Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0 Posted January 15, 2012 Purple Canary,The following is something I posted on the 2011 Accounts thread months ago:Net Assets per ordinary share: Net Assets per Net Assets per No. of Ordinary share Cons. Balance Sheet Ordinary sharesYear ended 31.5.06 £30.03 £14,742k 490,807YE. 31.5.07 £29.79 £15,943k 535,235YE. 31.5.08 £28.47 £15,245k 535,442YE. 31.5.09 £17.20 £9,212k 535,526YE. 31.5.10 £6.17 £3,308k 535,637YE. 31.5.11 £1.57 £965k 616,052 Source : NCFC Plc Accounts re. Net Assets per Consolidated Balance Sheet and the number of ordinary shares in issue.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As you can see the Net Assets per ordinary share as at the 31st May 2011 was £1.57However as a result of debt reduction and spending on Intangible Assets (i.e. player registrations) this season, I would expect the Net Assets per ordinary share to increase by 31st May 2012.I hope this helps Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,553 Posted January 15, 2012 [quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"] Purple Canary,The following is something I posted on the 2011 Accounts thread months ago:Net Assets per ordinary share: Net Assets per Net Assets per No. of Ordinary share Cons. Balance Sheet Ordinary sharesYear ended 31.5.06 £30.03 £14,742k 490,807YE. 31.5.07 £29.79 £15,943k 535,235YE. 31.5.08 £28.47 £15,245k 535,442YE. 31.5.09 £17.20 £9,212k 535,526YE. 31.5.10 £6.17 £3,308k 535,637YE. 31.5.11 £1.57 £965k 616,052 Source : NCFC Plc Accounts re. Net Assets per Consolidated Balance Sheet and the number of ordinary shares in issue.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As you can see the Net Assets per ordinary share as at the 31st May 2011 was £1.57However as a result of debt reduction and spending on Intangible Assets (i.e. player registrations) this season, I would expect the Net Assets per ordinary share to increase by 31st May 2012.I hope this helps [/quote] Tangible, thanks for taking the trouble to post that, but, frankly, I still don''t see on what you''re basing your view that the share price is tied to assets per share and that this might explain the apparent rise to £100. The logic escapes me still. If the assets per share figure was around £30 in 2006 and has declined to £1.57, how come the share price, far from plumeting in tandem, has actually risen from £25 (the increase happening in 2007 I think) to £30 and now to a possible (although I am still sceptical) £100? There seems to be no link at all, which was my point all along. Even if there was a link, the debt reduction you mentioned almost certainly wouldn''t explain a jump from £30 to this apparent £100, let alone a jump from £1.57 a share to £100. I may be missing something very obvious. But my suspicion is the share price has nothing to do with assets per share. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0 Posted January 15, 2012 [quote user="PurpleCanary"]If the assets per share figure was around £30 in 2006 and has declined to £1.57, how come the share price, far from plumeting in tandem, has actually risen from £25 (the increase happening in 2007 I think) to £30 and now to a possible (although I am still sceptical) £100? There seems to be no link at all, which was my point all along. Even if there was a link, the debt reduction you mentioned almost certainly wouldn''t explain a jump from £30 to this apparent £100, let alone a jump from £1.57 a share to £100. I may be missing something very obvious. But my suspicion is the share price has nothing to do with assets per share.[/quote]It did have a relationship when £16m. was quoted for the shares. If the price now is really £100 per ordinary share then may be theres a deterence premium in the price or they are they are adding nearly all the £48m. of parachute receipts into the net assets per ordinary share calculation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,553 Posted January 15, 2012 [quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]If the assets per share figure was around £30 in 2006 and has declined to £1.57, how come the share price, far from plumeting in tandem, has actually risen from £25 (the increase happening in 2007 I think) to £30 and now to a possible (although I am still sceptical) £100? There seems to be no link at all, which was my point all along. Even if there was a link, the debt reduction you mentioned almost certainly wouldn''t explain a jump from £30 to this apparent £100, let alone a jump from £1.57 a share to £100. I may be missing something very obvious. But my suspicion is the share price has nothing to do with assets per share.[/quote]It did have a relationship when £16m. was quoted for the shares. If the price now is really £100 per ordinary share then may be theres a deterence premium in the price or they are they are adding nearly all the £48m. of parachute receipts into the net assets per ordinary share calculation. [/quote] Tangible, I don''t want to prolong this, but I supect that apparent relationship back then was purely a coincidence, unless there was some public statement at the time. But even if there was a link then, plainly there hasn''t been for several years, otherwise the share price would have fallen to £1.57. I suspect, given that we are an unlisted PLC, the determining factor has been what the directors have thought was the long-term underlying value of the company and not a very changeable asset per share figure. That, as you mention, might much better explain this possible (still sceptical...) rise to £100, which could well be aimed at deterrence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
