Michael Foulger Twitter..............

[AndyJR 0]

#ncfc Director Michael Foulger invests £2m into Club by buying 80,000 shares. All cash ring-fenced for football budget

[spencer 1970 207]

nice! Its official now - £2m investment into playing budget.

I can''t help thinking this is about 2 weeks too late though?

[York Canary 28]

Really? Nice

[York Canary 28]

[quote user="spencer 1970"]nice! Its official now - £2m investment into playing budget. I can''t help thinking this is about 2 weeks too late though?[/quote]

Likewise lol. Could help with loans though..stating that it''s for playing budget only makes sense if we''re going to get someone in this loan market

[Legend Iwan 30]

[quote user="spencer 1970"]nice! Its official now - £2m investment into playing budget. I can''t help thinking this is about 2 weeks too late though?[/quote]

Or more likely it was two weeks ago and that is where the money came from for the Bennett bids, however, only release it now as it would be stupid to do so whilst in the transfer window.

[Mahogany 0]

I''d imagine it''d been lined up before transfer deadline but they wanted to keep it quiet. Doesn''t make too much sense to announce that we have 2m to spend, just makes other clubs inflate their prices.

The money was probably going to pay for Bennett if they''d accepted our offer but PL didn''t think he was worth more than whatever it was we bid.

[Mahogany 0]

damn beat me to it... need to start typing quicker

[CRAZY LEGS 0]

http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~2288459,00.html?

hopefully see a decent loan come in

[CanaryOne 0]

Or it could be an extra £2million on top of what we had for Bennett .

[norfolkchance1 0]

Makes you wonder if we''ll go back for Bennett now loan till end of season and permanent in summer. Agreeing fee in process.

[Harry 0]

If Brighton wouldn''t sell him to us they won''t loan him to us, they see him as an integral part of them getting to the Championship.

[spencer 1970 207]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]

[quote user="spencer 1970"]nice! Its official now - £2m investment into playing budget. I can''t help thinking this is about 2 weeks too late though?[/quote]

Or more likely it was two weeks ago and that is where the money came from for the Bennett bids, however, only release it now as it would be stupid to do so whilst in the transfer window.

[/quote]

aha! good call LI...I didn''t think of that..wise NCFC.

[AndyJR 0]

[quote user="Harry"]If Brighton wouldn''t sell him to us they won''t loan him to us, they see him as an integral part of them getting to the Championship.
[/quote]

 

Unless it''s part of a deal they can''t refuse, money talks more than anything else in football.  Everyone has their price.

[blahblahblah 2]

I can only assume that any loans that are coming in are already agreed.  To make this statement now would be to shoot yourself in the foot otherwise.

[CanaryOne 0]

Would have to be a loan with a view to a permanent ,depends i suppose on how close we were to landing him last week.Would not like to see to much money spent on players who will only be here 3 months on loan.

[Mike 2]

Regardless when the cash was made available, fair play to Mr Foulger who in my opinion is a top bloke & obviously cares deeply for the club.

Also, good news it''s ring fenced for the playing budget.

 

[York Canary 28]

[quote user="Mike "]

Regardless when the cash was made available, fair play to Mr Foulger who in my opinion is a top bloke & obviously cares deeply for the club.

Also, good news it''s ring fenced for the playing budget.

 

[/quote]

Agreed. A true fan/servant of the club and helped us when we went down to League One too

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

---

 

Some points.


1. On the face of it the figures don''t add up. 80,000 shares at £30 a share, which is the current price, comes to £2.4m rather than £2m. Unless the 80,000 figure is badly wrong that would suggest Foulger has paid less than full price. 


2. This deal lifts his stake in the company to 15.9 per cent. And reduces Smith and Jones''s from 61.1 per cent to 53 per cent. Still a comfortable enough majority, but it couldn''t really go any further down. Of course , if it did go below 50 per cent all sorts of exciting things would happen.


3. This news should once and for all kill off the bizarre claim from the Extreme Wing of the Fag Packets that our spending has been entirely bankrolled by money created by the cuts implemented by the new regime. Anyone with half a brain and at least half an open mind knew that was blatant nonsense. This proves it. It brings the amount of money Foulger has given the new regime to spend to £3.13m.

 

 

[York Canary 28]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

---

 

Some points.


1. On the face of it the figures don''t add up. 80,000 shares at £30 a share, which is the current price, comes to £2.4m rather than £2m. Unless the 80,000 figure is badly wrong that would suggest Foulger has paid less than full price. 

 

 

[/quote]

I''m sure Delia and Michael did a deal because Foulger bought so many shares.. Unless he bought the other shares at a lesser price

[blahblahblah 2]

Interesting points PC - I make the price per share £25, but I don''t smoke, so had to work that out on the back of a Mars Wrapper.Maybe they gave him a bit extra for bulk buying ?

[priceyrice 123]

Legend Iwan is right, this money almost defiently came in a while ago but was kept hush hush to prevent clubs inflating thier player prices.good on Foulger- well done! i am sure he would have got a dscount on the shares too.hopefully lambert will push with another loan player, i just dont think there is that much out there at the moment- SWP haha

[Legend Iwan 30]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]I can only assume that any loans that are coming in are already agreed.  To make this statement now would be to shoot yourself in the foot otherwise.
[/quote]

Think you''re spot on Blah. It would be ridiculous to now advertise this new money we have if it wasn''t already accounted for in a loan deal. 

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]I can only assume that any loans that are coming in are already agreed.  To make this statement now would be to shoot yourself in the foot otherwise.
[/quote]

Think you''re spot on Blah. It would be ridiculous to now advertise this new money we have if it wasn''t already accounted for in a loan deal. 

[/quote]

So is it a case of watch this space for a few days then

[Gingerpele 0]

Just out of interest, has Lambert said anything about a loan move himself?

I presume he is looking, as he said he was trying looking at two players at the end of Jan didn''t he? And neither of them came in, so a short term solution would seem likely.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Interesting points PC - I make the price per share £25, but I don''t smoke, so had to work that out on the back of a Mars Wrapper.

Maybe they gave him a bit extra for bulk buying ?
[/quote]

 

--

 

Indeed, blah, it does come to £25 a share, which was the price until a few years ago. The point is that this is not some private deal between S&J and Foulger. He hasn''t bought any of their shares. This was an official  deal between the company and Foulger, and as such can be seen as setting the price for the sale of any more new shares.

 

It could also be used as a benchmark in any takeover, but since it has always been the debt rather than the share price that has been the major issue I''m not suggesting this is terribly significant. However this sale of new shares does, at least theoretically, raise the market capitalisation of the company (based on £30 a share) from £16m to £18.4m. If the new real price is £25 a share the market cap goes down to £15.4m.

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

3. This news should once and for all kill off the bizarre claim from the Extreme Wing of the Fag Packets that our spending has been entirely bankrolled by money created by the cuts implemented by the new regime. [/quote]

Please find my post where I have said that.

What has happened is that with the debt servicing holiday (£2.5m a season for last and this season), plus the extra money from the TV contract and bigger payments from the Premier League coupled to no season ticket rebate, extra sources of revenue and some cost cutting; that has resulted in money being available for transfers this season (despite the players wages going up as we are in The Championship).

Purple Canary, if you are going to try to quote me please make sure you understand my viewpoint correctly! 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

3. This news should once and for all kill off the bizarre claim from the Extreme Wing of the Fag Packets that our spending has been entirely bankrolled by money created by the cuts implemented by the new regime. [/quote]

Please find my post where I have said that.

What has happened is that with the debt servicing holiday (£2.5m a season for last and this season), plus the extra money from the TV contract and bigger payments from the Premier League coupled to no season ticket rebate, extra sources of revenue and some cost cutting; that has resulted in money being available for transfers this season (despite the players wages going up as we are in The Championship).

Purple Canary, if you are going to try to quote me please make sure you understand my viewpoint correctly! 

 

[/quote]

 

--

 

Tangie, paranoia is thinking a comment about someone else is about you!

 

You I regard, with deep affection,  as being on the Normally Wrong But Very Occasionally Almost Sensible Wing of the Fag Packets.[:D][;)][:D] That comment was directed at the Extreme - or Always Wrong - Wing. Which at the last count I suspect had a very limited membership that didn''t include you.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

3. This news should once and for all kill off the bizarre claim from the Extreme Wing of the Fag Packets that our spending has been entirely bankrolled by money created by the cuts implemented by the new regime. [/quote]

Please find my post where I have said that.

What has happened is that with the debt servicing holiday (£2.5m a season for last and this season), plus the extra money from the TV contract and bigger payments from the Premier League coupled to no season ticket rebate, extra sources of revenue and some cost cutting; that has resulted in money being available for transfers this season (despite the players wages going up as we are in The Championship).

Purple Canary, if you are going to try to quote me please make sure you understand my viewpoint correctly! 

 

[/quote]

Tangie, paranoia is thinking a comment about someone else is about you!

[/quote]

Lol!

[O.T.B.C 0]

Why release it saying it is just for transfers? Surely this will alert the clubs that no doubt we will be in contact with about loan players increasing the fee''s.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

---

 

Some points.

1. On the face of it the figures don''t add up. 80,000 shares at £30 a share, which is the current price, comes to £2.4m rather than £2m. Unless the 80,000 figure is badly wrong that would suggest Foulger has paid less than full price. 

2. This deal lifts his stake in the company to 15.9 per cent. And reduces Smith and Jones''s from 61.1 per cent to 53 per cent. Still a comfortable enough majority, but it couldn''t really go any further down. Of course , if it did go below 50 per cent all sorts of exciting things would happen.

3. This news should once and for all kill off the bizarre claim from the Extreme Wing of the Fag Packets that our spending has been entirely bankrolled by money created by the cuts implemented by the new regime. Anyone with half a brain and at least half an open mind knew that was blatant nonsense. This proves it. It brings the amount of money Foulger has given the new regime to spend to £3.13m.

 

 

[/quote]Jeez point two is very interesting.  If somebody else toddled along with a couple of million spare.  Christ knows what would happen.