The one healthy thing at this Club

[The Fish Seller 0]

Is the "share value".

 Every asset this club has seems to be used to keeping that value up either directly or indirectly.

Why hock parts of the ground just to balance books, why sell land just to balance books? why sell players just to balance books, why not just make a loss?

Oh because the "share value" would drop and that wouldn''t suit certain people who''ve thrown millions at this club with little or no expectations of any return would it?

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Really??

I''m interested now.. what is the share value?

 

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="Roedent"]

Is the "share value".

 Every asset this club has seems to be used to keeping that value up either directly or indirectly.

Why hock parts of the ground just to balance books, why sell land just to balance books? why sell players just to balance books, why not just make a loss?

Oh because the "share value" would drop and that wouldn''t suit certain people who''ve thrown millions at this club with little or no expectations of any return would it?

 

[/quote]

How very dare you!.......61% isn''t a lot.......and we need the ''offa the field stuff'' to maintain our superb, small, ''but healthy'' and most adept and skillful squad. ''WE'' wouldn''t be a successful foodball club - if it wasn''t for the financial support and input from ''offa the field'' investment - of which we are now reaping the rewards and striving for ultimate survival in the Chumpionship. I find it all very exciting that we have our backs to the wall, and that we don''t know where our next win is coming from. The Chief Exec is no fool, he knows what''s required to maintain his position as Chief Exec in a successful business, (unfortunately he''s frustrated with that side order of a distracting irritant called football). ''Think'' before you cynically type your thoughts. We''re just so fortunate that Bernard ''bootiful'' Matthews isn''t our major shareholder! Can you imagine a huge turkey breedin'' shed where the hotel is? Articulated trucks in the car parks? Or a turkey twizzler production line in the ''Top o'' the Terrace'' restyrunt - with a turkey drumstick packing plant where ''Delia''s'' posh nosh outlet is? Having to watch our hard earned cash and profits, being gobbled up by the Turkeys in the shed - as well as witnessing those turkeys ambling around on the pitch?

I certainly wouldn''t mind that nice Mr Sullivan taking over though. Lappydancin'' babes at halftime - and a Naughty ''Private shop'' where the club shop is......PHWOAAAR! YEAH![:P]

I''m sure we''ll survive, even with the present under-achieving incumbents at the helm - of the rudderless and without sails ''Clipper Carra''.........maybe.

(I''m not a shareholder by the way)...... 

 

[T 190]

Hocking part of the ground,selling land and selling players if you sell them at their market value does not change the value of the shares.  For example you own shares in a business that only owns land that is worth 1 million. You see the land for 1 million. The business now has 1 million of cash rather than 1 million of land and therefore the shares in the business are worth 1 million the same as before.

You can not keep making a loss until you keep investing money like Chelsea to fund that loss otherwise the club goes bust.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="T"]

Hocking part of the ground,selling land and selling players if you sell them at their market value does not change the value of the shares.  For example you own shares in a business that only owns land that is worth 1 million. You see the land for 1 million. The business now has 1 million of cash rather than 1 million of land and therefore the shares in the business are worth 1 million the same as before.

You can not keep making a loss until you keep investing money like Chelsea to fund that loss otherwise the club goes bust.

[/quote]

You can not keep making a profit at the expense of adequate investment in the team otherwise the team gets relegated.

 

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="T"]

Hocking part of the ground,selling land and selling players if you sell them at their market value does not change the value of the shares.  For example you own shares in a business that only owns land that is worth 1 million. You see the land for 1 million. The business now has 1 million of cash rather than 1 million of land and therefore the shares in the business are worth 1 million the same as before.

You can not keep making a loss until you keep investing money like Chelsea to fund that loss otherwise the club goes bust.

[/quote]

Are you a shareholder?

[T 190]

Agreed FT - I think you have demonstrated that we were making a profit in the last few years which I agree warrants some explanation especially when I believe that Mumby said that we were basically a non profit organisation. However that is the past and on going financial results of the club do not look promising. I would be interested be hear if there were any explanations fromthe finance meeting the other night.

[T 190]

No I''m not MY but would given the opportunity as I would like to make a contribution to the club and get more info. even though I think it would be money down the pan.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Hocking part of the ground,selling land and selling players if you sell them at their market value does not change the value of the shares.  For example you own shares in a business that only owns land that is worth 1 million. You see the land for 1 million. The business now has 1 million of cash rather than 1 million of land and therefore the shares in the business are worth 1 million the same as before.

You can not keep making a loss until you keep investing money like Chelsea to fund that loss otherwise the club goes bust.

[/quote]

T, player valuations are "intangible" therefore are not counted as assets and don`t really affect the overall valuation of a club. The only way their "value" can be reflected in the overall value of the club is to sell them and pump the money into fixed assets which boost the balance sheet......Which is exactly what has been happening isn`t it? The only real question is "why?".

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

T, player valuations are "intangible" therefore are not counted as assets [/quote]

The player registrations are in the Intangible Assets part of the Balance Sheet.

 

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="T"]

Hocking part of the ground,selling land and selling players if you sell them at their market value does not change the value of the shares.  For example you own shares in a business that only owns land that is worth 1 million. You see the land for 1 million. The business now has 1 million of cash rather than 1 million of land and therefore the shares in the business are worth 1 million the same as before.

You can not keep making a loss until you keep investing money like Chelsea to fund that loss otherwise the club goes bust.

[/quote]

T, player valuations are "intangible" therefore are not counted as assets and don`t really affect the overall valuation of a club. The only way their "value" can be reflected in the overall value of the club is to sell them and pump the money into fixed assets which boost the balance sheet......Which is exactly what has been happening isn`t it? The only real question is "why?".

[/quote]

''Why'' indeed!

Are we really more financially in the cack - than some folk are letting on? Is it desperate measures to stifle the true money problems. Is a club venture running at a loss and money is being diverted to fund it - in a feeble attempt to delay the inevitable? (Chase anyone?) Or is it just a blip on the horizon, and all is well with the ''manageable'' debt.....(and I''m just being unhelpful in my worry and thoughts)?

Are we all to disappear down the financial "Black Hole?" Uncontrollably spiralling, spinning and wildly tumbling into another parallel dimension - where the Darth Donkster and his Eventguard Stormtroopers - rule with an iron fist![:O]

PS Can I be C3-PO?

[T 190]

Mr C - agreed the value of players are generally intangible assets if the balance sheet takes the historical cost approach.  Although, football clubs usually take the cost of players purchased and amortise the cost over the length of their contracts so those costs would be on the balance sheet.

However, just because the full value of players contracts are not on the balance sheet does not affect the value of the shares. Balance sheets are generally based on historical cost rather than a market valuation basis and therefore don''t form the basis for valuing the shares. The intrinsic value of the shares is based on the future cash flows of the business. In the event that you were buying a club and looking to sell the players then it would be relatively easy for a buyer to get an estimate of the cash that could be raised from selling those players. Consequently, if you sell players at market value it should make no difference to the share value because businesses are not valued on the basis of their balance sheets. Otherwise shares in property companies would always be worth more than shares in companies with intangible assets such as software companies eg Microsoft which is not the case. Therefore it is not the case that selling players and spending the money on fixed assets will increase the share value just because it appears on the balance sheet. If anything the value of the shares will have gone down because our league position is lower and there is less chance of receiving premiership money.

I agree it appears that some of the money raised from selling players has gone into infrastructure. No doubt some of it is valid and some does not make sense with hindsight given our current league position. It would be entirely valid for the shareholders to run through the expenditure and to ask the Board how and why the money was spent. I was hoping someone would attend the finance meeting to try and find out. However,increasing the share value does not appear to be the reason.

 

[GMF 735]

Bear in mind that as the Club''s shares aren''t actually actively traded on the Stock Exchange, there isn''t a true test of their market value as such. If they were, the price would be a lot lower now than the value at which they are currently traded.

Also, at the AGM a resolution was passed to issue more shares at £30 each so that''s the price whether people like it or not.

[charlies dad 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="T"]

Hocking part of the ground,selling land and selling players if you sell them at their market value does not change the value of the shares.  For example you own shares in a business that only owns land that is worth 1 million. You see the land for 1 million. The business now has 1 million of cash rather than 1 million of land and therefore the shares in the business are worth 1 million the same as before.

You can not keep making a loss until you keep investing money like Chelsea to fund that loss otherwise the club goes bust.

[/quote]

You can not keep making a profit at the expense of adequate investment in the team otherwise the team gets relegated.

 

[/quote] TWICE.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Mr C - agreed the value of players are generally intangible assets if the balance sheet takes the historical cost approach.  Although, football clubs usually take the cost of players purchased and amortise the cost over the length of their contracts so those costs would be on the balance sheet.

However, just because the full value of players contracts are not on the balance sheet does not affect the value of the shares. Balance sheets are generally based on historical cost rather than a market valuation basis and therefore don''t form the basis for valuing the shares. The intrinsic value of the shares is based on the future cash flows of the business. In the event that you were buying a club and looking to sell the players then it would be relatively easy for a buyer to get an estimate of the cash that could be raised from selling those players. Consequently, if you sell players at market value it should make no difference to the share value because businesses are not valued on the basis of their balance sheets. Otherwise shares in property companies would always be worth more than shares in companies with intangible assets such as software companies eg Microsoft which is not the case. Therefore it is not the case that selling players and spending the money on fixed assets will increase the share value just because it appears on the balance sheet. If anything the value of the shares will have gone down because our league position is lower and there is less chance of receiving premiership money.

I agree it appears that some of the money raised from selling players has gone into infrastructure. No doubt some of it is valid and some does not make sense with hindsight given our current league position. It would be entirely valid for the shareholders to run through the expenditure and to ask the Board how and why the money was spent. I was hoping someone would attend the finance meeting to try and find out. However,increasing the share value does not appear to be the reason.

 

[/quote]

Thanks T, i bow to your knowledge in these matters.

How would you compare the valuations of us and ipswich? It seems to me that as City have assets (mostly land) which are worth more than the debt, the club will always be valued at the very least at that value minus debt? I believe ipswich have virtually no fixed assets and run at a considerable loss so the only inherent "value" an investor can see is speculative ie., big player sales or promotion?

Also, City have raked in about £16million in player sales in the last two and a half seasons. If an investor had been keen to take over before that period he could not have known anyone would come in with big money for those players, therefore that extra income could not have been included in the valuation of the club as the very obvious value of land can be?

[T 190]

Mr C. - I agree with your assessment of the minimum value of Norwich and where the value is in Ipswich. If the clubs were in the same league position then I would expect Norwich to be worth more. However, right now it is difficult to see how you would make any money out of the club other than by buying it for less than the value of the land, paying off the staff contracts and selling the land. With Ipswich I''m afraid there is a realistic chance that they could get promoted. Therefore if I was taking a financial punt I would buy a club with a realistic chance of gaining promotion and take all the cash out if they got promoted. I''m afraid I would not give NCFC a second look at the moment.

I agree that it clearly easier to value land rather than players but there are people who specialise solely in valuing intangible assets and this would normally be part of performing due diligence on a football club.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Really??

I''m interested now.. what is the share value?

 

[/quote]   

 

Well Delia seems to have valued her 63%ish shareholding at around £9,000,000 so she seems to assume that she''ll be knocking them out for the full value 25 quid a throw.

Of course you will argue that the shares are only worth what someone will offer for them.

If we are relegated it will end in tears for Delia with angry crowds demanding her overthrow and she might well be looking for a bit less of a return for a quick getaway and that''s the time when NCFC becomes a particularly enticing purchase for a potential investor .

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Roedent"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Really??

I''m interested now.. what is the share value?

 

[/quote]   

 

Well Delia seems to have valued her 63%ish shareholding at around £9,000,000 so she seems to assume that she''ll be knocking them out for the full value 25 quid a throw.

Of course you will argue that the shares are only worth what someone will offer for them.

If we are relegated it will end in tears for Delia with angry crowds demanding her overthrow and she might well be looking for a bit less of a return for a quick getaway and that''s the time when NCFC becomes a particularly enticing purchase for a potential investor .

[/quote]

Indeed it does...and if she has any financial sense she will go before her "investment" value truly plummets. Of course if she really cared about the club like the legendary Geoffrey Watling she should donate the value of his bequest (plus interest) to NCFC on leaving...not to mention the value of land, players etc. left behind by Robert Chase which she has cashed in on. Can''t see it happening though somehow........

I personally don''t fear the relegation scenario as much as the thought of Smith holding out should we barely survive at this level.  Do we want more of the same for the next five years....or an exciting re-build of the club from basics with money spent on the pitch instead of the restaurant?

Pheonix from the ashes and all that...........Anyone?

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Roedent"]

Of course you will argue that the shares are only worth what someone will offer for them.

[/quote]

Well.. that is kind of what I thought but if you know different I''d love to know too.

 

[GMF 735]

[quote user="CLUCK"][quote user="Roedent"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Really??

I''m interested now.. what is the share value?

 

[/quote]   

 

Well Delia seems to have valued her 63%ish shareholding at around £9,000,000 so she seems to assume that she''ll be knocking them out for the full value 25 quid a throw.

Of course you will argue that the shares are only worth what someone will offer for them.

If we are relegated it will end in tears for Delia with angry crowds demanding her overthrow and she might well be looking for a bit less of a return for a quick getaway and that''s the time when NCFC becomes a particularly enticing purchase for a potential investor .

[/quote]

Of course if she really cared about the club like the legendary Geoffrey Watling she should donate the value of his bequest (plus interest) to NCFC on leaving...

 

[/quote]

So kind of you to be so generous with someone else''s money !!!!