It's all your fault

[Jim Smith 2,317]

5 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Perhaps things have changed, they didn't expect to make a windfall but now they have they do not want someone else to cash it in. Changing your mind over a period of many years to exercise a right you fully accept is not really hypocrisy.

Maybe but it’s not too different to all these “investors” who we are told would want a profit on their return though is it? Particularly as really a lot of the growth in value of their asset has been funded by the level of support from the fans over the years. 

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

There are 1 million as I understand it and the club currently values shares at £100.

This option would potentially leave Delia and MWJ on the board with a holding of circa 25%. You are right that they would have to agree to it and it would be a sacrifice on their part but it would actually be fully in line with their oft cited “not in it for a profit” statements so an interesting possibility (unless I am talking nonsense snd it’s not possible). It would see a £100m immediate case injection into the club itself. 

I think that it would be the best way to raise money for the club as it would be new money. However, I'm not sure how many shares S and J hold. You still have the challenge of finding someone prepared to spend the £100 million you quote without any obvious way in which they can get a return from their investment.

[BigFish 1,986]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Maybe but it’s not too different to all these “investors” who we are told would want a profit on their return though is it? Particularly as really a lot of the growth in value of their asset has been funded by the level of support from the fans over the years. 

True, not really different at all.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I think that it would be the best way to raise money for the club as it would be new money. However, I'm not sure how many shares S and J hold. You still have the challenge of finding someone prepared to spend the £100 million you quote without any obvious way in which they can get a return from their investment.

Yes you do but as discussed elsewhere, someone has just bought Southampton by paying £100m to the existing owners. That money is therefore gone. not helping improve the playing staff.

This way (if its possible?) that money can be invested into further assets (whether new players or the stadium) so to me (with y simplistic mind) actually is little different to someone being told you can have the club for free if you commit to providing a £100m cash injection?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 minutes ago, BigFish said:

True, not really different at all.

In fact you could argue that the club has been run on a "no debt" model in order to maintain/increase the extent of that profit. I think in reality it hasn't but that ultimately becomes the effect. 

[BigFish 1,986]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

I think that it would be the best way to raise money for the club as it would be new money. However, I'm not sure how many shares S and J hold. You still have the challenge of finding someone prepared to spend the £100 million you quote without any obvious way in which they can get a return from their investment.

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes you do but as discussed elsewhere, someone has just bought Southampton by paying £100m to the existing owners. That money is therefore gone. not helping improve the playing staff.

This way (if its possible?) that money can be invested into further assets (whether new players or the stadium) so to me (with y simplistic mind) actually is little different to someone being told you can have the club for free if you commit to providing a £100m cash injection?

I don't know what you mean about having the club for free if you make a £100 million cash injection, but as I have said new equity is the best way to raise money from the fans perspective, as it is new money.

[BigFish 1,986]

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't know what you mean about having the club for free if you make a £100 million cash injection, but as I have said new equity is the best way to raise money from the fans perspective, as it is new money.

We are in agreement on that. I was simply responding to the point about whether there is someone willing to buy the club for £100m with my point really being that its £100m that could then still be used to hopefully increase (or maintain) the value of their asset whereas the Saints owner had to buy the club for £100m and then if they want to spend £100m on players thats extra money they have to find on top. Thats what i was trying to say (probably poorly). 

[Badger 2,405]

 

Thanks.

You might want to check my sums but if they sold all one million shares at £100 as you suggest, they would have about 70% of the business. My fag-packet maths calculates that this would value the business at £140 million with S and J's shares being worth abut £45 million. I suspect that this slightly on the low side, although it doesn't change the principle.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Badger
I copied the wrong image from BF's post.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Thanks.

You might want to check my sums but if they sold all one million shares at £100 as you suggest, they would have about 70% of the business. My fag-packet maths calculates that this would value the business at £140 million with S and J's shares being worth abut £45 million. I suspect that this slightly on the low side, although it doesn't change the principle.

 

It would be 62% with Delia and MWJ's satek reduced to just under 20%. I guess they may want to retain at least 25% if they agreed to any such arrangement. 

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

We are in agreement on that. I was simply responding to the point about whether there is someone willing to buy the club for £100m with my point really being that its £100m that could then still be used to hopefully increase (or maintain) the value of their asset whereas the Saints owner had to buy the club for £100m and then if they want to spend £100m on players thats extra money they have to find on top. Thats what i was trying to say (probably poorly). 

Thanks.

In Southampton's case there is also the issue of over £100 million debt (already) to be serviced as well. This is about £9 million a year out of their revenue, before they borrow any more. (It's why Gao wanted out - he'd been trying to sell it  for 2 or 3 years  and  took a big  loss).

[Indy 3,298]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

Directors owe fiduciary duties to their company and have to consider what is in its best interests. That usually means taking proper account of the interests of all shareholders, present and future. But in the context of a bid, the interests of the company are generally accepted to be the interests of the current shareholders (Heron International Ltd and others v Lord Grade, Associated Communications Group plc and others [1986] BCLC 382).

I know that, but best interest is not legally duty bound! There’s the issue. Like I said as supporters they really should have the best interest of the club at heart but at present they have that say, some people on here think one way and are happy others want a change. That’s pretty much the way of Norwich City FC… 

[essex canary 496]

What does 'not in it for a profit' really mean?

S&J put around £10 million into the Football Club some years ago. If say they had put that money into a property portfolio they would now have somewhat more than £10 million though probably radically less than £100 million which could now be a commercial valuation of their shareholding.

There is no good reasoning for them doing any favours for any new owner but given their public comments, favours for effectively a fan buy out would be valid.

[Indy 3,298]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

What does 'not in it for a profit' really mean?

S&J put around £10 million into the Football Club some years ago. If say they had put that money into a property portfolio they would now have somewhat more than £10 million though probably radically less than £100 million which could now be a commercial valuation of their shareholding.

There is no good reasoning for them doing any favours for any new owner but given their public comments, favours for effectively a fan buy out would be valid.

where’s that ten million figure from? I believe they bought shares for a lot less and loaned the club money which has been repaid in full.

[essex canary 496]

Just now, Indy said:

where’s that ten million figure from? I believe they bought shares for a lot less and loaned the club money which has been repaid in full.

We have vouched for a minimum of £7.5 million on other threads which can be reconciled back to published accounts and there are other grey areas in an upwards direction that other contributors have pointed out so £10 million seems a fair round number.

[BigFish 1,986]

17 minutes ago, Indy said:

I know that, but best interest is not legally duty bound! There’s the issue. Like I said as supporters they really should have the best interest of the club at heart but at present they have that say, some people on here think one way and are happy others want a change. That’s pretty much the way of Norwich City FC… 

It is a legal precedent, so despite your first sentence it is legally bound, the very definition of legally bound and supported by case law.

In theory the sugar daddy investor could take S&J to court to enforce a takeover if,

1. They could make the case it was in the best interests of the club and
2. They could make the case it was in the best interests of the Shareholders

[nutty nigel 7,533]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

But if someone was able to acquire the 1 million unallocated shares they could buy a controlling interest in the club for £100m with all that money going into the club (and therefore effectively available for use) rather than to existing shareholders no? 

Indeed they could and how wonderful would that be Jimbo. But only a benefactor would do that. An investor would loan the money.

 

[BurwellCanary 216]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Indeed they could and how wonderful would that be Jimbo. But only a benefactor would do that. An investor would loan the money.

 

I dont pretend to be any sort of expert or legal beagle so this is a very simplified scenario ( no doubt @BigFish and others would now better than I) but my own Company are going through an Employee Ownership sale currently which allows shareholders to sell their shares back to the Company and the Company then owns those shares for the benefit of the Company and in effect the employees, who then 'own' the rights to dividends. The period of time taken to complete the buyback depends on profits made which are used to fund the purchase. It is how John Lewis are set up - Go Ape is a more recent example. The shares are managed through a Trust during the transfer period and then subsequently. The trustees are able to sell individual shares back to investors (fans) and the club ends up in employee and fan ownership. In the case of my Company, the sale proceeds does not attract tax and as a result the shareholders would sell the shares at the value they would have received after tax. 

It doesnt provide the immediate cash injection of course but does allow existing shareholders who wish to retire an exit route where the sale to an outside third party is not possible (for whatever reason) and places ownership back to those that have the best interests of the Co/Club going forwards i.e. employees and fans.

Of course not a viable option unless shareholders wish to sell which isnt a given, but might add to the debate

[nutty nigel 7,533]

That's interesting @BurwellCanary

However our club is already 100% owned by fans and no shareholder dividends are paid.

 

[BurwellCanary 216]

21 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

That's interesting @BurwellCanary

However our club is already 100% owned by fans and no shareholder dividends are paid.

 

Perhaps I am missing the point but I thought the shares were owned privately by Foulger, Smith etc? 

I dont want to waste anyones time on this but what actually is the 100% fan ownership then @nutty nigel ( I ask as an interested supporter )

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

@Son Ova Gun is quite right. I have posted on this before! But it seems, judging by the responses, to be of some interest to others…

As explained, the point is that, contrary to an oft-stated view, it is possible to force S&J to quit, despite their majority shareholding. I won’t go again through the mechanics of the process, but although it would be hard, it could be done. @Indy I never said they would legally have to sell. They would be forced to by the weight of public opinion. So the excuse that any protest movement would be fruitless falls to the ground.

I guess that won’t stop @komakino keeping on using one quote from six years ago to justify doing nothing to get rid of owners he criticises ad infinitum and ad nauseam, but this thread shows he is hardly alone in using false excuses to justify apathy.

The excellent post by @Parma Ham's gone mouldy is a kind of companion piece to my post, laying out the reasons why Norwich City is not actually an attractive proposition, so severely limiting the number of potential would-be owners. In other words there is a double difficulty to getting an outside owner for the club. But a difficulty rather than an impossibility.

@TeemuVanBasten seems to be confusing me with the covid-infected but defiantly maskless Novak Djokovic in terms of being a danger to public health. While @BigVince is as usual just confused.🤓

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

39 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

That's interesting @BurwellCanary

However our club is already 100% owned by fans and no shareholder dividends are paid.

 

Just like Luton here init. 

[nutty nigel 7,533]

20 minutes ago, BurwellCanary said:

Perhaps I am missing the point but I thought the shares were owned privately by Foulger, Smith etc? 

I dont want to waste anyones time on this but what actually is the 100% fan ownership then @nutty nigel ( I ask as an interested supporter )

The last time I saw a full list of owners was 2013. If you go to...

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history 

Then scroll down to 2013 full list of shareholders you will see all the owners and their shareholdings at that time.

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

It would other than they frequently said earlier on in their ownership that they do not expect snd are not looking to make a profit on their shares with Delia having once said the right person could have it off them for free. 
 

So to be honest, if they held out for full value and it were to prevent a takeover because the price was seen as excessive i would find that a little hypocritical. I fully accept through that is their right. 

I hope and believe that this is quite close to the truth. 

Parma 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[hogesar 9,666]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

@Son Ova Gun is quite right. I have posted on this before! But it seems, judging by the responses, to be of some interest to others…

As explained, the point is that, contrary to an oft-stated view, it is possible to force S&J to quit, despite their majority shareholding. I won’t go again through the mechanics of the process, but although it would be hard, it could be done. @Indy I never said they would legally have to sell. They would be forced to by the weight of public opinion. So the excuse that any protest movement would be fruitless falls to the ground.

I guess that won’t stop @komakino keeping on using one quote from six years ago to justify doing nothing to get rid of owners he criticises ad infinitum and ad nauseam, but this thread shows he is hardly alone in using false excuses to justify apathy.

The excellent post by @Parma Ham's gone mouldy is a kind of companion piece to my post, laying out the reasons why Norwich City is not actually an attractive proposition, so severely limiting the number of potential would-be owners. In other words there is a double difficulty to getting an outside owner for the club. But a difficulty rather than an impossibility.

@TeemuVanBasten seems to be confusing me with the covid-infected but defiantly maskless Novak Djokovic in terms of being a danger to public health. While @BigVince is as usual just confused.🤓

Exactly, we're no an attractive proposition but it's not impossible. Yet those who complain on here daily, taking up valuable minutes, hours, days of their lives in doing so, aren't interested in doing anything about it.

Something tells me that deep down, they all know it likely doesn't get any better than this!

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Maybe but it’s not too different to all these “investors” who we are told would want a profit on their return though is it? Particularly as really a lot of the growth in value of their asset has been funded by the level of support from the fans over the years. 

This is the ‘disingenuous’ fact I referred to. It is what has happened: intentional, desired, accidental, unwelcome or otherwise. 

It is not often referred to, leveraged or irrelevant. 

Parma 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

In fact you could argue that the club has been run on a "no debt" model in order to maintain/increase the extent of that profit. I think in reality it hasn't but that ultimately becomes the effect. 

Again - intentional, desired or otherwise - this is de-facto what has occurred.

I remain unconvinced that Glazers or Ashleys would receive smooth passage for operating in such a way. 

That they might intend it and our owners not, becomes a little moot over time*

Parma

*Particularly if you do then hand it over to your Nephew.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

19 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Exactly, we're no an attractive proposition but it's not impossible. Yet those who complain on here daily, taking up valuable minutes, hours, days of their lives in doing so, aren't interested in doing anything about it.

Something tells me that deep down, they all know it likely doesn't get any better than this!

So far Jim, Parma and others have provided a good discussion on the details of ownership shares etc. Yet you feel the need to have a go and make it personal again... Give it a rest and save your valuable minutes, hours, days in doing so. 

[BurwellCanary 216]

31 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

The last time I saw a full list of owners was 2013. If you go to...

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history 

Then scroll down to 2013 full list of shareholders you will see all the owners and their shareholdings at that time.

 

I see what you mean - thanks