Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lappinitup

Club shares

Recommended Posts

From the Supporters Trust website......."In the

period since the Trust has been purchasing shares the cost of the shares has

risen from £25 to £30 and now to £100"When did that happen and how/why?http://www.inthehandsofthefans.co.uk/Article.aspx?aid=164

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"]From the Supporters Trust website.......

"In the period since the Trust has been purchasing shares the cost of the shares has risen from £25 to £30 and now to £100"

When did that happen and how/why?

http://www.inthehandsofthefans.co.uk/Article.aspx?aid=164


[/quote]

Blimey, if they keep going up at that rate I may be tempted to sell my substantial shareholding of 5!!!! [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating, lappin. Well, for we nerds[8-|] anyway. The club can pretty much ask what it wants. Foulger paid £25 rather than the then current price of £30 for his £2m stake.

 

But a change as massive as this would - one would have thought - have been put to the AGM. Which is wasn''t, unless it just didn''t get reported. There certainly wasn''t a proposal listed in advance. So this could be a one-off - the club having a bit of fun at the expense (literally) of the Supporters'' Trust.

 

If not, and this IS the new price, it raises the question of valuation. I have long maintained the £30 figure was too, because it only valued what was essentially a solidly-based club with prospects at £16m. The Foulger purchase took that to £18.5m. A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People always told me that the wicked cook wouldn''t let anyone else get their hands on her dolls house[:@] No wonder Fernandez went to QPR! Peter Cullum will never come back now[:''(]

 

Do you want to buy my shares Purple[:^)]

 

I''ll give you 10% discount on the club''s price[Y]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purple  Canary,

The basis of the £30 per share seemed to be Net Assets per share at the time.

On the 2011 Accounts thread I have shown the Net Assets per share based on the Balance Sheet (Financial Position) as the 31st May 2011 per the last published accounts for NCFC Plc.  Since then the Net Assets per share will have increased due to debt reduction etc.

 

 

Share this post


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

People always told me that the wicked cook wouldn''t let anyone else get their hands on her dolls house[:@] No wonder Fernandez went to QPR! Peter Cullum will never come back now[:''(]

 

Do you want to buy my shares Purple[:^)]

 

I''ll give you 10% discount on the club''s price[Y]

 

[/quote]

 

Quite right Nutty. If Delia and Michael won''t sell for 30 pounds/share and are prepared to hold out against all-comers for 100 pound/share, then perhaps it will begin to explain to some of those that were/are disenchanted with our majority shareholders why they were not prepared to let the club go to Mr. Cullum for the sum total of zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Purple  Canary,

The basis of the £30 per share seemed to be Net Assets per share at the time.

On the 2011 Accounts thread I have shown the Net Assets per share based on the Balance Sheet (Financial Position) as the 31st May 2011 per the last published accounts for NCFC Plc.  Since then the Net Assets per share will have increased due to debt reduction etc.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Tangible, you may be right, but what''s your maths for that, given that net assets were listed at £3.4m and we have 616,000 ordinary shares?  And are you saying our net assets have increased more than threefold since then, to justify a more than threefold increase in the share price?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.[/quote]So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.
[/quote]

So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........
[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

Share this post


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

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.[/quote]So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.
[/quote]

So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........
[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]

It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.
[/quote]

I would have thought it would be worth somebody is willing to accept.

 

 

Share this post


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

People always told me that the wicked cook wouldn''t let anyone else get their hands on her dolls house[:@] No wonder Fernandez went to QPR! Peter Cullum will never come back now[:''(]

 

Do you want to buy my shares Purple[:^)]

 

I''ll give you 10% discount on the club''s price[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

 

Absolutely, nutty. I''ll get one of my glamorous assistants to do lunch with one of your glamorous assistants to work out the details. Your tranche of shares will edge my stake to the crucial 30 per cent mark and enable my consortium of Manitoban manganese magnates to make an irresistible offer for Smith and Jones''s majority holding. Then all I need to do is persuade Neil Doncaster to end his Scottish[li] exile and return as chief executive, and also relocate the ground to my Caribbean[ip] tax haven, and the club will finally be heading towards those broad sunlit uplands of which we have all dreamt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

People always told me that the wicked cook wouldn''t let anyone else get their hands on her dolls house[:@] No wonder Fernandez went to QPR! Peter Cullum will never come back now[:''(]

 

Do you want to buy my shares Purple[:^)]

 

I''ll give you 10% discount on the club''s price[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

 

Absolutely, nutty. I''ll get one of my glamorous assistants to do lunch with one of your glamorous assistants to work out the details. Your tranche of shares will edge my stake to the crucial 30 per cent mark and enable my consortium of Manitoban manganese magnates to make an irresistible offer for Smith and Jones''s majority holding. Then all I need to do is persuade Neil Doncaster to end his Scottish[li] exile and return as chief executive, and also relocate the ground to my Caribbean[ip] tax haven, and the club will finally be heading towards those broad sunlit uplands of which we have all dreamt.

[/quote]

It was all sounding sooo good until you mentioned the Caribbean. I''m afraid I can''t be having any of that. Long before Neil Doncaster made it popular my old buddy Lyphov Riley turned his back on club and country to reside on those shores. I''d prefer to leave him "watching it on google".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.[/quote]So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.[/quote]

I would have thought it would be worth somebody is willing to accept.

 

 

[/quote]Same thing innit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.
[/quote]

So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........
[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]

It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.
[/quote]

I would have thought it would be worth somebody is willing to accept.

 

 

[/quote]

Same thing innit
[/quote]

Not really. It can be worth more than somebody is prepared to pay.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.[/quote]So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.[/quote]

I would have thought it would be worth somebody is willing to accept.

 

 

[/quote]Same thing innit[/quote]

Not really. It can be worth more than somebody is prepared to pay.

 

 

[/quote]That''s just being pedantic.  Half full, half empty.  Pointless splitting hairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.
[/quote]

So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........
[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]

It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.
[/quote]

I would have thought it would be worth somebody is willing to accept.

 

 

[/quote]

Same thing innit
[/quote]

Not really. It can be worth more than somebody is prepared to pay.

 

 

[/quote]

That''s just being pedantic.  Half full, half empty.  Pointless splitting hairs.
[/quote]

 

With respect, JC, nutty (for once[:P]) is not entirely splitting hairs. "Worth" in reality largely depends on whether it is a seller''s market or a buyer''s market. As has been mentioned Cullum, possibly because he thought it a buyer''s market, put a very low - arguably a nil - valuation on the club. Leaving aside the £56m figure, which wasn''t a valuation, Smith and Jones (although probably willing to give the club away for nothing to the right person) still thought it was worth more. And it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they were right about that. Even if it wasn''t exactly a seller''s market then, it certainly would be now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was not the £56m ''price'' the figure it would require to takeover, settle debts and run the club rather than simply an amount of money that Delia and Michael Smith were demanding ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"]Was not the £56m ''price'' the figure it would require to takeover, settle debts and run the club rather than simply an amount of money that Delia and Michael Smith were demanding ?
[/quote]

 

There is semi-hidden history to that £56m figure. Cullum said he would make available up to £20m (note the "up to") for players. What he meant by that was that he was willing to spend £20m on everything. So if he had to pay off £10m of debt, then there would be £10m left for transfers. If £15m of debt, then £5m for transfers. Any money for shares would have come out of the £20m as well. Etc. There could well have been nothing left of the £20m.

 

But the "up to" bit rather got lost in big headlines about a £20m transfer boost. So the club issued that £56m statement, saying that if Cullum wanted to take over the club he would have to be prepared - because it might well be legally necessary - to pay off all the £20m of debt and buy all the shares (totalling then £16m) and - the club very pointedly added - anyone promising £20m for transfers would have to add that £20m on top of the £36m neeed for the debt and the shares.

 

It was the club''s rather hamfisted way of trying to show that Cullum''s £20m wasn''t all it seemed. But because the club didn''t explain that properly it looked to fans like a valuation. It was a lousy piece of PR. And £56m was certainly not what Smith and Jones were demanding for themselves. Even if Cullum had agreed and Smith and Jones had enforced all their rights I suspect they would have at best broken even compared with what they had put in.

 

As it happens, they have said - and I believe them - that they would give the club away for nothing to the right person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was rather how I thought it was mr purple. What was also missed was that, were the £20m to be used for transfers, then an amount of that would have had to have been ring fenced to cover the extra wages.Unfortunately many of the ''lower orders'' tend to look at the headlines and then over excite themselves to the point where reason and common sense are impossible to comprehend - assuming with some of them that they ever were in the first place.The ''right person'' you talk of would therefore have to have both the intent and means to continue what the club needed. It was the intent that was lacking with Cullum, hence the fact that to my knowledge he never even made an offer. Just huffed and puffed and ran away when asked to put the money where his mouth was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"]That was rather how I thought it was mr purple. What was also missed was that, were the £20m to be used for transfers, then an amount of that would have had to have been ring fenced to cover the extra wages.

Unfortunately many of the ''lower orders'' tend to look at the headlines and then over excite themselves to the point where reason and common sense are impossible to comprehend - assuming with some of them that they ever were in the first place.

The ''right person'' you talk of would therefore have to have both the intent and means to continue what the club needed. It was the intent that was lacking with Cullum, hence the fact that to my knowledge he never even made an offer. Just huffed and puffed and ran away when asked to put the money where his mouth was.

[/quote]

 

Peter Cullum explored and withdrew. Simple.

 

No need to be rude.

 

OTBC

Share this post


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

[quote user="City1st"]That was rather how I thought it was mr purple. What was also missed was that, were the £20m to be used for transfers, then an amount of that would have had to have been ring fenced to cover the extra wages.

Unfortunately many of the ''lower orders'' tend to look at the headlines and then over excite themselves to the point where reason and common sense are impossible to comprehend - assuming with some of them that they ever were in the first place.

The ''right person'' you talk of would therefore have to have both the intent and means to continue what the club needed. It was the intent that was lacking with Cullum, hence the fact that to my knowledge he never even made an offer. Just huffed and puffed and ran away when asked to put the money where his mouth was.

[/quote]

 

Peter Cullum explored and withdrew. Simple.

 

No need to be rude.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

Rude? Oh, come on, Bly. By City1st''s plain-spoken standards those are dulcet words of honeyed sweetness...[;)]

 

And yes, City1st, the basic problem with Cullum''s business plan was that it was too short term. Dangerously so. And no, he never made a formal offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.
[/quote]

So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........
[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]

It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.
[/quote]

I would have thought it would be worth somebody is willing to accept.

 

 

[/quote]

Same thing innit
[/quote]

Not really. It can be worth more than somebody is prepared to pay.

 

 

[/quote]

That''s just being pedantic.  Half full, half empty.  Pointless splitting hairs.
[/quote]

I don''t think it is being pedantic. I think the two scenarios are very different. I think the controlling interest of our club is worth what thge owners are willing to sell it for. Now that may be less than someone is prepared to pay but more than someone else is prepared to pay. In this case I doubt it will ever go to the highest bidder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]A 100 per share price goes into the stratosphere at £61.6m. Pure speculation (with the intention of enraging[8o|] First Wizard) but it could be aimed at scaring off unwanted suitors.[/quote]So the £56m that was asked at the time would be in excess of £100m now? Shows what a bargain it would have been........[/quote]

 

Only if it''s really worth 187m now.................

 

What do you reckon?

 

OTBC

[/quote]It''s worth whatever somebody is prepared to pay.[/quote]

I would have thought it would be worth somebody is willing to accept.

 

 

[/quote]Same thing innit[/quote]

Not really. It can be worth more than somebody is prepared to pay.

 

 

[/quote]That''s just being pedantic.  Half full, half empty.  Pointless splitting hairs.[/quote]

I don''t think it is being pedantic. I think the two scenarios are very different. I think the controlling interest of our club is worth what thge owners are willing to sell it for. Now that may be less than someone is prepared to pay but more than someone else is prepared to pay. In this case I doubt it will ever go to the highest bidder.

[/quote]Don''t worry about it.  PC has explained things using Cullum as an example.  So in effect we''re both wrong in a strange way[:P]The club is worth nothing to the right owner.  IMO that''s the point of the original question, what''s the club worth.  Not what I''m prepared to pay or what you believe it''s value is.  If we take PC''s account of things concerning Cullum etc etc as near as damn it a fact. Delia therefore isn''t actually concerned over the value of the club that''s written on paper.  It''s all about the person(s) who want to take the club on and their long term intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Jewish Cowboy"]



Don''t worry about it.  PC has explained things using Cullum as an example.  So in effect we''re both wrong in a strange way[:P]

The club is worth nothing to the right owner.  IMO that''s the point of the original question, what''s the club worth.  Not what I''m prepared to pay or what you believe it''s value is. 
If we take PC''s account of things concerning Cullum etc etc as near as damn it a fact. Delia therefore isn''t actually concerned over the value of the club that''s written on paper.  It''s all about the person(s) who want to take the club on and their long term intentions.
[/quote]

 

JC, the only point I should add is that in assessing an offer Smith and Jones have to bear in mind the interests of minority shareholders. They might, for example, get what they think is a fantastic offer for the club''s future but which only offers them £1 a share. And they are happy with £1 a share for themselves. But am I going to be happy, having paid £25 a share? Or Foulger, whose £2m stake will suddenly be worth zilch?

Share this post


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

[quote user="City1st"]Was not the £56m ''price'' the figure it would require to takeover, settle debts and run the club rather than simply an amount of money that Delia and Michael Smith were demanding ?
[/quote]

 

There is semi-hidden history to that £56m figure. Cullum said he would make available up to £20m (note the "up to") for players. What he meant by that was that he was willing to spend £20m on everything. So if he had to pay off £10m of debt, then there would be £10m left for transfers. If £15m of debt, then £5m for transfers. Any money for shares would have come out of the £20m as well. Etc. There could well have been nothing left of the £20m.

 

But the "up to" bit rather got lost in big headlines about a £20m transfer boost. So the club issued that £56m statement, saying that if Cullum wanted to take over the club he would have to be prepared - because it might well be legally necessary - to pay off all the £20m of debt and buy all the shares (totalling then £16m) and - the club very pointedly added - anyone promising £20m for transfers would have to add that £20m on top of the £36m neeed for the debt and the shares.

 

It was the club''s rather hamfisted way of trying to show that Cullum''s £20m wasn''t all it seemed. But because the club didn''t explain that properly it looked to fans like a valuation. It was a lousy piece of PR. And £56m was certainly not what Smith and Jones were demanding for themselves. Even if Cullum had agreed and Smith and Jones had enforced all their rights I suspect they would have at best broken even compared with what they had put in.

 

As it happens, they have said - and I believe them - that they would give the club away for nothing to the right person.

[/quote]

 

Would Foulger be the ''right'' kind of person? Or do you reckon that the ''right'' person lies in the family?

 

OTBC

Share this post


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

[quote user="City1st"]Was not the £56m ''price'' the figure it would require to takeover, settle debts and run the club rather than simply an amount of money that Delia and Michael Smith were demanding ?
[/quote]

 

 

As it happens, they have said - and I believe them - that they would give the club away for nothing to the right person.

[/quote]

 

Would Foulger be the ''right'' kind of person? Or do you reckon that the ''right'' person lies in the family?

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

For the foreseeable future (assuming no great changes in the rules on football ownership) the "right" person would still need pots of money as well the right ethos. I don''t know much about Foulger''s finances but on what little I do know I suspect he simply wouldn''t be rich enough. Fry also would have the ethos, but presumably not the time, yet alone the money. As to the family I know even less, buy I very much doubt it.

 

One possibility would be a consortium of comparitively wealthy people who could pretty much be relied upon to be of like mind on the basic issues, but I have no names to throw into that mix.

Share this post


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

[quote user="City1st"]Was not the £56m ''price'' the figure it would require to takeover, settle debts and run the club rather than simply an amount of money that Delia and Michael Smith were demanding ?
[/quote]

 

 

As it happens, they have said - and I believe them - that they would give the club away for nothing to the right person.

[/quote]

 

Would Foulger be the ''right'' kind of person? Or do you reckon that the ''right'' person lies in the family?

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

For the foreseeable future (assuming no great changes in the rules on football ownership) the "right" person would still need pots of money as well the right ethos. I don''t know much about Foulger''s finances but on what little I do know I suspect he simply wouldn''t be rich enough. Fry also would have the ethos, but presumably not the time, yet alone the money. As to the family I know even less, buy I very much doubt it.

 

One possibility would be a consortium of comparitively wealthy people who could pretty much be relied upon to be of like mind on the basic issues, but I have no names to throw into that mix.

[/quote]

This will not go down well Purple but I hope Delia and MWJ are fit and healthy people who live long and prosper. If they are around for long enough to see the game come to it''s senses and clubs are run within their means then the club could pass to another safe pair of hands. Failing that we could end up like Blackburn or any of the countless other clubs who lost their "football people" as owners.

 

 

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...