Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
American owners 20:58 - Sep 25 with 30780 viewswestx

Any truth in the rumours that we are about to be sold to some Americans?

Poll: Would you welcome new owners if the deal was right?

-9
American owners on 13:56 - Sep 28 with 1803 viewsMoscowJack

American owners on 10:12 - Sep 28 by westx

Surely there are no circumstances in which the Trust would sell?

I do totally agree though around the valuation being for 100% and that is something that the non savvy members of our shareholding don't believe in.

I do believe that there are shareholders that believe that the Trust should sell up for the good of the club...


What if the Trust decided that 20% (or £20m) would be a wonderful nest egg or rainy-day fund? The interest alone would still allow them to continue the good work that they do in the community, etc. If new owners cocked up and we ended up doing a Blackburn or Fulham, that amount of money would be a huge helping hand and would probably see the Trust as 100% owner.

If the Trust kept their 20%, it's really only worth as much worth as 10%, isn't it? They would need 25% or more to make any real difference, if I've understood things right. I'm no financial guru like Lisa or Jackonicko so I could be wrong.

The MAIN thing, if they did decide to go in this direction is to keep their place on the Board, as long as it has voting rights. Could that be possible?

As I've said above (and others too), the potential new owners NEED the fans and therefore NEED the Trust. The Trust could be in a better selling position than any of the other shareholders due to the importance of their position.

Just one other thought that occurred to me - if the Trust did decide that the best move was/is to put £20m in the bank, would members be able to force some sort of dividend? Or would Board member only be able to do that? If there were/are 1000 members, it would equal £20,000 each!!

That's an incredible thought.

Poll: Simple...would you want Leon in the squad right now, if he was available?

0
American owners on 14:14 - Sep 28 with 1769 viewsStarsky

American owners on 06:53 - Sep 28 by Concerned_Parent

This. When are we going to see some proof to back up these rumors?


If you had proof, it would no longer be a rumour.

It's just the internet, init.

0
American owners on 14:34 - Sep 28 with 1752 viewswestx

American owners on 13:56 - Sep 28 by MoscowJack

What if the Trust decided that 20% (or £20m) would be a wonderful nest egg or rainy-day fund? The interest alone would still allow them to continue the good work that they do in the community, etc. If new owners cocked up and we ended up doing a Blackburn or Fulham, that amount of money would be a huge helping hand and would probably see the Trust as 100% owner.

If the Trust kept their 20%, it's really only worth as much worth as 10%, isn't it? They would need 25% or more to make any real difference, if I've understood things right. I'm no financial guru like Lisa or Jackonicko so I could be wrong.

The MAIN thing, if they did decide to go in this direction is to keep their place on the Board, as long as it has voting rights. Could that be possible?

As I've said above (and others too), the potential new owners NEED the fans and therefore NEED the Trust. The Trust could be in a better selling position than any of the other shareholders due to the importance of their position.

Just one other thought that occurred to me - if the Trust did decide that the best move was/is to put £20m in the bank, would members be able to force some sort of dividend? Or would Board member only be able to do that? If there were/are 1000 members, it would equal £20,000 each!!

That's an incredible thought.


It is an incredible thought but you would hope it would never happen? I kind of get the argument about selling and keeping the money in the bank which gives some kind of safeguard for the future but selling it and splitting between the members is a frightening thought surely?

You are right on one thing though if someone owns the other 79% of the shares then the 21% of the Trust is pretty worthless in terms of voting rights but if they could sell and maintain a seat on the board then maybe cashing in and keeping the money is a good idea.

Even at 2% interest that would increase that fighting fund by £400k per year

If Shaky and Jackonicko were right and with 100% stake up for grabs then the valuation could be nearer £130m which makes the Trust stake worth £26m.

Interesting times and if the rest are selling the Trust's position of power probably increases?

Poll: Would you welcome new owners if the deal was right?

0
American owners on 14:53 - Sep 28 with 1723 viewsMoscowJack

American owners on 14:34 - Sep 28 by westx

It is an incredible thought but you would hope it would never happen? I kind of get the argument about selling and keeping the money in the bank which gives some kind of safeguard for the future but selling it and splitting between the members is a frightening thought surely?

You are right on one thing though if someone owns the other 79% of the shares then the 21% of the Trust is pretty worthless in terms of voting rights but if they could sell and maintain a seat on the board then maybe cashing in and keeping the money is a good idea.

Even at 2% interest that would increase that fighting fund by £400k per year

If Shaky and Jackonicko were right and with 100% stake up for grabs then the valuation could be nearer £130m which makes the Trust stake worth £26m.

Interesting times and if the rest are selling the Trust's position of power probably increases?


That's what I was thinking - the Trust's shares might actually be worth more than those of someone who's willing to sell as quickly as possible, especially if Jackonicko's right and 100% would be the new owner's preferred option.

If you add in the probability of the new owners REALLY wanting the Trust (and therefore the fans) on their side, their shares would be extremely interesting.

Would it be possible for potential new owners to be able to value one shareholders % at one price and other's at another price? Does anyone know the answer to that?

Poll: Simple...would you want Leon in the squad right now, if he was available?

0
American owners on 15:13 - Sep 28 with 1685 viewsreddythered

American owners on 14:53 - Sep 28 by MoscowJack

That's what I was thinking - the Trust's shares might actually be worth more than those of someone who's willing to sell as quickly as possible, especially if Jackonicko's right and 100% would be the new owner's preferred option.

If you add in the probability of the new owners REALLY wanting the Trust (and therefore the fans) on their side, their shares would be extremely interesting.

Would it be possible for potential new owners to be able to value one shareholders % at one price and other's at another price? Does anyone know the answer to that?


If someone had say 75+ percent of the available shares, couldn't they just issue new shares, purchasing them in the process which would then dilute the value of the Trust's shares?

Equally, if someone wanted to take over such a large degree of shares, is it a given they'd want the Trust on side?

Poll: 94th minute; Medel does Charlie Adam, causing a career ending injury. Do you..

0
American owners on 15:14 - Sep 28 with 1682 viewsDr_Winston

Is there a legal way for someone to purchase all the shares that the Trust doesn't control, then increase the issued shares to dilute its interest below 10% and force the Trust to sell?
[Post edited 28 Sep 2014 15:26]

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.

0
American owners on 15:24 - Sep 28 with 1659 viewsUxbridge

American owners on 15:14 - Sep 28 by Dr_Winston

Is there a legal way for someone to purchase all the shares that the Trust doesn't control, then increase the issued shares to dilute its interest below 10% and force the Trust to sell?
[Post edited 28 Sep 2014 15:26]


Depends if any protections in place. But, potentially yes.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
American owners on 15:27 - Sep 28 with 1655 viewsDr_Winston

American owners on 15:24 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge

Depends if any protections in place. But, potentially yes.


Unless we get to 25%?

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.

0
Login to get fewer ads

American owners on 15:31 - Sep 28 with 1645 viewsUxbridge

American owners on 15:27 - Sep 28 by Dr_Winston

Unless we get to 25%?


Yes. Or there are specific provisions in place. There would be some legal recourse but the Trust would be in a difficult position.

Would like to think those directors who have done so well out of the club would also ensure the future is safeguarded.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
American owners on 15:36 - Sep 28 with 1633 viewsDr_Winston

American owners on 15:31 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge

Yes. Or there are specific provisions in place. There would be some legal recourse but the Trust would be in a difficult position.

Would like to think those directors who have done so well out of the club would also ensure the future is safeguarded.


Would like to think so too.

This is something that needs to be discussed relatively soon IMO, whilst the club is in a strong position and relatively secure from predators. Just a fraction of their holdings transferred to the Trust would secure the club long term. Could even be a tax write off.

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.

0
American owners on 15:41 - Sep 28 with 1621 viewswestx

American owners on 15:36 - Sep 28 by Dr_Winston

Would like to think so too.

This is something that needs to be discussed relatively soon IMO, whilst the club is in a strong position and relatively secure from predators. Just a fraction of their holdings transferred to the Trust would secure the club long term. Could even be a tax write off.


Given the current greed levels (and egos) of certain directors I cannot possibly see them transferring shares across?

What would though be funny would be if the Trust dug in and retained their shares and stopped the sale happening thus costing certain people millions

Poll: Would you welcome new owners if the deal was right?

0
American owners on 15:45 - Sep 28 with 1608 viewsUxbridge

American owners on 15:41 - Sep 28 by westx

Given the current greed levels (and egos) of certain directors I cannot possibly see them transferring shares across?

What would though be funny would be if the Trust dug in and retained their shares and stopped the sale happening thus costing certain people millions


While making a sale less attractive and lucrative, not sure would make it unattractive enough to stop any theoretical sale. One of the other directors would need to do something in this theoretical scenario.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
American owners on 15:59 - Sep 28 with 1577 viewswestx

American owners on 15:45 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge

While making a sale less attractive and lucrative, not sure would make it unattractive enough to stop any theoretical sale. One of the other directors would need to do something in this theoretical scenario.


Ah well it was worth a thought.

Poll: Would you welcome new owners if the deal was right?

0
American owners on 16:07 - Sep 28 with 1563 viewsjackonicko

Lots of good questions and points here, to which all the answers are 'it depends'. The current position is actually the perfect case study for game theorists, as there are so many variables at play here. It is the perfect scenario for an MBA course.

What you could do depends both on the objectives of any potential buyer and the sellers. And combinations of both. It's impossible to do it justice in a message board post, because of the intricacies of each of the variables. The levels of current ownership make it even more interesting.

If the buyer is on a vanity project, they may be happy with just the 78.5% and leave the trust in situ. They have more than 75%, so gives them quite substantial control. If it's an investment, then the fact they have to share 21.5% of the spoils will change the price per share they are willing to pay. Or they may choose to structure some of their investment through debt, but that will also reduce the price they will pay PER SHARE for the 78.5% of the equity.

Then look at the sellers. Rumours have it that some very minority shareholders want to sell. If they can persuade every other shareholder to sell, they could get £5m (if we stick with the £100m valuation). But if none of the others sell, they would be lucky to get £500k. But if you are, say, a vice chairman getting over £100k per annum plus a further £50k per annum dividend, £500k might not be enough to persuade you to sell. You could get the same money in just over three years, still have your shareholding at the end of it, and retain all the kudos in the period from being vice chairman of a premier league football club.

Would you give that up for 500k now? Well, you might if you thought the club might get relegated in those three years.

And why would any buyer pay 500k for just a 5% stake. If you're an investor, it's an irrelevant holding. It would take you 10 years to get your money back from divis - and you have to hope the club doesn't get relegated in that time. It gives you no control over your investment.

If you're a vanity buyer, 5% gives you nothing. I don't think it even gives you a right to join the board.

If you're a fan, would you really pay 500k just to say you own 5%? I wouldn't, and I can't see why anyone else would.

Of course, the trust has 600k in the bank, so could potentially buy that 5% holding. But that would put the trust over 25%, which changes the dynamics of the current ownership structure massively. I doubt the other shareholders would let that happen and they could block it via the shareholder agreement.

So, the only realistic buyer of just 5% is a buyer who would be blocked by the other shareholders. Tricky, isn't it.

Shaky mentions the 90%. That's true, legally, but its a bit of a red herring as the trust holding stops you getting to it. If the trust sell their holding, chances are it's only because the offer is so compelling that's everyone will have sold, so the new owner is getting 100% anyway. You could get there by the others selling and then diluting the trust's holding with new issues, but the shareholder agreement probably takes care of that. I can't see any scenario where the 90% rule becomes a factor, because of the stated objectives of the trust.

Would a new investor come in if they could only get less than 75%? It only needs one shareholder to side with the trust and it's a whole new ball game. The lack of control less than 75% gives you means e price you are prepared to pay will go down massively (much more than the implied value of £25m for 25% suggests).

So what of the other shareholders? All have different dynamics.

Huw has 12%, so takes home about 350k per annum (salary plus divi) being chairman. He gives the impression he likes the job. But a sale of 12% could be life-changing. Could be enough to say he's done his time and wants to hand over the reins. But equally, he might not.

MM is interesting. A man who has done incredibly well, and has the single biggest holding. Perhaps doesnt *need* to sell as much as the others? But the value of his holding is potentially enormous. If he doesn't want to sell, his holding plus the trust holding likely kills any deal. If he does, for the value of his holding to be enormous, he still needs everyone else to sell too. Which puts us back where we started.

Lets not forget Robert Davis. Has a 10% holding but no one knows much about him. No place on the board, but his 10% holding could easily tip things one way or the other. A great unknown, which is another fun variable for game theorists.

Then there are the other minority shareholders - JvZ. Each individually, if they side with the trust and not sell, gives them blocking control. Which then changes the price per share for everyone else.

And all of the above presumes the trust would not sell. What if the offer was so compelling that they believed they had to sell to enable the club to grow? What would they do with the £21m?

It's a great rainy day fund - but where do you put it? its hard enough finding secure places, covered by FSCS guarantees, to bank the current 600k they hold. It would be impossible with £21m. Would we be happy with the trust taking investment risk because the money is too much to hold safely in cash?

There are a ton of other variables - you could honestly write a dissertation on this. But this post is already as long as a Davillin one, so I should probably stop!

Without knowing who wants to buy and who wants to sell, it's all conjecture anyway.
5
American owners on 16:47 - Sep 28 with 1512 viewsswanduck

American owners on 08:19 - Sep 26 by westx

Had a PM this morning telling me that this is 100% true

I'm now a little confused how these people who love the club and have said so much over so many years would just sell out at the first opportunity and make their money off the back of us

What has been said on here is clearly true - club run by the fans for the fans is just about until there is a few quid to be made


I could PM you right now telling you it was 100% true doesn't make it so.
0
American owners on 16:50 - Sep 28 with 1504 viewswestx

American owners on 16:07 - Sep 28 by jackonicko

Lots of good questions and points here, to which all the answers are 'it depends'. The current position is actually the perfect case study for game theorists, as there are so many variables at play here. It is the perfect scenario for an MBA course.

What you could do depends both on the objectives of any potential buyer and the sellers. And combinations of both. It's impossible to do it justice in a message board post, because of the intricacies of each of the variables. The levels of current ownership make it even more interesting.

If the buyer is on a vanity project, they may be happy with just the 78.5% and leave the trust in situ. They have more than 75%, so gives them quite substantial control. If it's an investment, then the fact they have to share 21.5% of the spoils will change the price per share they are willing to pay. Or they may choose to structure some of their investment through debt, but that will also reduce the price they will pay PER SHARE for the 78.5% of the equity.

Then look at the sellers. Rumours have it that some very minority shareholders want to sell. If they can persuade every other shareholder to sell, they could get £5m (if we stick with the £100m valuation). But if none of the others sell, they would be lucky to get £500k. But if you are, say, a vice chairman getting over £100k per annum plus a further £50k per annum dividend, £500k might not be enough to persuade you to sell. You could get the same money in just over three years, still have your shareholding at the end of it, and retain all the kudos in the period from being vice chairman of a premier league football club.

Would you give that up for 500k now? Well, you might if you thought the club might get relegated in those three years.

And why would any buyer pay 500k for just a 5% stake. If you're an investor, it's an irrelevant holding. It would take you 10 years to get your money back from divis - and you have to hope the club doesn't get relegated in that time. It gives you no control over your investment.

If you're a vanity buyer, 5% gives you nothing. I don't think it even gives you a right to join the board.

If you're a fan, would you really pay 500k just to say you own 5%? I wouldn't, and I can't see why anyone else would.

Of course, the trust has 600k in the bank, so could potentially buy that 5% holding. But that would put the trust over 25%, which changes the dynamics of the current ownership structure massively. I doubt the other shareholders would let that happen and they could block it via the shareholder agreement.

So, the only realistic buyer of just 5% is a buyer who would be blocked by the other shareholders. Tricky, isn't it.

Shaky mentions the 90%. That's true, legally, but its a bit of a red herring as the trust holding stops you getting to it. If the trust sell their holding, chances are it's only because the offer is so compelling that's everyone will have sold, so the new owner is getting 100% anyway. You could get there by the others selling and then diluting the trust's holding with new issues, but the shareholder agreement probably takes care of that. I can't see any scenario where the 90% rule becomes a factor, because of the stated objectives of the trust.

Would a new investor come in if they could only get less than 75%? It only needs one shareholder to side with the trust and it's a whole new ball game. The lack of control less than 75% gives you means e price you are prepared to pay will go down massively (much more than the implied value of £25m for 25% suggests).

So what of the other shareholders? All have different dynamics.

Huw has 12%, so takes home about 350k per annum (salary plus divi) being chairman. He gives the impression he likes the job. But a sale of 12% could be life-changing. Could be enough to say he's done his time and wants to hand over the reins. But equally, he might not.

MM is interesting. A man who has done incredibly well, and has the single biggest holding. Perhaps doesnt *need* to sell as much as the others? But the value of his holding is potentially enormous. If he doesn't want to sell, his holding plus the trust holding likely kills any deal. If he does, for the value of his holding to be enormous, he still needs everyone else to sell too. Which puts us back where we started.

Lets not forget Robert Davis. Has a 10% holding but no one knows much about him. No place on the board, but his 10% holding could easily tip things one way or the other. A great unknown, which is another fun variable for game theorists.

Then there are the other minority shareholders - JvZ. Each individually, if they side with the trust and not sell, gives them blocking control. Which then changes the price per share for everyone else.

And all of the above presumes the trust would not sell. What if the offer was so compelling that they believed they had to sell to enable the club to grow? What would they do with the £21m?

It's a great rainy day fund - but where do you put it? its hard enough finding secure places, covered by FSCS guarantees, to bank the current 600k they hold. It would be impossible with £21m. Would we be happy with the trust taking investment risk because the money is too much to hold safely in cash?

There are a ton of other variables - you could honestly write a dissertation on this. But this post is already as long as a Davillin one, so I should probably stop!

Without knowing who wants to buy and who wants to sell, it's all conjecture anyway.


Great read and much to think on and as you say so many unknowns at the moment too

Be interesting to see what happens if a bid does come in and this all plays out and you are right we don't know the feelings of the shareholders althoguh I hear on the grapevine that Robert Davies wants to sell as well as will the clog

The key is Morgan, Jenkins and the Trust between them they have almost 60% of the club - interesting times

Its just a shame that money clouds peoples beliefs

All hypothetical

Poll: Would you welcome new owners if the deal was right?

0
American owners on 17:15 - Sep 28 with 1442 viewsjohnlangy

American owners on 13:56 - Sep 28 by MoscowJack

What if the Trust decided that 20% (or £20m) would be a wonderful nest egg or rainy-day fund? The interest alone would still allow them to continue the good work that they do in the community, etc. If new owners cocked up and we ended up doing a Blackburn or Fulham, that amount of money would be a huge helping hand and would probably see the Trust as 100% owner.

If the Trust kept their 20%, it's really only worth as much worth as 10%, isn't it? They would need 25% or more to make any real difference, if I've understood things right. I'm no financial guru like Lisa or Jackonicko so I could be wrong.

The MAIN thing, if they did decide to go in this direction is to keep their place on the Board, as long as it has voting rights. Could that be possible?

As I've said above (and others too), the potential new owners NEED the fans and therefore NEED the Trust. The Trust could be in a better selling position than any of the other shareholders due to the importance of their position.

Just one other thought that occurred to me - if the Trust did decide that the best move was/is to put £20m in the bank, would members be able to force some sort of dividend? Or would Board member only be able to do that? If there were/are 1000 members, it would equal £20,000 each!!

That's an incredible thought.


I was thinking something similar earlier. The Trust WOULD end up with £20 m in a £100 m takeover. But what about the rest of the board.

Many people have said, quite rightly, that they would be sorely tempted if their initial investment became a potential £5 m or whatever. I know I would. I also know I would feel I could be dropping the Club in the proverbial if the promises from the new owners didn't work out.

So, what could they do ? They would end up with £80 m between them so, what if they said we'll keep £40 m in a rainy day fund just in case things went t*ts up. They would still go from a Jack To A King (sorry ) overnight even with the paltry £40 m they'd be left with. And, in the process they, and we, would know that the Club would be saved with their pot plus the Trust's £20 m if things did go wrong.

I've used simple numbers (50/50) but that could be 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever but the logic is there.

Is it ?
0
American owners on 18:19 - Sep 28 with 1346 viewslondonlisa2001

Firstly, I have no idea whether there is any truth in the speculation - as i said before, I heard a rumour months ago, but dismissed it (have heard many over the years). I also tended to believe that the current shareholders didn't want to sell.

However, if a least some of them do want to sell, it makes the position somewhat different since at that point, you would imagine that there are a number of parties that could conceivably wish to buy a club that must be pretty much the most solvent of all premier league clubs.

The difficulty that the Trust has is explained well by Jackonicko and also in Nick's earlier post. The Trust doesn't own enough to really be able to make that much difference if the club is sold to a party that doesn't want the Trust on board, since at less than 25% it can't really block them from doing something, and a seat on the board becomes somewhat meaningless.

It is also entirely possible in that scenario that the new major shareholder could dilute the Trust down, simply by issuing shares. Although the Trust will have pre emption rights (the right to purchase more shares at the going rate to maintain its proportionate ownership) it is unlikely that they will have the funds to do that and will get diluted unless there are specific protections in any shareholder agreement that may exist (and we don't know that).

If the Trust is put in that position, i.e. where every other shareholder wishes to sell, it may actually be more of a protection in the long term to take the cash and keep it in case a crisis comes down the line. The reason being that under those circumstances they would have sold at the top of the market, so could buy the club or a part of the club back at a lower rate in the future (the reason that I say at the top of the market, is because if the value of the club continues to rise, it must be because new owners are not shafting it and there is instead continued success, in which case I guess everyone remains happy).

If, however, there is just one other shareholder that wants to stay in, with the Trust, as has been pointed out, that changes everything since certain actions of a majority shareholder require 75% support, and I think that any other single shareholder plus the Trust gives more than 25% voting power.

The difficulty in all of this, of course, is that no one here (or only a few, who are unlikely to say) knows what the individual financial circumstances are of the shareholders. It's easy to imagine that some may wish to make themselves cash multi millionaires (rather than theoretical millionaires) but it is also impossible to know whether one of the supposed 'rich already' shareholders may be in financial trouble with another business.

In terms of club value, it's basically going to be sold at the price someone is prepared to pay (and someone else is prepared to accept). It is a private company, there is no 'external share price' so a purchaser will value the club at what they think appropriate and an offer will be accepted or not. They'll do a whole range of calculations, but ultimately football clubs are not frequently bought and sold, and each one is very different, so any price will be very individual. For any of our board putting a figure on it - that will just be a 'round, gut feel' type price, not based on anything particularly substantive.
2
American owners on 18:31 - Sep 28 with 1318 viewsUxbridge

American owners on 18:19 - Sep 28 by londonlisa2001

Firstly, I have no idea whether there is any truth in the speculation - as i said before, I heard a rumour months ago, but dismissed it (have heard many over the years). I also tended to believe that the current shareholders didn't want to sell.

However, if a least some of them do want to sell, it makes the position somewhat different since at that point, you would imagine that there are a number of parties that could conceivably wish to buy a club that must be pretty much the most solvent of all premier league clubs.

The difficulty that the Trust has is explained well by Jackonicko and also in Nick's earlier post. The Trust doesn't own enough to really be able to make that much difference if the club is sold to a party that doesn't want the Trust on board, since at less than 25% it can't really block them from doing something, and a seat on the board becomes somewhat meaningless.

It is also entirely possible in that scenario that the new major shareholder could dilute the Trust down, simply by issuing shares. Although the Trust will have pre emption rights (the right to purchase more shares at the going rate to maintain its proportionate ownership) it is unlikely that they will have the funds to do that and will get diluted unless there are specific protections in any shareholder agreement that may exist (and we don't know that).

If the Trust is put in that position, i.e. where every other shareholder wishes to sell, it may actually be more of a protection in the long term to take the cash and keep it in case a crisis comes down the line. The reason being that under those circumstances they would have sold at the top of the market, so could buy the club or a part of the club back at a lower rate in the future (the reason that I say at the top of the market, is because if the value of the club continues to rise, it must be because new owners are not shafting it and there is instead continued success, in which case I guess everyone remains happy).

If, however, there is just one other shareholder that wants to stay in, with the Trust, as has been pointed out, that changes everything since certain actions of a majority shareholder require 75% support, and I think that any other single shareholder plus the Trust gives more than 25% voting power.

The difficulty in all of this, of course, is that no one here (or only a few, who are unlikely to say) knows what the individual financial circumstances are of the shareholders. It's easy to imagine that some may wish to make themselves cash multi millionaires (rather than theoretical millionaires) but it is also impossible to know whether one of the supposed 'rich already' shareholders may be in financial trouble with another business.

In terms of club value, it's basically going to be sold at the price someone is prepared to pay (and someone else is prepared to accept). It is a private company, there is no 'external share price' so a purchaser will value the club at what they think appropriate and an offer will be accepted or not. They'll do a whole range of calculations, but ultimately football clubs are not frequently bought and sold, and each one is very different, so any price will be very individual. For any of our board putting a figure on it - that will just be a 'round, gut feel' type price, not based on anything particularly substantive.


I said this earlier

It's all hypothetical as you say. So many moving parts. Jacko's excellent post outlines it perfectly. What is key for me is that any sale has to include protections for the remaining stakeholders.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
American owners on 18:33 - Sep 28 with 1309 viewsGlyn1

All of this hot air must be terrible for global warming. So far there hasn't been a single piece of evidence about this but Welshmen are worse gossips than women which is why we are enjoying ourselves talking about something non-existent.

Bill Kenwright at Everton has been trying to sell the club for years without success. They would be anyone's first target.

Poll: Who should be our next manager? Please name them.

0
American owners on 18:36 - Sep 28 with 1295 viewsDr_Winston

Everton have to find £200m+ for a new stadium. That makes them less attractive.

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.

0
American owners on 18:38 - Sep 28 with 1284 viewsjohnlangy

American owners on 18:33 - Sep 28 by Glyn1

All of this hot air must be terrible for global warming. So far there hasn't been a single piece of evidence about this but Welshmen are worse gossips than women which is why we are enjoying ourselves talking about something non-existent.

Bill Kenwright at Everton has been trying to sell the club for years without success. They would be anyone's first target.


And have to invest a min £100 m in a new stadium on top of what they pay to buy the Club ? And are Everton in debt ?

This anyone would have to have very deep pockets.
0
American owners on 18:38 - Sep 28 with 1283 viewslondonlisa2001

American owners on 18:31 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge

I said this earlier

It's all hypothetical as you say. So many moving parts. Jacko's excellent post outlines it perfectly. What is key for me is that any sale has to include protections for the remaining stakeholders.


oh apologies Ux for plagiarising your post

Excellent points then....
1
American owners on 18:48 - Sep 28 with 1262 viewswestx

American owners on 18:33 - Sep 28 by Glyn1

All of this hot air must be terrible for global warming. So far there hasn't been a single piece of evidence about this but Welshmen are worse gossips than women which is why we are enjoying ourselves talking about something non-existent.

Bill Kenwright at Everton has been trying to sell the club for years without success. They would be anyone's first target.


It is most definitely not non existent - there is interest for sure the potential investors/owners were at the Chelsea game

What you can also assume is that there is no formal offer or the Trust would be canvassing their members

Poll: Would you welcome new owners if the deal was right?

0
American owners on 18:51 - Sep 28 with 1254 viewsUxbridge

American owners on 18:38 - Sep 28 by londonlisa2001

oh apologies Ux for plagiarising your post

Excellent points then....


I thought so

I do love a good theoretical discussion though.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024