Jump to content

Morph

Members
  • Content Count

    471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Morph

  1. [quote user="Camuldonum"]Business loans are granted to a specific person, or a specific company, or a specific partnership.  When the loan is granted (or overdraft) the bank/finance company grants it on their assessed risk of YOU and the deal is with you/partners/directors all signing on the dotted line.[/quote]Camuldonum, thank you for this insight.So whatever way it''s cut, the minimum that somebody has to come in with is £20M (£16M debt plus £4M directors loans), plus £535,000 (if shares were valued at £1). That £535,000 could vary up to  £16M with the current £30 estimate, potentially more if somebody feel that more than £30 per share is reasonable.That does not include anything for "investment" in the playing staff of the club.
  2. [quote user="ron obvious"]The main reason I compared it to a house sale was because of the sums of money involved (making it large enough to be a serious amount, significant to most people''s personal wealth) & to try & separate out the various components - Cullum says ''£20m for the team'' & they think that''s an end to it; I was pointing out that the £20m debt has to be repaid, even if the new owner then immediately refinances - just as you would have to redeem your mortgage when you sell & the new buyer takes on his own mortgage.On the basis of the highlighted text above he would still have to refinance the debt, bringing his initial outlay to £45m. This also assumes he ups his offer by £5m &  drops his investment to £15m, neither of which has he mentioned.[/quote]I''m kind of curious about this debt thing too. Perhaps there is one of our finance savvy posters out there that can clarify the situation.If somebody buys out a company do they not simply take on the companys'' existing debt? Are there any regulations that govern repayment of a companys'' debts as part of the takeover process?As far as I can see the minimum that any potential buyer would have to put in to take a controlling interest in NCFC PLC is the monies required to acquire a majority shareholding i.e. 51% of the 535,000 shares out there. Clearly, in doing so because that action would take a person(s) holdings above the 30% shareholding they have to make an offer to all existing shareholders as if executing a takeover. For more information see: http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/new/codesars/DATA%5Ccode.pdf
  3. [quote user="dhickl"]Even in this thread, people have said that the club is valued at £16m (mixing up value and equity), or that the club is valued at £56m (including the £20m transfer kitty).[/quote]Actually that £56M figure comes from the official statement released by the club on what an individual would need to invest in order to take a controlling interest in Norwich City PLC.See: http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1336394,00.htmlThat statement includes the £20M input to the transfer kitty.Don''t forget that KeelansGlove''s original post asked the question what would be a fair offer for the club.That £56M figure is presumably the clubs estimate of the "fair market value" of the club. The £16M for a 100% share buyout is based on the purchase of all shares at the £30 mark.  Whoever came in to buy the club would have to make an offer to all shareholders as soon as they had acquired some 30% of the shares according to the City Code on Company Takeovers.
  4. To all, tell me - in this scenario of £20M (£16M for the shares and £4M for the directors loans) does Delia get back all the money that she has put into the club? Or are there still monies outstanding?So what would you expect Cullum to get back from his additional £20M for the transfer "pot of gold"? Would it appear as a director''s interest free loan? More shares? Or what?I''ve deliberately glossed over the £16-20M debt.
  5. From the figures that GazzaTCC kindly posted:[quote]Investment in playing squad                                                                               £20 millionPurchase of shares based on current share issue price of £30 per share              £16 million*Repayment of bank debt that would be triggered by a change of control            £16 millionRepayment of directors'' loans                                                                           £4 million                                                            TOTAL                                                £56 million[/quote]Excuse for being rather simplistic about all of this, but if Cullum''s offer was £20M simply to put into the playing squad, then based upon a valuation of £16M for all the shares you could see where he may have wanted a controlling holding in the club."I''ll give you £20M to invest in the playing squad. For that I want the equivalent number of shares."On the basis of the calculations for the £16M value of shares i.e. £30 per share. A share issue to the tune of £20M would have given him 666,667 shares - effectively a majority holding with the total shares in the PLC going up to 1,206,667.Now I realise this is not how the whole share issue deal works.
  6. [quote user="Evil Monkey"]Morph, the club released a full breakdown of what the £56m would be made up of, and it included the debt, a full takeover of shares and the £20m PC had pledged to invest into the playing side.  Of course, he could always renegotiate the debt with the banks and buy only a controlling stake, and maybe invest less into the transfer budget if he felt things were tight.  At the time, however, all we heard was that he wanted to put £20m into the transfer kitty in return for control of the club (albeit with his own people on the board and Delia as a figurehead).  [/quote]EM, I stand corrected.My point to Canoldrum still stands though - Cullum could take control of the club with an investment of £20M, BUT that investment would only get him all the issued shares at £30 per share. The £20M would not erase the debt or provide a £20M pot of gold for transfers.
  7. [quote user="Camuldonum"]Well, it''s certainly not a controlling interest for £20m which, if correctly reported, is what Mr C originally wanted.  If he wants to be the majority shareholder he has to buy everyone else out - unless, of course, he is expecting the shareholders to hand over their shares for nothing.[:|]  [/quote] That''s not strictly true based upon the numbers already quoted in this thread for shares.  If there were 540,000 shares issued and he purchased all those shares for £30 each, he would only have paid £16.2M to take complete control of the PLC. The other two financial pieces that muddy the water in all the discussions are: the club debt of around £20Mthe "pot of gold" for player investment, £20MThat would take the total to £56.2M.So back to your original comment, an investment of £20M would be enough to take control of the PLC with all existing debts and no investment into the playing staff. Those debts would include the interest free loans made to the club by Messrs Smith, Wynn-Jones and the Turners.See this is what is confusing to me. The impression given by media reporters and posters alike is that Delia wanted £56M from Cullum for the club, but there is no explanation of what that £56M went to. The figures above suggest that it was to buy the shares, wipe out the debt (what does Cullum get for that, btw) and still put £20M into the transfer budget (again what does Cullum get for that - just the warm fuzzy feeling in his heart that he made a difference, I think not).
  8. KG, do you happen to know what the number of shares issued is?  As somebody as has previously pointed out on numerous other threads, if Cullum makes an offer to buy out the majority shareholding (how many is that?) then it is obliged to also make a similar offer to all other existing shareholders.If nothing else, knowing the total number of shares in circulation would allow people to frame the minimum amount of money that he would have to spend to get into the Club in the first place.
  9. To follow up on a post earlier in this thread about running the club. In the Barcelona scheme of things the members/shareholders don''t run the club. I think the ownership allows them to elect the clubs governing body - they elect the club president for example.This is lifted from a Guardian article written about the Barcelona club ownership in 2006:[quote]"The fans truly own this club," Ferran Seriano, one of the club''s vicepresidents, says. "They control its destiny and can decide how it will be managed. This is totally different from Arsenal [two-thirds owned by ITV, businessmen Danny Fiszman and David Dein, and Lady Nina and Sir Charles Bracewell-Smith] or Chelsea, owned by one guy who could one day withdraw his investment."...The Camp Nou way 142,000 Barcelona members or socios 4 Major shareholders in Arsenal £69 Cheapest adult season ticket at the Camp Nou £885 Cheapest at the Emirates Stadium £579 Most expensive adult season ticket at the Camp Nou £1,825 Most expensive at the Emirates Stadium £84m Barça''s income in 2002-03, before Joan Laporta took over £163m Barça''s income in 2005-6 2 Maximum number of four-year terms a Barça president may serve [/quote]And this lifted from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald:[quote]At Barca, the directors are elected to the board on four-year terms because of their vision, not because they''re the mates of a rich chairman. At Barca, vision requires football knowledge and understanding to convince the football-savvy socios that the club will maintain and improve on its guiding principles and direction. Thus the membership decides what are the overriding imperatives. The members, of course, have also forged the Barca spirit - and a pride in the club''s badge - that has resisted having a sponsor''s name or logo placed on their shirt. Their symbol is considered too important to be soiled with such base commercial motives. Indeed, last season Barca paid UNICEF for the right to use its name. [/quote]
  10. [quote user="jas the barclay king"]this is a good post! unfortunately it shows why fan ownership wont ever take place anywhere else... Barca are a 1 off... the club are not sponsored by anyone, the fans vote on everything from Ticket prices to who the next manager is going to be... i''d love to see it in the english game but Barca have been fan run since their inception... its too late for an established club to do this i feel. jas :) [/quote]jas:), why do you think it''s too late for this to happen at City?A follow up question for all. What''s the fan base, worldwide for City? 30,000? 40,000? 100,000 even?The calculations other posters have done on the £56M valuation have been based on 20,000. That''s your normal home crowd. But surely the fan base is broader than that. XXXL, YankeeCanary, newyorkcanary, all give the impression that they''re Canary supporters outside of the fan base that regularly attend City home games.A further follow up question, which perhaps somebody can look up in their copy of the club accounts. What''s the number of shares out there? Remember there are ''A'' shares and ''B'' shares (I know ''cos I have some of each). Delia and MWJs 61% holding is made up of what? All A? All B? Or a mix?Here''s another thought. What about a share issue to season ticket holders only? All proceeds go directly into the transfer kitty. And don''t say that your season ticket payments should be going there already. Perhaps they should, but chances are that a good portion of season ticket revenues go towards paying for existing playing staff - another reason to moan when the players don''t perform.
  11. [quote user="one-pint"]whilst a good idea, doing the maths, if for example we got 20,000 supporters to buy into this....with delias quoted 56 million buyout price, every supporter would need to chip in 2,800 quid each, which i cant really see happening [/quote]Didn''t that £56M price tag include paying off the £20M debt?
  12. Radical suggestion but why don''t the fans buy out Delia? Set up a club ownership along the lines of Barcelona.This is lifted from another site but it would be interesting to know what the actual details of club ownership are.[quote]FC Barcelona''s ownership structure is revered across the world and regarded as a model of the ideal football club. A group of Liverpool supporters plan to buy the troubled Anfield club from its American owners and run it using a system similar to that of the Catalan giants. Barca is owned by its ever-growing membership of 156,366 ''socis'' (members), who pay 150euros each year and are represented by a randomly-selected group who meet with the board and vote on major decisions. These representatives have a major say on significant issues such as sponsorship, finances and sporting affairs, while the president of the club is elected in four-yearly polls. The achievements of the illustrious club since its founding in 1899 are testament to the ongoing success of the structure, as is the fact many clubs have attempted to copy the model over the years. So why does Barca''s system work so well? All adult members are eligible to vote in the presidential elections every four years. Club members selected randomly by computer and age, and 25 chosen by the board, join the directors, former presidents and other officials at the annual delegates assembly to discuss key issues, approve the annual report and forthcoming projects. Only members can buy season tickets, with membership fees contributing to the overall price of the ticket. Fiscal rewards for membership include discounted tickets for the club''s various sports teams including football, basketball, handball and hockey as well as club magazines, e-mail updates, sporting and cultural activities and free entry to the Nou Camp tour and museum. Ultimately, though, it is not the material rewards which make the Barca membership structure so prestigious. In a modern game spoiled by disaffected supporters and unaccountable owners, it is FC Barcelona''s utopian democracy which justifies its famous slogan ''More than a Club''.[/quote]And please don''t rathole on what the Liverpool supporters are trying to do.Could it work at City?If so, how and what''s the investment needed to replace the current ownership with the Barcelona style ownership?
  13. Bingo, you''re dead right. If we go a restaurant and pay money for crap service and food, we sure as hell won''t go back. By the same token if the restaurant manager has complaints about his staff or his staff don''t fit in it''s easier for him to get rid of them. Plus it''s not such a financial risk to bring in replacements.As football supporters we don''t follow the restaurant scenario. We stick with the club through thick and thin. But should we really expect our directors to keep digging into their pockets to put money into the club? yellow hammer clearly thinks we should.However, if there is no more money to be had, and the vitriol begins to spew forth what happens then if MWJ and DS want to get out but want something back for what they''ve put in? Do we as fans have the right to give them abuse for their lack of investment?It''s like a kid that gets the flashy remote control car for Christmas. Mum & Dad got all the flashy bits on the outside but the engines a bit naff. Couldn''t you pay just a little more? Sorry kid, we didn''t have a little more.
  14. yellow hammer, are you of the opinion then that if said directors no longer have the financial clout to continue to back the club, said directors should step aside to let others who do?I think this is where the "prudence with ambition" came from. The directors have given as much as they financially want to give to the club and maybe want to see something for it. So the "ambition" has gone and it''s now simply "prudence".The fans want "ambition" and to hell with the prudence. As YCs thread title intimated, there''s a large segment of fans that want to see somebody paying for their toy.Even Cullum wanted something for the money he wanted to put in. He did not appear to be putting in money to buy an expensive toy to play with. Perhaps other posters on here think he was.
  15. So LGT and others on this thread, should the directors continue to throw their own money into the pot in the pursuit of attaining the Premiership?How much? At what point do they consider the money you want them to put in, a bad investment?There seems to be an undercurrent of feeling that somebody with deep pockets has to underwrite the pursuit of success. Why do people feel that? If it was a venture capitalist they would want some percentage of the company and some hope of seeing a return on their investment. Why do people think that people investing in a football club are any different?If any of you had £20M to throw into the pot would you simply hand it over to City without any hope of some return?The club is £20M in debt - how much is that costing the club per year to maintain?. Up to 50% of the club''s turnover goes into funding the playing and non-playing staff at the club. See: http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/eng_norwich.htm. Or: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/
  16. Well there''s one managerial possibility out of the way.http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11688_2794402,00.htmlSky Sports is reporting that Warnock has joined Palace.
  17. There''s always:Byron Glasgow (currently a trainee at Reading)Rob Paris (from Aylesbury)Salvatore Monaco (currently at Catania)I''m sure there''s loads more. Just search on soccerbase.com under players to get some hints.
  18. Best post that I''ve taken the time to read for ages Rossi.It''s a completely uninteresting place to visit these days - the Pink''Un message board. It''s the same old arguments getting rehashed again and again, followed up by the same old vitriol from WO''s a KTFers, alike.This board was once a place for reasoned discussion. Not any more. Just a place for bitter people to air the same views that they''ve aired over the past 12 months or dig out more dodgy rumours or speculation about what''s going on down at Carrow Road.Everyone one of us would do the team more of a favour if we put all our verbal efforts into supporting the team.
  19. Can somebody explain something to me - why do City need a target man? There''s an implication in this that the expected ball to the front man is in the air with a smaller striker acting to feed off the knock downs/ons. Why do City have to play that way? What''s wrong with the ball to strikers on the deck or balls through the defense for strikers to run on to (Earnshaw is a supposed to be quick). Or, God forbid, balls crossed by the wide players from a position beyond the opposition full-back. How many times does Worthy ask his wide men to go past the full back and get to the byline before crossing the ball in? How many strikers do City have on the books? Thorne, Earnshaw, McKenzie, Jarvis, Henderson, Huckerby, McVeigh? Why do they need another one?
  20. Why not play a system that employs wing-backs? Have a central defensive trio of Docherty, Shackell and AN Other (probably Fleming). Then have Drury as LWB, plus AN Other as RWB (Colin, Hughes, Louis-Jean, Spillane). Play three in midfield. Safri being one. Then pick two from Etuhu, Robinson and Hughes. If you want a more attacking midfield choose a roaming third from Huckerby, McVeigh, Henderson or Jarvis. Select two up front from the vast choices that City have for strikers from Earnshaw, McKenzie, McVeigh, Thorne, Huckerby, Henderson and Jarvis. From what little you can gain from a friendly, I think the partnership of McKenzie and Earnshaw looks good, BUT it does require a particular type of service from midfield. That''s either crosses into the box from beyond the opposition full backs or balls ON THE DECK through the oppositions back four. The "hump" doesn''t work with that pairing.
  21. blahblahblah, you make a comment about the starting 11 for Leeds well here''s my comeback. We can''t use any of the pre-season friendlies to guage much at all. However, if they were being used as a way for players to stake claims to places then only the following would make my starting line-up. GK: Gallacher (didn''t see Lewis although he was there) LB: Drury CB: Docherty CB: Shackell RB: ?? LM: ?? - Huckerby is currently favourite but I remain unconvinced on last nights showing, he simply goes missing for too much of the game CM: Safri CM: Robinson - sorry but Etuhu doesn''t do it for me - a big lump of a player whose first touch was awful RM: ?? ST: McKenzie ST: Earnshaw That would leave three positions to fill, although one is likely to be filled by Huckerby. Huckerby and Drury work well together. I''d like to see them acquire two midfield players. One, a decent attacking central midfield player, Etuhu isn''t it. Two, a right sided midfield player. Safri is a Makele type player who is good on the ball but he''s not going to be making those lung busting runs forward. Robinson is a Carrick type of player, always looking for the cutting pass, but again not making those lung busting runs forward like a Gerrard/Lampard style player. The alternative is to play three across the middle with Safri, Robinson and Etuhu. Then play Hucks just in behind the front two but give him license to roam. With McKenzie and Earnshaw up front you need to either play the ball into feet and run off them or you need wide midfield men who are prepared to run in behind the fullbacks. Huckerby does that, but City don''t have a corresponding right side player who does that. Jarvis came on for Huckerby last night and looks a decent player - more convincing than Henderson on last nights showing. If Worthy has to insist on playing strikers wide then why not give Jarvis a go on the right?
  22. Not much of a match to be honest - and yes I was there!!. A first half strike force of Thorne and McVeigh did little to conjure up anything magical - McVeigh seemed to have picked up someone else''s boots because he didn''t look at all comfortable when he did have the ball. Closest to scoring was Shackell who attempted to bundle the ball in from a corner but only managed to get the goalkeeper in the net and the ball over the bar. A lightweight midfield, IMO, with Safri and Etuhu in the middle with Henderson and Huckerby on the flanks. Major difference between the flanks being the support from the fullback. Drury makes good runs past Huckerby creating space for him to run into, whilst Colin made no runs at all beyond Henderson. Changes made at half time saw McKenzie and Earnshaw on as front pairing, with Hughes replacing Henderson and Robinson replacing Safri. A much better front pairing with both causing the defenders havoc with their chasing of the ball. Earnshaws first came from a McKenzie layoff on the edge of the box with Earnie curling the ball adroitly into the top corner. Second goal was a penalty area melee with Earnshaw finding a way to pop the ball in the back of the net. Earnie nearly had a third with a Huckerby run down the left wing and cross only to see Earnie sliding in on his backside unable to get the merest of touches to put it in. Overall, solid at the back - questions still remain over right back position. Midfield is still an area of concern on this showing. Safri is OK, but Etuhu doesn''t have a first touch worth anything and ends up diving in after losing control with the obvious results. Robinson looks a decent enough player with an eye to play a decent ball rather than giving away possession. Out wide, the players on show don''t offer a solution to the right side of midfield. A decent attacking right back may help solve the problem, but Henderson was timid - only once did he actually attempt to go past the left back. Hope it gets better than this in the real matches because the opposition aren''t going to be as poor as Livingston.
  23. I haven''t posted in this forum for months because it''s such a depressing place to come and visit. That said, I felt I had to post just to crow as "Fife Fire" lead the Norwich Hopefuls segment of the premierleague.com fantasy World Cup. Yep, that''s Morph up there looking down at the rest of you (for once).
  24. A slightly different tack on the issue of whether there is something wrong at Carrow Road at the moment. To all the supporters out there that are reading this, ask yourselves this question. Are you getting value for money from your entry money at the moment? And if you are explain why. I realise for many simply seeing the team is enough irrespective of what is happening on the pitch. For others, the entertainment value they are getting for shelling out their hard earned cash is very poor indeed. Where do you stand?
  25. KC, have to agree with your sentiments. I visit the forum less and less these days simply because there is no discussion and I stress discussion. I even have to think twice about trying to start a discussion, there are other boards where you actually get reasoned debate - sadly this is no longer one of them. This message board has become indicative of the club in it''s current state - stale. I would classify myself on the Worthy doubting side of the fence, but when you try to generate discussion on what needs to happen at the club to fix matters there is no reasoned debate. Even the KTFer''s don''t post anymore and I can understand why. The WOer''s that we have have become so vociferous and unreasoned that they leave themselves no room to manoevre and cannot see how anybody can have an opposing view. It''s sad but true.....
×
×
  • Create New...