NCFC sold?

[Badger 0]

Let''s hope that Mr Chops is correct but be warned that he has a strange relationship with the truth. If recent posts are any guide, I will be back on here shortly saying that he didn''t mean it literally of course, and that you are being pedantic if you expect "sold" to mean "sold." e.g. When I said "sold" I meant " not sold" and anybody who didn''t realise is merely being "picky."

He will then spend hours trying to demonstrate that his lack of veracity is your fault. Let''s watch this space!BTW - I would love to have to apologise!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Some people might well know about, or have wind of, the details of an informal proposal, or an informal proposal that is about to be made into a formal offer.But NCFC can only be bought by way of a formal, and that formal offer, as Cam says, would have to be made public. Shareholders, big and small, would have to be told what the offer was. You will not wake up one morning and find the club has been sold.As to the point about someone being invited on to the board as a minority shareholder as a way of providing investment, you could wake up one morning to find THAT had happened.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="pete_norw"]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]Thanks Mr Chops, and I don''t think I ever remember you starting a rumour, so cheers anyhow, hope you''ve got your tin hat ready and trench dug lol.[/quote]

And a one way flight ticket to OZ lol

[/quote]

lol blimey if that''s the case i'' off to start tons of rumours [:D]

I''m happy today anyhow, been and seen my 3 day old grandson, i could bloody eat him he''s so gorgeous lol

[/quote]

Congrats Way hope all went and goes well.

My latest seems to have just started teething!!

Beau they just get better and better!

Mr Chops why do I want to think this is true. Your posts are usually factual and or amusing . I hope this one is the former.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Presumably though what could happen is Delia and MWJ agree heads of terms for a sale of their shares subject to it being ratified by the shareholders? As happened with Marcus Evans I am sure the details of how he was going to invest in ITFC were sorted well before details were circulated to the shareholders ahead of an EGM?

Hope there is something in this. If there is though would not surprise me if the club wanted to keep it quiet during the transfer window.

[kdncfc 0]

I''m sure there''s something going on, this has come from several different sources and some are proven to be reliable. Hopefully things will become clearer in the near future.

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

Their not going to be able to inform every single shareholder straight away. So their may be something in it, but I doubt it. Besides, if there was, what''s the betting it will be left until the final day of the window leaving us with no chance of buying players ...

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Some people might well know about, or have wind of, the details of an informal proposal, or an informal proposal that is about to be made into a formal offer.

But NCFC can only be bought by way of a formal, and that formal offer, as Cam says, would have to be made public. Shareholders, big and small, would have to be told what the offer was. You will not wake up one morning and find the club has been sold.

As to the point about someone being invited on to the board as a minority shareholder as a way of providing investment, you could wake up one morning to find THAT had happened.[/quote]

Thanks for answering that point which I raised, it was just something that crossed my mind.  Might be the way forward, without anyone leaving the board ie; Delia and MWJ.  Fresh investment without the minor shareholders being notified.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="pete_norw"]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]Thanks Mr Chops, and I don''t think I ever remember you starting a rumour, so cheers anyhow, hope you''ve got your tin hat ready and trench dug lol.[/quote]

And a one way flight ticket to OZ lol

[/quote]

lol blimey if that''s the case i'' off to start tons of rumours [:D]

I''m happy today anyhow, been and seen my 3 day old grandson, i could bloody eat him he''s so gorgeous lol

[/quote]

Congrats Way hope all went and goes well.

My latest seems to have just started teething!!

Beau they just get better and better!

Mr Chops why do I want to think this is true. Your posts are usually factual and or amusing . I hope this one is the former.

[/quote]

Thanks Butler, I am sure he wil be fine, he was a little jaundiced but doing better, he''s more pink than yellow now lol.

Ahhhhhhhh teething, isn''t it a joy, rosey cheeks, snotty nose and dribble for England lol.

[Buncey 1]

Let''s hope you''re right Choppo. I won''t hold it against you if it turns out not to be the case.

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

Can you confirm if the guy who told you does actually have connections with the club? If not I think it is safe to say it''s just a rumour and most probably not true.

[The Fish Seller 0]

Suggest we revisit Rule 9.SECTION F. THE MANDATORY OFFER AND ITS TERMSRULE 99.1 WHEN A MANDATORY OFFER IS REQUIRED AND WHO ISPRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING ITExcept with the consent of the Panel, when:—(a) any person acquires, whether by a series of transactions over aperiod of time or not, an interest in shares which (taken together withshares in which persons acting in concert with him are interested) carry30% or more of the voting rights of a company; or(b) any person, together with persons acting in concert with him, isinterested in shares which in the aggregate carry not less than 30% ofthe voting rights of a company but does not hold shares carrying morethan 50% of such voting rights and such person, or any person actingin concert with him, acquires an interest in any other shares whichincreases the percentage of shares carrying voting rights in which he isinterested,such person shall extend offers, on the basis set out in Rules 9.3, 9.4and 9.5, to the holders of any class of equity share capital whethervoting or non-voting and also to the holders of any other class oftransferable securities carrying voting rights. Offers for differentclasses of equity share capital must be comparable; the Panel shouldbe consulted in advance in such cases.

Now re-read the clause I''ve highlighted above.Does it say  when:—

(i) any person acquires,?or does it saybefore:—

(ii) any person acquires,?The current copy of Rule 9 states that a mandatory offer must be made when either of the conditions as set out in parts (a) and (b) above are true.Since clause (b) above is not relevant then City Rule 9 mandatory offer would only be triggered when that 30% shareholding is acquired not before.Which means we could wake up one morning to find the club had changed ownership.

Fingers crossed but if it is just a rumour Mr Chops, hats off to you it''s a blinder!!

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Badger"]Let''s hope that Mr Chops is correct but be warned that he has a strange relationship with the truth. [/quote]Gosh, I''m flattered you''re choosing to drag this out.  You''ll be driving past my house next.  Literally.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Fellas"]Let''s hope you''re right Choppo. I won''t hold it against you if it turns out not to be the case. [/quote]Thanks.  Just posting what I have been told by someone who isn''t prone to making these things up.  I was excited and wanted to pass the info on - though really there is very little info.I would hope a deal has been agreed with the majority shareholders, who will then recommend the deal to all shareholders.  But I''m as much in the dark as anyone else.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Tommy Gunn"]Suggest we revisit Rule 9.SECTION F. THE MANDATORY OFFER AND ITS TERMSRULE 99.1 WHEN A MANDATORY OFFER IS REQUIRED AND WHO ISPRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING ITExcept with the consent of the Panel, when:—(a) any person acquires, whether by a series of transactions over aperiod of time or not, an interest in shares which (taken together withshares in which persons acting in concert with him are interested) carry30% or more of the voting rights of a company; or(b) any person, together with persons acting in concert with him, isinterested in shares which in the aggregate carry not less than 30% ofthe voting rights of a company but does not hold shares carrying morethan 50% of such voting rights and such person, or any person actingin concert with him, acquires an interest in any other shares whichincreases the percentage of shares carrying voting rights in which he isinterested,such person shall extend offers, on the basis set out in Rules 9.3, 9.4and 9.5, to the holders of any class of equity share capital whethervoting or non-voting and also to the holders of any other class oftransferable securities carrying voting rights. Offers for differentclasses of equity share capital must be comparable; the Panel shouldbe consulted in advance in such cases.

Now re-read the clause I''ve highlighted above.Does it say  when:—

(i) any person acquires,?or does it saybefore:—

(ii) any person acquires,?The current copy of Rule 9 states that a mandatory offer must be made when either of the conditions as set out in parts (a) and (b) above are true.Since clause (b) above is not relevant then City Rule 9 mandatory offer would only be triggered when that 30% shareholding is acquired not before.Which means we could wake up one morning to find the club had changed ownership.

Fingers crossed but if it is just a rumour Mr Chops, hats off to you it''s a blinder!![/quote]Sorry but that is just plain wrong. A 30 per cent shareholding would not mean the club has changed hands. I repeat, the club cannot change hands without ALL the shareholders, big and small, being told there is a formal offer to that effect.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

It''s actually a misprint......''NCFC''s OLD''.....That''s what it''s really about.....107 this year. Hope that clears things up.[8-|]

[Crafty Canary 495]

Lovely, Mello, just lovely you card!!

[chicken 0]

The thing is no offer is going to be made like that though is it?By that I mean the first people they will want to strike a deal with is the majority share holders - there is no point making it public until a deal has been struck with them. The other share holders wouldn''t be informed until all the details were worked out.On top of that is there is one slight issue. We have majority shareholders - correct? What if one of them were to sell their half of the shares? Would that have to be announced to the other shareholders?It sounds a bit bizarre I know but then all it would take was the new investor to buy another 1% from someone to make them the majority shareholder, a sort of slow way in as such.Anyway, I will believe it when I see it.

[Inch High aka Inchy.. 405]

Chopsy I do hope your right, I just can''t see you of all people making this up.

Time will tell my friend. I wish your rumour luck.[;)]

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Badger"]Let''s hope that Mr Chops is correct but be warned that he has a strange relationship with the truth. [/quote]Gosh, I''m flattered you''re choosing to drag this out.  You''ll be driving past my house next.  Literally.[/quote]The fact that you are so easily flattered is what worries me about your claim. It''s not right to make up rumours like this, which get everyone''s hopes up, just because you like the attention.I just hope that this time you are being honest and open.

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Badger"]Let''s hope that Mr Chops is correct but be warned that he has a strange relationship with the truth. [/quote]Gosh, I''m flattered you''re choosing to drag this out.  You''ll be driving past my house next.  Literally.[/quote]The fact that you are so easily flattered is what worries me about your claim. It''s not right to make up rumours like this, which get everyone''s hopes up, just because you like the attention.I just hope that this time you are being honest and open.[/quote]You mean to say that he previously hasn''t been honest and open? I find that hard to believe.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="chicken"]The thing is no offer is going to be made like that though is it?By that I mean the first people they will want to strike a deal with is the majority share holders - there is no point making it public until a deal has been struck with them. The other share holders wouldn''t be informed until all the details were worked out.On top of that is there is one slight issue. We have majority shareholders - correct? What if one of them were to sell their half of the shares? Would that have to be announced to the other shareholders?It sounds a bit bizarre I know but then all it would take was the new investor to buy another 1% from someone to make them the majority shareholder, a sort of slow way in as such.Anyway, I will believe it when I see it.[/quote]Chicken, firstly, I am not necessarily giving any credence to these rumours; all I have done is give factual answers to specific questions.Having said that, you are almost certainly right that any potential deal would be worked out in private first, between the would-be buyer and Smith and Jones. It would only become public when it became a formal offer, and that would happen under two circumstances.1. Smith and Jones agree - for whatever reason - to the proposal. In that case they would presumably recommend it to shareholders. In any event their 61.2 majority vote would mean the offer was accepted.2. Smith and Jones don''t agree to the proposal and the would-be buyer tries to push it through anyway. So:Could you wake up one morning and find the club has been sold? No.Could you wake up one morning and find the club was in effect about to be sold? Yes.Could you wake up one morning and find there was a hostile takeover battle going on? Theoretically yes, but in practice, for reasons I won''t bore you with, probably no.As to your point about there being joint majority shareholders, and what if one sold? I see where you''re coming from! However they hold the shares jointly; in other words they count as one person from a legal point of view. It isn''t that Smith holds half of the 61.2 per cent and Jones the other half. They both own the 61.2 per cent.

[Robert N. LiM 4,240]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Something to do with my predeliction for logic (it makes people uncomfortable), I''m told.

OTBC

[/quote]The funniest thing I''ve read on this board for ages. Well done, BBB.And ooh, what did Chops do to Badger?

[Morph 19]

Purple, the information from the City rule talks about when a mandatory offer would have to be made to shareholders. You are correct that it would not be a takeover, but if somebody or a group of bodies acquired a 30% shareholding the City rule would kick in and they would have to make a formal offer to shareholders.As a number have alluded to, if Delia and MWJ choose to sell 29% of the shareholding there is no reason for the rest of the shareholders to be told. That would allow another body or bodies to become part of the shareholders without the City rule on mandatory offers coming into effect.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Morph, of course it is right that someone could secretly buy 29 per cent of the shares in NCFC, but that would still only be a minority stake. Even if it got to 30 per cent, and an offer had to be made for the remaining 70 per cent, there is nothing to FORCE those holders of the 70 per cent to sell. There is no guarantee that the would-be purchaser of the company would find enough willing sellers to get to 50.5 per cent and so become owner.With respect you are slightly confused about your 29 per cents. If Smith and Jones sold 29 per cent of THEIR shares that would not equate to 29 per cent of ALL the shares, since they only own 61.2 per cent of the shares. This is a VERY VERY rough early-morning calculation, but Smith and Jones would have to sell well over half their shares to provide someone with 29 per cent of ALL the shares. And that would create the unlikely position of the company not having a majority shareholder.In any event this is all almost certainly theoretical. In practical terms, in the case of NCFC, the only way to gain

control through the purchase of existing shares is convince Smith and Jones to sell all or virtually all of

their shares, to get to more than 50 per cent of the entire

shareholding in one go. And there we come back to the point that that could not happen secretly. The proposed deal might be worked out secretly, but the formal offer would have to be made public.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Hope you''re right, MC; I certainly don''t imagine you to be the type of person to make up rubbish.

V intriguing!   

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]I''m not one to start rumours but at the risk of getting shot down, I''ve just been told from a reliable source that NCFC has been sold.  Can''t say anything else yet as I know nothing else myself, just posting what I''ve heard... if it''s b*ll*cks then sorry everyone but my source has no reason to make this stuff up and knew about Gunn before the announcement.[/quote]good news if true chopsey///i have you down as one of the more reliable posters on here - you don''t often choppa and changa your mind,,,so fingers crossed and all that...although as we all know,,,you''re only as good as your source...good luck!!![:D]

[Morph 19]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Morph, of course it is right that someone could secretly buy 29 per cent of the shares in NCFC, but that would still only be a minority stake. Even if it got to 30 per cent, and an offer had to be made for the remaining 70 per cent, there is nothing to FORCE those holders of the 70 per cent to sell. There is no guarantee that the would-be purchaser of the company would find enough willing sellers to get to 50.5 per cent and so become owner.With respect you are slightly confused about your 29 per cents. If Smith and Jones sold 29 per cent of THEIR shares that would not equate to 29 per cent of ALL the shares, since they only own 61.2 per cent of the shares. This is a VERY VERY rough early-morning calculation, but Smith and Jones would have to sell well over half their shares to provide someone with 29 per cent of ALL the shares. And that would create the unlikely position of the company not having a majority shareholder.[/quote]Purple, I stand corrected. An early morning miscalculation. When I said 29% I had intended to indicate that Delia and MWJ could sell 29% of the total shares in NCFC from their own holding.The point about the 30% total holding that anyone acquires is that it would require the mandatory formal offer to be made. As you correctly point out the buyer(s) would still not be guaranteed to get over the 50% needed to have a majority shareholding. However, Delia and MWJ could sell all their own holdings to said buyer and the majority shareholding would be achieved.

[Andy Larkin 15]

Am I missing something here, or could it not be the simple fact that maybe Mr Chops nark has got it just ever so slightly wrong, and the real deal is that Michael Foulger has just put a load more money into the club by buying some of Delia and Michael''s shares or does it not work like that?If he bought enough to take his shareholding to just under 30% then would any of us need to be informed?That might then tie in with Bringbackchippy and Ex-Greenoschin''s postings regarding the new management team and further investment!

[Ex-greenoschin 0]

Just what I was thinking Andy

[mr carra 0]

If he bought some of Delia''s and Michael''s shares the club wouldn''t get a penny.  The club only gets money from the sale of shares if it is issuing new ones.