Jump to content

SD Thorpe

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. With reference to the shares. She obv want to remain majority sharehodler and want investment for no-return for the investor. E.g. we are basically going around with a Charity Box saying give us a few million but we wont let you have any say in how we use it or have any shares but cos we are control freaks.
  2. Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!! The start of the season now is totally and utterly buggered due to the fact fans will be completely mythed by the whole experience and what exactly Delia and MWJ agenda is. Unfortunately those hoping Cullum will now buy out the club completely I feel are probably hanging on to false hope. What an absolute mess and a Joke. And then for Doncaster to come out and say we are actively seeking investment from someone with Norfolk Roots - FFS we have someone who wanted to invest with Norfolk Roots - what are they f****ng play at. From Peter Cullums side I have heard that he had been totally mythed also by the club stance early on in the affair. Even if any of our dreams came true and we won the Lottery or the Euro Lottery and we wanted to invest in the club we support we would probably get blocked!!!!!!!!
  3. Although Snowball is no longer at Towergate as he was there to help/run the flotation which has been postponed. Hmmmz - Puts Delia/MWJ under more pressure with the Major Sponsor "encouraging" the deal to happen.
  4. Another option that I dont understand that has not been discussed and again has been hinted on in Barry Skippers article in the Pink Un. Peter Cullum wants to become majority shareholder - not the only shareholder - the club is saying that if he own more then 30% odd then he will have to offer to buy 100% of shares - fine no problem with that. Surely though the compromise is that Peter Cullum buy 100% of shares and then immediately sells them back to Delia 25% and then MWJ 24% Meaning Peter Cullum is majority shareholder with 51% and the sell back to the two individuals does not reach the 30% odd that will re-trigger the compulsory purchase of shares.
  5. Thanks Both. Yes, that is another concern of mine - surely the club are financially aware that the shares have a debt attached to them which devalues them. If this is a typical example of the board financial nounce then it is very worrying.
  6. Sorry Should not reply to my own response!!!! Basically the Club can say the shares are in fact worth £32 Million but have a £16 Million pound debt attached to them so therefore can be purchased for £16M Or they can say the shares are worth £16m but have a £16m debt attached to them so can be purchased for £0 The club seem to be saying the shares are worth £16m and ignoring the debt attached to them and then on top saying the purchaser would also need to clear the debt. Having their Cake and Eating it.
  7. The Loan was to consolidate debts and secured against the value of the club. Not just the Jarrold Stand.
  8. First off - new poster - read for ages - getting very very frustrated. Would like someone with a Financial/Banking/Investment background to verify my thoughts. The EDP hinted at this in the paper and online edition this morning - e.g. City took effectively a huge mortgage to pay for the Jarrold stand and bring debts together - this is secured against the value of the assets of the club - e.g. the £16m in shares (which in turn is valued on the fixed assets) So basically the two figures net each other off - with obviously the £16m worth of shares becoming worthless as they have a £16m debt attached to them. In more layman terms - If I purhcased a house with a 100% mortgage for £100,000 then my house is worth £100,000 - not the value of the house and the mortgate- e.g. £200,000. Or in another way - Peter Cullum can purchase the debt from the lenders for £16m and take total control of the club shareholder by saying this must be repaid immediately (not likely - and the hostile way (and Marcus Evans way I believe) of taking over the club) - and the club would only be able to do repay the debt by providing the assets (ideally in the form of shares if a lender took this action). One more thing - the £30 value of shares is also very questionable - this is based on the "Nominal Value"/Issue price of shares not the value of the shares in the market place. Again, anyone with a share certificate can read it and it will say something along the lines of Ordinary Shares of 5p - then look up the shares on the stock exchange and you will find the market value of the shares - this will not be 5p. Confusing the Nominal Value and the Market Value of shares seems a bit odd. Just my thoughts............... Welcome to be shot down in flames if I am wrong - would like others to confirm if my understanding is sound.
  • Create New...