Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheCardinal

Official Statement; Club for sale for £56 million

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="jbghost"]

Whilst wanting investment as much as the next fan I think your comments are at best a touch misguided.

"So from the offical statement made this evening Delia & Co would like £56 million for Peter Cullum to buy the club outright?"

You answer this yourself - the banks want £16 million, standard financial institution practice with change in company control.

Repayment of directors loans - written into loan agreements that these are repayable if the control passes from Michael and Delia (£2 million to them)

Purchase of shares @ £16 million. I believe Michael and Delia hold around  60% of the shares (£9.6 million to them)

So in fact Michael and Delia want around £13.6 million not £56 million. onsidering their initial investment I would say this is hardly mercenary.

 

 Cullum can''t seriously think he can get control of NCFC plc for £20 million. 

[/quote]

Why does Cullum have to buy every board memeber out?

As you above yourself say Delia & Michael''s shares rumoured to be approx £9.6million for a 60% share in the club.

A £10million outlay for shares plus a re-financing of the existing loan should be more than enough to secure the 51% that Mr Cullum is looking for.

Didn''t Delia once say that she would sell her shares for a fiver each if it meant that the club could move forwards and money be spent on the team?

I am not 100% sure on the last staement I have made there.... maybe somebody else could help me out on this one???

[/quote]

I really can''t believe the levels of ignorance and stupidity in the 14 pages of this thread.  Not because the average poster should understand the intricacies of company law (othwerwise I''d be out of a job) but because even when knowledgeable posters point out the legal , financial and governance realities, you still won''t listen.  Let me have another go with respect to those who have already made these points and been ignored by the "Don''t let the facts get in the way of Hating Delia" Brigade.

  • The Board has a legal duty to act in the interests of the Club as a whole and not individuals so the personal desires and objectives of Delia and Michael are not valid considerarions for the Board to take into account.
  • The offer to purchase  shares has to be open to every shareholder who wants to sell so it has to be sufficent to purchase 100%.  Some purchasers such as Glazer want 100% and pursue that goal.  Others are happy to buy a majority.  Smudger,Cullen offering to buy 51% is not a legal option.  Cullen has to buy the shares of everyone who wants to sell.
  • In setting a price for shares, the Board (remember not Delia and Michael alone) has to be fair to all shareholders.   A market price of £16million has been set and no doubt can be justified on asset value.
  • It seems clear that the share price will provide a return of investment to Delia and Michael.  They do not appear to make a profit at £30
  • It is standard in commercial loans for the loan to be repayable ( which means not that it will be repaid but that the lender could ask for repayment) on transfer of ownership.  A business is only as good as its owners and managers (look at GEC/Marconi after Lord Weinstock left or Marks and Spencers in the last ten years) and any lender will want to reassess its position on change.  Anyway, does anyone really see this as an issue.  I do not know Mr Cullen but cannot believe he would not be good for a £16million loan secured on the Club''s assets.
  • The figure of £20 million  for team building comes from Cullen.  The actual potential purchase price for the Club is £36 million but in reality could be as little as £8 million

It seems clear that the Board has responded in a way that is right and proper given its duties and responsibilities and more to the point it has no choice.

Cue the response from DLTFGITWOHD

I repeat.    There is nothing in the statement to suggest that the majority shareholders are doing anything obstructive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="dhickl"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

So are they saying they want to be bought out and that no investment of any kind can be forthcoming without buying the whole thing?  What a huge pile of croc.

God it almost makes me want to tell em to stick their season tickets.

[/quote]

It''s the rule that when you are buying a company, if you puchase more than 30% you must make an offer to everyone to buy all the shares.  As he said that he wants a "majority" share that would be more that 50%, therefore he would be obliged to offer to buy everyone''s shares.  They can''t be forced to sell until he gets more that 95% (I think).

So although £16m was quoted, I doubt he would have to pay that.  My guess would be about 60% would sell (about £9.5m).  The £4m loans would also have to be paid back.  It is likely that the £16m owed to the banks could be refinanced.  I think that the banks would trust PC enough to give him the credit.

That would make it:

Puchase majority of shares: ~£10m

Loans to directors: £4m

Finance new players: ~£20m

Total: ~£34m out of his own pocket.

[/quote]

 

You are correct and the figures you quote are probably about right, too. I guess this is what the arm-wrestling was about.

What makes me very upset is that Delia said at the last AGM she would not stand in the way of any new investor who was ''stupid enough'' to put money into the club. In fact she said there were no potential investors around. We now know this is a lie. The recently released statement saying there had been many approaches over the past twelve months directly contradicts that statement.

We now see Delia drawing in wagons and putting up the defences against Cullum. She obviously has no interest in the 20 million that will be available for new players. Her motives are questionable.

[/quote]

And how is Delia standing in the way????????

She and MIchael as part of the Board are going through the legal process.  Even if they wanted to sell, the process would have to be the same.

And it is Cullen who has linked the £20 million to control not Delia so to say she is not interested is just dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="jbghost"]

Whilst wanting investment as much as the next fan I think your comments are at best a touch misguided.

"So from the offical statement made this evening Delia & Co would like £56 million for Peter Cullum to buy the club outright?"

You answer this yourself - the banks want £16 million, standard financial institution practice with change in company control.

Repayment of directors loans - written into loan agreements that these are repayable if the control passes from Michael and Delia (£2 million to them)

Purchase of shares @ £16 million. I believe Michael and Delia hold around  60% of the shares (£9.6 million to them)

So in fact Michael and Delia want around £13.6 million not £56 million. onsidering their initial investment I would say this is hardly mercenary.

 

 Cullum can''t seriously think he can get control of NCFC plc for £20 million. 

[/quote]

Why does Cullum have to buy every board memeber out?

As you above yourself say Delia & Michael''s shares rumoured to be approx £9.6million for a 60% share in the club.

A £10million outlay for shares plus a re-financing of the existing loan should be more than enough to secure the 51% that Mr Cullum is looking for.

Didn''t Delia once say that she would sell her shares for a fiver each if it meant that the club could move forwards and money be spent on the team?

I am not 100% sure on the last staement I have made there.... maybe somebody else could help me out on this one???

[/quote]

I really can''t believe the levels of ignorance and stupidity in the 14 pages of this thread.  Not because the average poster should understand the intricacies of company law (othwerwise I''d be out of a job) but because even when knowledgeable posters point out the legal , financial and governance realities, you still won''t listen.  Let me have another go with respect to those who have already made these points and been ignored by the "Don''t let the facts get in the way of Hating Delia" Brigade.

  • The Board has a legal duty to act in the interests of the Club as a whole and not individuals so the personal desires and objectives of Delia and Michael are not valid considerarions for the Board to take into account.

  • The offer to purchase  shares has to be open to every shareholder who wants to sell so it has to be sufficent to purchase 100%.  Some purchasers such as Glazer want 100% and pursue that goal.  Others are happy to buy a majority.  Smudger,Cullen offering to buy 51% is not a legal option.  Cullen has to buy the shares of everyone who wants to sell.

  • In setting a price for shares, the Board (remember not Delia and Michael alone) has to be fair to all shareholders.   A market price of £16million has been set and no doubt can be justified on asset value.

  • It seems clear that the share price will provide a return of investment to Delia and Michael.  They do not appear to make a profit at £30

  • It is standard in commercial loans for the loan to be repayable ( which means not that it will be repaid but that the lender could ask for repayment) on transfer of ownership.  A business is only as good as its owners and managers (look at GEC/Marconi after Lord Weinstock left or Marks and Spencers in the last ten years) and any lender will want to reassess its position on change.  Anyway, does anyone really see this as an issue.  I do not know Mr Cullen but cannot believe he would not be good for a £16million loan secured on the Club''s assets.

  • The figure of £20 million  for team building comes from Cullen.  The actual potential purchase price for the Club is £36 million but in reality could be as little as £8 million

It seems clear that the Board has responded in a way that is right and proper given its duties and responsibilities and more to the point it has no choice.

Cue the response from DLTFGITWOHD

I repeat.    There is nothing in the statement to suggest that the majority shareholders are doing anything obstructive

[/quote]

Top, top post Cambridge.

[Y][Y][Y]

At the end of the day, takeovers are a long and complicated process that takes time and money to accomplish. The laws involved are quite plain and explained by Cambridge above and show that while you might not need the full £36mil, you need to show that it''s available before you can proceed with anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Monkey Gone To Heaven"]

But that is the whole point you and the others in this thread are missing.  If you stopped spitting at Delia for two seconds and read what CUllum actually said today, he said he wanted CONTROL of the club - not to invest IN IT.  That means a TOTAL TAKEOVER - which is going to cost him 56 million.  If he had asked for a place on the board for 20 million they would have bitten his hand off and we would be spending the money.  All this Delias dream rubbish is just pure nonsense.

 

[quote user="Chris"]

The whole set-up of the club and its shares has been to protect Delia''s dream. Forcing someone to purchase 100% plus clear the debts and put 20million into a transfer kitty is only used as a way of quashing any potential takeover. The Turners were only included to add an extra layer of armour to protect our current owners. I hate to admit it but there is no way we are worth 24million more than the binners!

[/quote][/quote]

No he hasn''t said he wants a total takeover dimwit... he has asked to become a majority shareholder.

If he has asked for a total takeover, then maybe you could point me to the where in the article it says this becuase I must of missed it?

Thnat and buying out the club and the current board in it''s entirety are two different things.

 

[/quote]

Surely a true Dimwit is someone who ignores facts becuase tehy do not fit his view of the world???

To put this on page 14 after all that has been previously carefully and acurately explained makes only one Dimwit.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Smudger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cambridge, could you explain "They do not appears to make a profit at £30" (per ordinary share)?  If you buy shares at £25 each and then increase the asking price to £30 doesn''t it represent a 20% profit?

On the same subject, what is your view on the way the share price increase was voted through at the AGM?  The board not only failed to disclose that there was a potential buyer or that they had turned down an offer, they went out of their way to give the impression that no one was interested.  I daresay they made sure they stayed on the right side of the law, but they were walking a pretty fine line imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="jbghost"]

Whilst wanting investment as much as the next fan I think your comments are at best a touch misguided.

"So from the offical statement made this evening Delia & Co would like £56 million for Peter Cullum to buy the club outright?"

You answer this yourself - the banks want £16 million, standard financial institution practice with change in company control.

Repayment of directors loans - written into loan agreements that these are repayable if the control passes from Michael and Delia (£2 million to them)

Purchase of shares @ £16 million. I believe Michael and Delia hold around  60% of the shares (£9.6 million to them)

So in fact Michael and Delia want around £13.6 million not £56 million. onsidering their initial investment I would say this is hardly mercenary.

 

 Cullum can''t seriously think he can get control of NCFC plc for £20 million. 

[/quote]

Why does Cullum have to buy every board memeber out?

As you above yourself say Delia & Michael''s shares rumoured to be approx £9.6million for a 60% share in the club.

A £10million outlay for shares plus a re-financing of the existing loan should be more than enough to secure the 51% that Mr Cullum is looking for.

Didn''t Delia once say that she would sell her shares for a fiver each if it meant that the club could move forwards and money be spent on the team?

I am not 100% sure on the last staement I have made there.... maybe somebody else could help me out on this one???

[/quote]

I really can''t believe the levels of ignorance and stupidity in the 14 pages of this thread.  Not because the average poster should understand the intricacies of company law (othwerwise I''d be out of a job) but because even when knowledgeable posters point out the legal , financial and governance realities, you still won''t listen.  Let me have another go with respect to those who have already made these points and been ignored by the "Don''t let the facts get in the way of Hating Delia" Brigade.

  • The Board has a legal duty to act in the interests of the Club as a whole and not individuals so the personal desires and objectives of Delia and Michael are not valid considerarions for the Board to take into account.

  • The offer to purchase  shares has to be open to every shareholder who wants to sell so it has to be sufficent to purchase 100%.  Some purchasers such as Glazer want 100% and pursue that goal.  Others are happy to buy a majority.  Smudger,Cullen offering to buy 51% is not a legal option.  Cullen has to buy the shares of everyone who wants to sell.

  • In setting a price for shares, the Board (remember not Delia and Michael alone) has to be fair to all shareholders.   A market price of £16million has been set and no doubt can be justified on asset value.

  • It seems clear that the share price will provide a return of investment to Delia and Michael.  They do not appear to make a profit at £30

  • It is standard in commercial loans for the loan to be repayable ( which means not that it will be repaid but that the lender could ask for repayment) on transfer of ownership.  A business is only as good as its owners and managers (look at GEC/Marconi after Lord Weinstock left or Marks and Spencers in the last ten years) and any lender will want to reassess its position on change.  Anyway, does anyone really see this as an issue.  I do not know Mr Cullen but cannot believe he would not be good for a £16million loan secured on the Club''s assets.

  • The figure of £20 million  for team building comes from Cullen.  The actual potential purchase price for the Club is £36 million but in reality could be as little as £8 million

It seems clear that the Board has responded in a way that is right and proper given its duties and responsibilities and more to the point it has no choice.

Cue the response from DLTFGITWOHD

I repeat.    There is nothing in the statement to suggest that the majority shareholders are doing anything obstructive

[/quote]

 

 

 

At last. Someone on this thread talking sense. Well done CC but it would have helped certain posters if you had limited your explanation to words of one syllable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

Cambridge, could you explain "They do not appears to make a profit at £30" (per ordinary share)?  If you buy shares at £25 each and then increase the asking price to £30 doesn''t it represent a 20% profit? 

Fair point FP. I was trying not to make my post even longer and more boring.  My comment is based on the report by Waghorn that the sale of D&M''s shares at £30 would raise £10 million which is what they have put into the Club during their tenure.

On the same subject, what is your view on the way the share price increase was voted through at the AGM?  The board not only failed to disclose that there was a potential buyer or that they had turned down an offer, they went out of their way to give the impression that no one was interested.  I daresay they made sure they stayed on the right side of the law, but they were walking a pretty fine line imo.

I don''t have any more facts than you but it seems that even now Cullen has not made an offer to purchase shares so he probably hadn''t then.  His public pronoucements have been reported on here over the last few months and have been very negative.  There is also an issue of confidentiality.  For commnets and hints to have been made at the  AGM would have led to a storm of interest and I have no doubt that all mparties would have agreed to avoid that.

 

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

Cambridge, could you explain "They do not appears to make a profit at £30" (per ordinary share)?  If you buy shares at £25 each and then increase the asking price to £30 doesn''t it represent a 20% profit? 

Fair point FP. I was trying not to make my post even longer and more boring.  My comment is based on the report by Waghorn that the sale of D&M''s shares at £30 would raise £10 million which is what they have put into the Club during their tenure.

On the same subject, what is your view on the way the share price increase was voted through at the AGM?  The board not only failed to disclose that there was a potential buyer or that they had turned down an offer, they went out of their way to give the impression that no one was interested.  I daresay they made sure they stayed on the right side of the law, but they were walking a pretty fine line imo.

I don''t have any more facts than you but it seems that even now Cullen has not made an offer to purchase shares so he probably hadn''t then.  His public pronoucements have been reported on here over the last few months and have been very negative.  There is also an issue of confidentiality.  For commnets and hints to have been made at the  AGM would have led to a storm of interest and I have no doubt that all mparties would have agreed to avoid that.

 

[/quote][/quote]

Many thanks Cambridge. 

My understanding is that all (or almost all) the money that D&M have loaned the club has been converted into shares @£25 each, hence the 20% profit. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Cambridge

I''d like to thank ''norfolkbroadslim'' for copying and pasting CJF''s re-posting from WOTB of my copying and posting Camberwick Green''s post from the official site.

Believe it or not cityangel has also copied my re-posting of Camberwick Green''s post from the official site and re-posted it as a new thread on.....the official site, from whence it first came!

Phew!

:o)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That loans are repaid/refinanced or rolled over on a change of control is standard on every deal.

2. As relegated teams receive GBP20m TV money this amount seems a reasonable amount to compete for promotion and PC appears to have agreed this amount given that he indicated GBP20m would be available for transfers

3. The total shares cost GBP9.3m including the share premium per the accounts and the shareholders are asking GBP16m. Given that the investment goes back to 1996 then the shareholders  are asking for their money back plus something around the basis cost of money i.e. what they would have got if they had purchased a risk free investment.

Therefore, it look as if the negotiation is only about how many shares are purchased and for how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This vile board have virtually priced our club out of the market for any major investment......... so enjoy more failure and disappointment suckers..........prudence with greed!.[:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

Cambridge, could you explain "They do not appears to make a profit at £30" (per ordinary share)?  If you buy shares at £25 each and then increase the asking price to £30 doesn''t it represent a 20% profit?

On the same subject, what is your view on the way the share price increase was voted through at the AGM?  The board not only failed to disclose that there was a potential buyer or that they had turned down an offer, they went out of their way to give the impression that no one was interested.  I daresay they made sure they stayed on the right side of the law, but they were walking a pretty fine line imo.

 

[/quote]

It''s a point FP that most of the long winded legal argument posters will continue to overlook. Yes their posts are legally correct and the hoops they say have to be jumped through indeed do have to be jumped through, but some not all in their blinding love of Delia will continually overlook the 2 small details that 1 we were lied to at the last AGM and 2 at the same time that Mr Cullum showed his hand they deliberatly and purposly inflated the share price in order to line there own greedy pockets should a buyout happen.

I don''t think it will happen now and neither will I forget that we were lied to by the present board members. God help them if this coming season starts to go belly up like the last. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="jbghost"]

Whilst wanting investment as much as the next fan I think your comments are at best a touch misguided.

"So from the offical statement made this evening Delia & Co would like £56 million for Peter Cullum to buy the club outright?"

You answer this yourself - the banks want £16 million, standard financial institution practice with change in company control.

Repayment of directors loans - written into loan agreements that these are repayable if the control passes from Michael and Delia (£2 million to them)

Purchase of shares @ £16 million. I believe Michael and Delia hold around  60% of the shares (£9.6 million to them)

So in fact Michael and Delia want around £13.6 million not £56 million. onsidering their initial investment I would say this is hardly mercenary.

 

 Cullum can''t seriously think he can get control of NCFC plc for £20 million. 

[/quote]

Why does Cullum have to buy every board memeber out?

As you above yourself say Delia & Michael''s shares rumoured to be approx £9.6million for a 60% share in the club.

A £10million outlay for shares plus a re-financing of the existing loan should be more than enough to secure the 51% that Mr Cullum is looking for.

Didn''t Delia once say that she would sell her shares for a fiver each if it meant that the club could move forwards and money be spent on the team?

I am not 100% sure on the last staement I have made there.... maybe somebody else could help me out on this one???

[/quote]

I really can''t believe the levels of ignorance and stupidity in the 14 pages of this thread.  Not because the average poster should understand the intricacies of company law (othwerwise I''d be out of a job) but because even when knowledgeable posters point out the legal , financial and governance realities, you still won''t listen.  Let me have another go with respect to those who have already made these points and been ignored by the "Don''t let the facts get in the way of Hating Delia" Brigade.

  • The Board has a legal duty to act in the interests of the Club as a whole and not individuals so the personal desires and objectives of Delia and Michael are not valid considerarions for the Board to take into account.

  • The offer to purchase  shares has to be open to every shareholder who wants to sell so it has to be sufficent to purchase 100%.  Some purchasers such as Glazer want 100% and pursue that goal.  Others are happy to buy a majority.  Smudger,Cullen offering to buy 51% is not a legal option.  Cullen has to buy the shares of everyone who wants to sell.

  • In setting a price for shares, the Board (remember not Delia and Michael alone) has to be fair to all shareholders.   A market price of £16million has been set and no doubt can be justified on asset value.

  • It seems clear that the share price will provide a return of investment to Delia and Michael.  They do not appear to make a profit at £30

  • It is standard in commercial loans for the loan to be repayable ( which means not that it will be repaid but that the lender could ask for repayment) on transfer of ownership.  A business is only as good as its owners and managers (look at GEC/Marconi after Lord Weinstock left or Marks and Spencers in the last ten years) and any lender will want to reassess its position on change.  Anyway, does anyone really see this as an issue.  I do not know Mr Cullen but cannot believe he would not be good for a £16million loan secured on the Club''s assets.

  • The figure of £20 million  for team building comes from Cullen.  The actual potential purchase price for the Club is £36 million but in reality could be as little as £8 million

It seems clear that the Board has responded in a way that is right and proper given its duties and responsibilities and more to the point it has no choice.

Cue the response from DLTFGITWOHD

I repeat.    There is nothing in the statement to suggest that the majority shareholders are doing anything obstructive

[/quote]

Do you not think the manner in which Delia and Co are acting, ie a press release, instead of dialogue with Mr Cullum is obstructive?. It smacks of we don''t want to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="1st Wizard"]This vile board have virtually priced our club out of the market for any major investment......... so enjoy more failure and disappointment suckers..........prudence with greed!.[:@][/quote]

FFS have you read any of this thread, or is it because social services haven''t been round yet and you''re feeling lonely, unloved and in need of some attention? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WEEN_NASTY"] Do you not think the manner in which Delia and Co are acting, ie a press release, instead of dialogue with Mr Cullum is obstructive?. It smacks of we don''t want to sell. [/quote]Yes it is - but you could say Cullum started the public PR-throwing yesterday via the interview with the EDP. Before then it had all been private dialogue (although stalled). He could argue it took the EDP article to the ball rolling but now it''s negotiation by public press-release. I expect it''s now ''even'' - one of them will approach the other privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Board has a legal duty to act in the interests of the Club as a

whole and not individuals so the personal desires and objectives of

Delia and Michael are not valid considerarions for the Board to take

into account.Could someone explain to me how putting the share value up 20% was in the interest of the Company and not the individual?It put about £4m on the 100% shares asking price pushing it up to £16m when the Company would benefit far more from being sold for £12m then subsequently having that extra £4m invested. I see no way anyone other than the shareholders (you know who I mean) benefitted from this act since that extra £4m leaves the Company for the pockets of the shareholders on takeover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Worst Wizard"]Could someone explain to me how putting the share value up 20% was in the interest of the Company and not the individual?[/quote]Just a guess - but as the share value and loan values are equal - could the share price have been increased so as to use as collateral for the bank loan?As for interest of the Company - it''s a PLC! the company IS the individual share holders. It might not have been in the interest of prospective purchasers - or us the "customers" - but you cannot say it wasn''t in the interest of the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets not forget - the value of money halves every 10 years... what was worth £10 in yesterdays money is actually worth £5 in todays. I realise this thing is something a lot of old people struggle with as a concept and hence will probably pass right over most peoples heads....So - if Delia bought shares at £25, 10 years ago and sells them for £30 now - in yesterdays value, £30 is £15 and therefore - shes actually selling at a loss compared if she''d just left the money in the bank and taken the interest again inflation. The shares, bought at £25 should be worth £50 for her to effectively break even... I''m sure this post will be ignored tho''! Too much sense and not enough Delia bashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone help with this.

Delias demand for £20 million for player investment.

Delias funding for player investment came through share issues. Would she expect PC to issue further shares or loan the company the cash.

The £4 million oustanding directors loan would include the Turner money which was used for the playing side.

On what basis is £20 milion arrived at and as Delia''s contribution doesn''t total this amount can it not been seen as hypocrisy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cambridge (or anyone else who may know) - if there was a take over would it mean the small amount of shares I have would automatically be sold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WEEN_NASTY"]

Can anyone help with this.

Delias demand for £20 million for player investment.

[/quote]Er... it''s not a demand - it''s the £20 million Cullum has "offered"... muppet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ob1"][quote user="WEEN_NASTY"]

Can anyone help with this.

Delias demand for £20 million for player investment.

[/quote]

Er... it''s not a demand - it''s the £20 million Cullum has "offered"... muppet!
[/quote]

You''re both right, or partly right.

PC has offered £20m for players

And the club''s asking price does include £20m for players

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WEEN_NASTY"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="jbghost"]

Whilst wanting investment as much as the next fan I think your comments are at best a touch misguided.

"So from the offical statement made this evening Delia & Co would like £56 million for Peter Cullum to buy the club outright?"

You answer this yourself - the banks want £16 million, standard financial institution practice with change in company control.

Repayment of directors loans - written into loan agreements that these are repayable if the control passes from Michael and Delia (£2 million to them)

Purchase of shares @ £16 million. I believe Michael and Delia hold around  60% of the shares (£9.6 million to them)

So in fact Michael and Delia want around £13.6 million not £56 million. onsidering their initial investment I would say this is hardly mercenary.

 

 Cullum can''t seriously think he can get control of NCFC plc for £20 million. 

[/quote]

Why does Cullum have to buy every board memeber out?

As you above yourself say Delia & Michael''s shares rumoured to be approx £9.6million for a 60% share in the club.

A £10million outlay for shares plus a re-financing of the existing loan should be more than enough to secure the 51% that Mr Cullum is looking for.

Didn''t Delia once say that she would sell her shares for a fiver each if it meant that the club could move forwards and money be spent on the team?

I am not 100% sure on the last staement I have made there.... maybe somebody else could help me out on this one???

[/quote]

I really can''t believe the levels of ignorance and stupidity in the 14 pages of this thread.  Not because the average poster should understand the intricacies of company law (othwerwise I''d be out of a job) but because even when knowledgeable posters point out the legal , financial and governance realities, you still won''t listen.  Let me have another go with respect to those who have already made these points and been ignored by the "Don''t let the facts get in the way of Hating Delia" Brigade.

  • The Board has a legal duty to act in the interests of the Club as a whole and not individuals so the personal desires and objectives of Delia and Michael are not valid considerarions for the Board to take into account.

  • The offer to purchase  shares has to be open to every shareholder who wants to sell so it has to be sufficent to purchase 100%.  Some purchasers such as Glazer want 100% and pursue that goal.  Others are happy to buy a majority.  Smudger,Cullen offering to buy 51% is not a legal option.  Cullen has to buy the shares of everyone who wants to sell.

  • In setting a price for shares, the Board (remember not Delia and Michael alone) has to be fair to all shareholders.   A market price of £16million has been set and no doubt can be justified on asset value.

  • It seems clear that the share price will provide a return of investment to Delia and Michael.  They do not appear to make a profit at £30

  • It is standard in commercial loans for the loan to be repayable ( which means not that it will be repaid but that the lender could ask for repayment) on transfer of ownership.  A business is only as good as its owners and managers (look at GEC/Marconi after Lord Weinstock left or Marks and Spencers in the last ten years) and any lender will want to reassess its position on change.  Anyway, does anyone really see this as an issue.  I do not know Mr Cullen but cannot believe he would not be good for a £16million loan secured on the Club''s assets.

  • The figure of £20 million  for team building comes from Cullen.  The actual potential purchase price for the Club is £36 million but in reality could be as little as £8 million

It seems clear that the Board has responded in a way that is right and proper given its duties and responsibilities and more to the point it has no choice.

Cue the response from DLTFGITWOHD

I repeat.    There is nothing in the statement to suggest that the majority shareholders are doing anything obstructive

[/quote]

Do you not think the manner in which Delia and Co are acting, ie a press release, instead of dialogue with Mr Cullum is obstructive?. It smacks of we don''t want to sell.

[/quote]

Exactly my point... thank you WEEN

Yes I understand the well crafted loopholes of the law that the current city board are attempting to defend themselves with.

Facts are though that Mr Cullum does have the money, ticks all of their boxes and they realise that they have blatantly lied to the fans and been found out.

As I see it if Cullum decides that he wants to buy there is nothing the City Board can do about it apart from sit on a ticking time bomb.

I wonder if Cullum is rethinking whether he thinks that Delia is a good figurehead for the club or not???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ob1"][quote user="WEEN_NASTY"]

Can anyone help with this.

Delias demand for £20 million for player investment.

[/quote]

Er... it''s not a demand - it''s the £20 million Cullum has "offered"... muppet!
[/quote]

No d 1 ckhead. I was referring to the club statement.

why do people have to be like this on this site. Bravery behind a computer screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="mozzer"]Cambridge (or anyone else who may know) - if there was a take over would it mean the small amount of shares I have would automatically be sold?[/quote]

I think under sections 979 to 982 of the companies act compulsory sale of your shares would only occur when 90% of the remaining shares are already acquired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mozzer"]

Thanks for the post Cambridge - there is intelligent life out there then!

[/quote]

Cambridge... intelligent life???

Don''t make me laugh... he was just one of the many on here who have been duped by Delia''s blatant lies and spin for so long!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stupid question but if PC just slaps the £56m on the table and says "I want to buy" who gets to say whether he can or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WEEN_NASTY wrote the following post at 01/07/2008 10:15 AM:

 mozzer wrote:

Cambridge (or anyone else who may know) - if there was a take over would it mean the small amount of shares I have would automatically be sold?

I think under sections 979 to 982 of the companies act compulsory sale of your shares would only occur when 90% of the remaining shares are already acquired

 

Cheers Ween

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mozzer"]

Thanks for the post Cambridge - there is intelligent life out there then!

[/quote]

Cambridge... intelligent life???

Don''t make me laugh... he was just one of the many on here who have been duped by Delia''s blatant lies and spin for so long!!!

[/quote]

Cambridge made a very intelligent post that summed up the whole situation nicely for a lot of people, that''s why he is being shown gratitude. There is no need to be rude because he''s getting the attention and you''re not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...