What would be a fair offer ?

[GMF 735]

I really think this isn''t about any potential take out price per share with D&M, it''s got more to do with any associated condtions that PC would be looking to attach to his offer. He may be a very rich man, but he may just be looking to securitise the cost of purchasing the Club, thereby adding further debt to the Club. Any views?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

I really think this isn''t about any potential take out price per share with D&M, it''s got more to do with any associated condtions that PC would be looking to attach to his offer. He may be a very rich man, but he may just be looking to securitise the cost of purchasing the Club, thereby adding further debt to the Club. Any views?

[/quote]

But there could be strings on both sides couldn`t there?  The £56m statement along with the apparent grudging and cursory "negotiations" lead me to think that the club are basically saying "take it or leave it".

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="CaptnCanary"]

[quote user="ron obvious"]

Mr. Carrow, how about this for an analogy?


Say, (a few years ago!) I was thinking about selling my rather dilapidated tenanted house. It''s been valued at about £36k & you have a £20k mortgage on it.. Along comes a nice man & says "I want to spend £20k on your house to bring it into tip-top condition!"
 The tenants are all jumping for joy at this & so are you, until you ask him what conditions are attached; he says "well, the tenants can stay, but you & your husband will have to move out"

"So we get nothing then? What about the mortgage?"

Silence.

You then feel a mite upset & point out to him that, if he wants you out AND make the promised improvements, he''ll have to find a total of £56k.

More silence.

To be continued ........
[/quote]

Not this stupid analogy again. Firstly the house (or shares) are valued at £16k. The £20k mortgage figure is correct. So the owner is in negative equity by £4k. So an offer to take ownership of the house and mortgage payments is actually a great deal for the current owners!

[/quote]

Who/s valuing the club at £16k?
You?
Why not £10k? £1k?
Would you sell under these conditions?

If you like, I''ll come round & make you a ''reasonable offer'' for your house. I bet you don''t accept it.
Remember:
if you don''t have to sell
if you don''t want to sell
then why the Hell should you sell.

And I would imagine that''s the position you''re in at the moment. Why any different for the Board?
[/quote]

I don`t think the house analogy is a very good one Ron, but imagine the house is a listed icon in the local community and it`s current owners have presided over a decline which worries the locals.  The owners have been bragging in the local pub that the good of the house is the most important thing and that "if anyone can renovate the house, they can have it".  So a wealthy local wants in but seeing the amount of work needing doing can only make a realistic offer which will represent a loss to the current owners......Which one do you think the locals would (should?) favour?

[Morph 19]

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.

[GMF 735]

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

I really think this isn''t about any potential take out price per share with D&M, it''s got more to do with any associated condtions that PC would be looking to attach to his offer. He may be a very rich man, but he may just be looking to securitise the cost of purchasing the Club, thereby adding further debt to the Club. Any views?

[/quote]

But there could be strings on both sides couldn`t there?  The £56m statement along with the apparent grudging and cursory "negotiations" lead me to think that the club are basically saying "take it or leave it".

[/quote]

Mr C, My original post missed out the word "just" and should have started, " I really think this isn''t just about ....".

Yes, there could be conditons on both side and I note your opinion and the conclusion you''ve drawn. We clearly have differing views on the matter and I would add that I wasn''t overly impressed with the official statement either, it''s misleading for reasons I''ve previously stated on this thread. 

[GMF 735]

[quote user="Morph"]
From the figures that GazzaTCC kindly posted:

[quote]
Investment in playing squad                                                                               £20 million
Purchase 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 million
Repayment 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.
[/quote]

Agreed Morph, they''re valuing the Club at £16M, based on a maximum share price of £30 per share. However, as the shares aren''t traded on an active market, they''re only really worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="T"]This is been covered before. The normal business valuation rules do not apply to the majority of football clubs as they do not generate cash flows for the shareholders. Therefore you would normally look at what other football club of a similar size and financial position had been sold for, or the net assets as a minimum valuation basis. The net assets per the last published accounts were 16m so the quoted asking price of 16m for the shares looks about right. Alternatively you could look at the amount the shareholders had invested and add a basic rate of interest. You would need details of the timing and amount of the cash flow contributions for this but probably the 16m valuation on the shares is not too far out so 16m is probably a fair price. Ultimately though as others have been said before there is no market in the shares and therefore the price is what ever 2 parties agree.[/quote]

I should imagine you have just decribed how the board arrived at the £30 price for the unissued shares. And that £30 seems about right to me. Of course, as you rightly say, in a private transaction the shares would only be worth what the two parties agree. The probblem I see with this would be if Delia was to take half that amount for her shares would that then mean everyones shares would be valued at the reduced figure?

 

[whoareyou? 0]

the £30 per share is arrived at by taking the net balance sheet worth of the club i.e £16 million and dividing it by the total number of shares issued to date which is 535,000.

It''s not a figure plucked out of the air but one arrived at in a fair way (and possibly the only way)!

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="whoareyou"]

the £30 per share is arrived at by taking the net balance sheet worth of the club i.e £16 million and dividing it by the total number of shares issued to date which is 535,000.

It''s not a figure plucked out of the air but one arrived at in a fair way (and possibly the only way)!

[/quote]

Surely that''s what''s just been said.

That being the case why do so many posters assume it''s the other way round?

 

[BigFish 1,986]

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

the £30 per share is arrived at by taking the net balance sheet worth of the club i.e £16 million and dividing it by the total number of shares issued to date which is 535,000.

It''s not a figure plucked out of the air but one arrived at in a fair way (and possibly the only way)!

[/quote]

Surely that''s what''s just been said.

That being the case why do so many posters assume it''s the other way round?

[/quote]

Because it suits their world view Nutty. Also some posters ignore the fact that the £16m is the net value of assets - liabilities. As the the club has £20m generally agreed as the debt. This "house" is worth £36m and the owners have a £20m mortgage!!

[KeelansGlove 0]

All interesting points but do we honestly think Norwich City Football Club is worth 56M ?

How much was it alledgedly worth when they bought a controlling stake for 700K ??

I think property development on either of the remaing sites of carrow rd and colney are irrelevant as I do not feel either would be given planning permission.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

If there had been a sweet and harmonious discussion, in the very best interests of NCFC, then it might have gone something like this:

Peter Cullum: "Delia, my dear, how nice to see you again. Allow me to get straight to the point. I would like to make a fair offer to assume control at NCFC. What kind of number would be satisfactory from your point of view?"

Delia: " Why, Peter, this comes as quite a surprise. I thought you''d show some interest at some future date but I had no idea it would come so soon. Well, the current share price is valued at 30 pounds which, based upon the total number of shares outstanding, equates to approximately 16 million pounds. Now, of course, not all small shareholders will necessarily sell their shares but I certainly see no difficulty with you purchasing what Michael and I hold, which would be valued at approximately 10 million pounds for controlling interest. Now, in addition to that, there is 4 million pounds of directors loans that would need to be paid back. Separately, of course, there is a current bank debt for the club of 16 million pounds. I''m sure that we can deal with the financial institution together so that the necessary assurances are transferred from my name to yours. Any issues so far Peter?"

Peter Cullum: "Absolutely not Delia. Completely straightforward and, of course, I will not haggle at all on the numbers you have quoted. We both know we are coming from a point of view that is based upon our love of NCFC. I think we should be able to wrap this up during the next few days. Are there any other matters to consider?"   

Delia: "Well, just one key one Peter. It''s entirely your affair, of course, but I think our beloved fans would like some indication from our new owner, given that you are a Norwich man through and through, as to what your vision is for the future of the club and what financial strengthening you would expect to undertake in the area of player investment. I do hope you don''t mind me asking....as I feel responsible to our loyal supporters to ask the question on their behalf, as it were." 

Peter Cullum: "Absolutely understand the question Delia, and would expect nothing less from you given that you, like myself, love the club so much. Let me be perfectly clear. I intend to pay enough money to buy entrance into the Premiership effectively the week after next, if not sooner. None of this waiting until the end of the season stuff. As to the investment in new players there will be no limit on total investment indicated at the moment but, like you, I''m a little careful on individual tranfer fees. I will be setting a ceiling on transfer fees of 10 million pounds per individual player up to a total of 10 additional players for the first season. Is that agreeable to you?"

Delia: "That is most generous Peter. I can actually feel the warmth spreading though the fans hearts as we sit here. Do you have a pen?"    

But, of course, it didn''t. Or did it?  

 

[Morph 19]

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.

[CaptnCanary 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="CaptnCanary"]

[quote user="ron obvious"]

Mr. Carrow, how about this for an analogy?


Say, (a few years ago!) I was thinking about selling my rather dilapidated tenanted house. It''s been valued at about £36k & you have a £20k mortgage on it.. Along comes a nice man & says "I want to spend £20k on your house to bring it into tip-top condition!"
 The tenants are all jumping for joy at this & so are you, until you ask him what conditions are attached; he says "well, the tenants can stay, but you & your husband will have to move out"

"So we get nothing then? What about the mortgage?"

Silence.

You then feel a mite upset & point out to him that, if he wants you out AND make the promised improvements, he''ll have to find a total of £56k.

More silence.

To be continued ........
[/quote]

Not this stupid analogy again. Firstly the house (or shares) are valued at £16k. The £20k mortgage figure is correct. So the owner is in negative equity by £4k. So an offer to take ownership of the house and mortgage payments is actually a great deal for the current owners!

[/quote]

Who/s valuing the club at £16k?
You?
Why not £10k? £1k?
Would you sell under these conditions?

If you like, I''ll come round & make you a ''reasonable offer'' for your house. I bet you don''t accept it.
Remember:
if you don''t have to sell
if you don''t want to sell
then why the Hell should you sell.

And I would imagine that''s the position you''re in at the moment. Why any different for the Board?
[/quote]

The 16k figure comes from the fact that the club themselves declared the 100% share value to be $16m.

The difference between me accepting a market value bid on my house and the NCFC board accepting a reasonable offer on their shares is that I have not previously stated that I only own my house for the good of the community and will gladly give away my house should an investor come along who wants to plough money into the area and make it a much more flourishing and beautiful are for the the residents to live in. My house also does not run at a substantial loss year on year unless I sell various items of furniture to make the books balance.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]

The 16k figure comes from the fact that the club themselves declared the 100% share value to be $16m.

The difference between me accepting a market value bid on my house and the NCFC board accepting a reasonable offer on their shares is that I have not previously stated that I only own my house for the good of the community and will gladly give away my house should an investor come along who wants to plough money into the area and make it a much more flourishing and beautiful are for the the residents to live in. My house also does not run at a substantial loss year on year unless I sell various items of furniture to make the books balance.

[/quote]

Well to carry on with the house market analogy we have to remember that the 16m valuation is for the whole street and not one individual house. If it was your street and your nextdoor neighbour stated he only owned his house for the good of the community and would give it up for new road surface, footpath, streetlights with hanging baskets and gold plated dustbins would you be happy to give away your house too?

 

 

[Grando 260]

I''m all analogied out!

[KeelansGlove 0]

If its not a figure picked out of the air I would be very interested indeed at the valuation of the club when they took over, to see what assets the club have now that they didn''t 12 years ago. With the exception of the new south stand I cannot see any other significant asset increases and the club was reported to be in debt by 5-8 million at the time of Chases departure. The land deals that were owned by the club and much derided by all (myself included at the time) have brought in much needed cash but now the cupborad is bare.

The playing staff inherited included

Bryan Gunn , Danny Mills , Rob Newman , Darren Eadie , John Polston , Robert Fleck , Ian Crook , Keith ONeill , Neil Adams, Andy Johnson , Ade Akinbiyi , Adrian Forbes and a youngster by the name of Craig Bellamy

Sales of Eadie , O''Neill , Johnson and Bellamy Totalled approx 12 Million

Just wondering if any of our current staff have decent sell on values with the possible exceptions of Marshall , Russell and Hoolahan I cannot see much not to mention inflation.

Does any of this make sense ?

The shares in the club are valued at 16M but what is the valuation 36M

I found last years accounts !

Buildings and Freehold valued at £36M convenient

Also apparently ancillary costs of Loan players etc (other than wages) was £290K Hardly the huge undertaking some have suggested

I dont appear to have any old ones but would be very interested to know what the 96 accounts have to say in terms of fixed assets

[lucky green trainers 0]

the club is worth what it is worth, and should be valued fairly

according to normal business and accounting procedure - this can be the

only way of ensuring a fair price is paid...but - if you want to sell - be prepared to get less - and conversely,if you want to buy,be prepared to pay more...

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Keelans Glove - It appears to me that you have decided that the clubs valuation is too high and you are trying to fit the past into a way of proving it. In 1996 Eadie, O''Neill, Jonson and Bellamy were not worth 12m. Bellamy was 16 and didn''t start a game for us until 1997/8 season while O''Neill and Johnson were only just breaking into the first team.

However if they had been worth 12m at that time similar players would now be worth at least 25m. What was your house worth in 1996 compared to the present day?

 

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="whoareyou"]

the £30 per share is arrived at by taking the net balance sheet worth of the club i.e £16 million and dividing it by the total number of shares issued to date which is 535,000.

It''s not a figure plucked out of the air but one arrived at in a fair way (and possibly the only way)!

[/quote]

Surely that''s what''s just been said.

That being the case why do so many posters assume it''s the other way round?

[/quote]

Because it suits their world view Nutty. Also some posters ignore the fact that the £16m is the net value of assets - liabilities. As the the club has £20m generally agreed as the debt. This "house" is worth £36m and the owners have a £20m mortgage!!

[/quote]

Well said, unfortunately some people done understand that concept. 

That has been posted many times before, but people are either not willing or not able to understand it.

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). 

Now I guess we will get the usual people on here coming on and saying that the club is not worth £36m, or the shares are not worth £30 each.  They like to make up figures based on their view or use history - like Delia paid x amout 10 years ago so the value should be based upon that.  Well here is an arguement for those 2 figures:

£36m valuation - that is the value of the club''s assets on the balance sheet on the latest set of published accounts.

£30 per share - that is the price that Delia PAID for shares in the 2006/7 season. (http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1119712,00.html)

 

 

[peartreeproductions 0]

Personally I think the part that is missing from a lot poster''s discussion is that Delia clearly expects at least her investment in the share capital back and possibly a return on those shares.  I suspect that a straw poll of those fans who invested in the share issue a few years ago would agree that they realised they would never see their money again.

Now I am not suggesting that Delia and MWJ get nothing in return for their shares or loans.  However to invest in a football club, unless you are talking about the money-making enterprise that is Man U, is an emotional investment more than a true financial investment.  They cannot expect to make a significant, if any, return on their investment.

They have run the football club as a business and in a lot of ways that is admirable.  But not everyone will respect this and as such, with a limited market, they will have to accept that they will get non-business like offers.

[pak mei 0]

I would like delia and michael to remain with 30% ish of the shares.I feel they add an emotional fans attitude to a board that could otherwise become far too staid and buisness like. Then I''d like to see someone come in as the Turners did but with the clout and say that a third share would give them but with lets say 5 mil pa to contribute.I think that would achieve a board with a better balance than either the one we presently have or the one we would possibly have after a complete take over.

[Morph 19]

[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.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Morph"]

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.html

That 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.
[/quote]

That''s a bit misleading though Morph. This 56m is quite clearly a figure they would quote to someone who want''s to take control of the club and at the same time invest 20m into the playing squad.

 

[ron obvious 1,495]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]

All interesting points but do we honestly think Norwich City Football Club is worth 56M ?

How much was it alledgedly worth when they bought a controlling stake for 700K ??

I think property development on either of the remaing sites of carrow rd and colney are irrelevant as I do not feel either would be given planning permission.

 

[/quote]It''s posts like this that make me think some people are clinically insane, or willfully obtuse.NCFC is not worth £56mIt has £20m debt & shares worth £0 - £16m.Therefore if you want to take over the club & invest £20m you need between £40m & £56m. You may want to refinance the debt, that is irrelevant to the initial outlay for acquiring control.Culluim has only ever mentioned £20m for investment.

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="Morph"][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.

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.
[/quote]

I was trying to address this type of comment, that was earlier in the thread:

"Not this stupid analogy again. Firstly the house (or shares) are valued at £16k. The £20k mortgage figure is correct. So the owner is in negative equity by £4k. So an offer to take ownership of the house and mortgage payments is actually a great deal for the current owners!"

As that is incorrect.  The value of the club is £36m.  This is the figure from the balance sheet.  You then take off the debt (£20m) and that leaves the shareholders owning £16m equity.  That was my point. 

As for the £56m, I know that''s what was stated in the accounts, but people are getting confused thinking that the directors are valuing the club at that.  They are missing or ignoring the fact that that figure includes the £20m investment.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

£56m is not what anyone would have to offer but as I understand it is the figure any buyer would potentally have to have available to them in the event that they have to repay the debt (i.e. they cannot do a deal with the banks) and all the directors call in their loans as well. They would have to show they have £16m available to purchase the shares if all shareholders took up an offer but I suspect most (like me) would not as I have never viewed those shares as an investment.

In reality though isn''t the £30 per share just a book value? I have seen posts on here quoting that Delia and MWJ acquired their controlling interest for something in the region of £5m and if that is the case then if they are genuine in terms what they have said over the last few years I would view an offer that saw them get back the same amount as they have put in as being reasonable. I would hope that if they are genuine they might not insist on all of their loans being paid back immediately but of course they are perfectly within their rights to do so if they so desire so that would need to be factored in as well as the Turners loan.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1336394,00.html

This link is already on this page. I can''t copy and paste the statement on here because the site won''t let me. Please click the link and tell me where I am going wrong. Put me out of my misery. What am I not understanding about this statement?

Either that or accept that the board didn''t value the club at 56m. The relevant bit is "In the case of someone seeking to take cantrol of the club and at the same time invest £20 million in the playing squad this would take a minimum of 56m"

 

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="KeelansGlove"]

All interesting points but do we honestly think Norwich City Football Club is worth 56M ?

How much was it alledgedly worth when they bought a controlling stake for 700K ??

I think property development on either of the remaing sites of carrow rd and colney are irrelevant as I do not feel either would be given planning permission.

 

[/quote]

It''s posts like this that make me think some people are clinically insane, or willfully obtuse.

NCFC is not worth £56m

It has £20m debt & shares worth £0 - £16m.

Therefore if you want to take over the club & invest £20m you need between £40m & £56m. You may want to refinance the debt, that is irrelevant to the initial outlay for acquiring control.

Culluim has only ever mentioned £20m for investment.
[/quote]

I am surprised that Mr Cullum is not being more professional about this and if it was my club I think I would be quite annoyed but that''s obviously a personal opinion.  One very small point: if you were a PLC  quoted in a market he couldn''t get away with this sort of behaviour: people would be making and losing thousands thanks to these little "asides" he feeds out every now and again - door still open would send the shares up, an Archant report saying no discussions would send them diving down again.  The market would be in turmoil and I am fairly confident the Regulators would take a keen interest and start hunting for insider trading.

But of course you are not quoted so both sides can play games as much as they like with little fear, if any, of intervention by the governing authority. 

If he is genuine in what he says - and is the genuine fan that everyone feels he is - I can''t understand why he doesn''t come in with an offer - he knows the rules. 

Unless I am misreading the situation (which is possible) offering a £20m pot in return for a controlling interest is someone expecting that controlling interest for no further payment.  I''ve seen no alternative version of that unless I''ve missed something.  Or neither side has explained it.

Manchester City''s owner acquired his controlling interest for around £80m and the Royal Family consortium have paid close on £200m to relieve him of it. 

If you *really* want something I think, at the end of the day, you have to pay the asking price.  Depends how much you want it, of course.

Fair enough to try and beat them down, of course, but if that doesn''t work you have to cough up if you want it that much.[:|]

A personal opinion, as always.

 

 

 

 

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="KeelansGlove"]

All interesting points but do we honestly think Norwich City Football Club is worth 56M ?

How much was it alledgedly worth when they bought a controlling stake for 700K ??

I think property development on either of the remaing sites of carrow rd and colney are irrelevant as I do not feel either would be given planning permission.

 

[/quote]It''s posts like this that make me think some people are clinically insane, or willfully obtuse.NCFC is not worth £56mIt has £20m debt & shares worth £0 - £16m.Therefore if you want to take over the club & invest £20m you need between £40m & £56m. You may want to refinance the debt, that is irrelevant to the initial outlay for acquiring control.Culluim has only ever mentioned £20m for investment.[/quote]

I am surprised that Mr Cullum is not being more professional about this and if it was my club I think I would be quite annoyed but that''s obviously a personal opinion.  One very small point: if you were a PLC  quoted in a market he couldn''t get away with this sort of behaviour: people would be making and losing thousands thanks to these little "asides" he feeds out every now and again - door still open would send the shares up, an Archant report saying no discussions would send them diving down again.  The market would be in turmoil and I am fairly confident the Regulators would take a keen interest and start hunting for insider trading.

But of course you are not quoted so both sides can play games as much as they like with little fear, if any, of intervention by the governing authority. 

If he is genuine in what he says - and is the genuine fan that everyone feels he is - I can''t understand why he doesn''t come in with an offer - he knows the rules. 

Unless I am misreading the situation (which is possible) offering a £20m pot in return for a controlling interest is someone expecting that controlling interest for no further payment.  I''ve seen no alternative version of that unless I''ve missed something.  Or neither side has explained it.

Manchester City''s owner acquired his controlling interest for around £80m and the Royal Family consortium have paid close on £200m to relieve him of it. 

If you *really* want something I think, at the end of the day, you have to pay the asking price.  Depends how much you want it, of course.

Fair enough to try and beat them down, of course, but if that doesn''t work you have to cough up if you want it that much.[:|]

A personal opinion, as always.

 

 

[/quote]imo - there''s more to this than meets the eye - the behaviour of all concerned has never made sense to me...