 1727 views | DJack |
| American owners on 00:45 - Dec 14 by BobJack |
Cheers.
If someone who owns shares in tesco wants to sell, and I buy them. Tesco have no more money to invest, just ownership has changed.
Simple really. Is this any different ?
Apart from the fact that the Trust and Huw ( the board ) can ensure a complete knob head, does not buy the shares ? They have control, whereas any plonker can buy Tesco shares.
They would be a plonker too, as Aldi and Lidl sell better food for less, going off track a bit. Apologies. [Post edited 14 Dec 2014 0:48]
|
As it stands I don't know whether Huw and the trust is enough to stop idiots from hijacking our club. We don't want ownership from people who just don't get it do we! | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| American owners on 01:58 - Dec 14 with 1693 views | ScoobyWho |
If nobody sells nobody buys,. It isn't that complicated and vica versa. |  |
| |
| American owners on 00:42 - Dec 16 with 1529 views | BobJack |
Why did Westx get so many down arrows for op ? | |
| |
| American owners on 23:02 - Nov 5 with 946 views | SoberBaker |
| American owners on 15:27 - Sep 26 by westx |
Been meaning to ask as well why the opening post was down arrowed by three people. Did you not like the wording on the original question? |
I've been away for a while.
Which little weasel are you then? |  |
| |
| American owners on 23:07 - Nov 5 with 926 views | SoberBaker |
| American owners on 00:42 - Dec 16 by BobJack |
Why did Westx get so many down arrows for op ? |
You banned, Bob?
Or did you delete your account? | |
| |
| American owners on 23:17 - Nov 5 with 907 views | Darran |
| American owners on 23:07 - Nov 5 by SoberBaker |
You banned, Bob?
Or did you delete your account? |
He's banned. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
