Premier League club owners and estimated levels of wealth

[Mister Chops 7]

Premier League club owners and estimated levels of wealth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_club_ownersI think I would dispute that our owners are worth £460 million so this should probably be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

[barclaystand 0]

Never mind a pinch of salt, better make it a bucket full!

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]I think I would dispute that our owners are worth £460 million so this should probably be taken with more than a pinch of salt.[/quote]Don''t forget Delia and Michael are now the majority shareholders of a company that currently turns over in the region of £70,000,000 per annum. Whatever the purchase price (and there has been a little debate on that around these parts) it''s safe to say that their shareholding is currently worth substantially more than they paid. So as of 26th June 2012 I think we can all agree that Delia and Michaels wealth has increased as a result of their ownership of NCFC can''t we?[;)]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"] [quote user="Mister Chops"]I think I would dispute that our owners are worth £460 million so this should probably be taken with more than a pinch of salt.[/quote]Don''t forget Delia and Michael are now the majority shareholders of a company that currently turns over in the region of £70,000,000 per annum. Whatever the purchase price (and there has been a little debate on that around these parts) it''s safe to say that their shareholding is currently worth substantially more than they paid. So as of 26th June 2012 I think we can all agree that Delia and Michaels wealth has increased as a result of their ownership of NCFC can''t we?[;)][/quote]All of which shows just how good they are at running a successful business and just how lucky we are to have them. [;)][:D]

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]Premier League club owners and estimated levels of wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_club_owners

I think I would dispute that our owners are worth £460 million so this should probably be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

[/quote]

 

That £460m figure is simply wrong, and wrong by a massive amount, unless - and I don''t believe this for a moment - Foulger''s share of his own company is worth virtually that.

The £460m figure certainly bears no relation to his and Smith and Jones''s holdings in NCFC. Even if NCFC has now (and this is by no means certain) put a £100 valuation on the ordinary shares that still only values NCFC at a bit over £60m, and collectively the Smith and Jones and Foulger holdings only amount to about £42m.

[Jacko 0]

Was always under the impression that Delia and Michael were worth around £20 million. A fair proportion of which has been sunk into the football club. Like others have said. This extra value has to either come from Foulger or it is just plain wrong.

[William Darby 0]

The reference link (which is broken) links to the Times Rich list around four years back. Assuming they''ve arrived at the large figure by combining MWJ''s Sainsbury''s mag which I believe at various times were valued at a rather high amount.

[Power Hamster 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]Premier League club owners and estimated levels of wealth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_club_ownersI think I would dispute that our owners are worth £460 million so this should probably be taken with more than a pinch of salt.[/quote]Definitely to be taken with a pinch or two of salt, as the date at the top of the Premier League list is April 2011, at which time we were still a Championship club[:^)]

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"]The reference link (which is broken) links to the Times Rich list around four years back. Assuming they''ve arrived at the large figure by combining MWJ''s Sainsbury''s mag which I believe at various times were valued at a rather high amount.
[/quote]

 

That''s nonsense, I''m afraid.  Michael Wynn Jones sold his company, which published the Sainsbury''s magazine, for a bit over £7m, back in late 2004 or early 2005.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

So clearly this phenomenal new wealth can only have something to do with the recent rise in the values of their shareholdings in NCFC. [:|]

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"]So clearly this phenomenal new wealth can only have something to do with the recent rise in the values of their shareholdings in NCFC. [:|]


[/quote]

 

No. As already explained this "phenomenal new wealth" doesn''t exist. It is a figment of someone''s imagination.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[8] Who bought the league? CITY CITY[8] Who bought the league? MCFC bought the league.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"]So clearly this phenomenal new wealth can only have something to do with the recent rise in the values of their shareholdings in NCFC. [:|]

[/quote]

 

No. As already explained this "phenomenal new wealth" doesn''t exist. It is a figment of someone''s imagination.

[/quote]Well if you can more than treble the value of your shares and still not become any wealthier it''s hardly surprising we couldn''t attract any investors is it?

[Nuff Said 5,969]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]Premier League club owners and estimated levels of wealth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_club_ownersI think I would dispute that our owners are worth £460 million so this should probably be taken with more than a pinch of salt.[/quote]On the positive side, that must mean I''ve got £900 in my wallet, not £45.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"]So clearly this phenomenal new wealth can only have something to do with the recent rise in the values of their shareholdings in NCFC. [:|]


[/quote]

 

No. As already explained this "phenomenal new wealth" doesn''t exist. It is a figment of someone''s imagination.

[/quote]

Well if you can more than treble the value of your shares and still not become any wealthier it''s hardly surprising we couldn''t attract any investors is it?
[/quote]

 

As non sequiturs go that sentence is an absolute corker. But just to be clear, before this supposed trebling becomes one of those internet "facts", it is not at all clear that Smith and Jones have trebled the value of their shares. As far as I am aware the current official share price is what it has been for several years - £30 a share, having previously been £25. I say that because at the last AGM, in November, 2011, there was no move to raise the price at all, and certainly not to £100. And raising the share price would be a decision for shareholders at the AGM.

I have only mentioned the possibility of it having been quietly raised because last autumn, when the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust cobbled together £3,400 to buy shares, the price it was quoted was £100 a share. But since, as explained, there was no move at the AGM to raise the price from £30, the likelihood is that £30 is still the price. Why the Supporters'' Trust was quoted £100 is a question. Possibly it was some kind of joke by the directors at the trust''s expense. Literally and metaphorically. Possibly it is now the unofficial price and will be formalised at the next AGM. Such an increase would be a way of putting a more realistic price on the company, which was undervalued at £30 a share, even when in the third tier.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"]The reference link (which is broken) links to the Times Rich list around four years back. Assuming they''ve arrived at the large figure by combining MWJ''s Sainsbury''s mag which I believe at various times were valued at a rather high amount.[/quote]

 

That''s nonsense, I''m afraid.  Michael Wynn Jones sold his company, which published the Sainsbury''s magazine, for a bit over £7m, back in late 2004 or early 2005.

[/quote]Hang on, are you saying I''m talking nonsense for suggesting the mag or the Times Rich list for citing such a high value?

[Jacko 0]

The publishing company sold for £13.6 million back in 2005. So that really doesnt contribute much to the £400 million quoted Pinkun. I reckon Foulger and Banham Poultry must be contributing to most of that valuation or it is wikipedia playing tricks again.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"]So clearly this phenomenal new wealth can only have something to do with the recent rise in the values of their shareholdings in NCFC. [:|]

[/quote]

 

No. As already explained this "phenomenal new wealth" doesn''t exist. It is a figment of someone''s imagination.

[/quote]Well if you can more than treble the value of your shares and still not become any wealthier it''s hardly surprising we couldn''t attract any investors is it?[/quote]

 

As non sequiturs go that sentence is an absolute corker. But just to be clear, before this supposed trebling becomes one of those internet "facts", it is not at all clear that Smith and Jones have trebled the value of their shares. As far as I am aware the current official share price is what it has been for several years - £30 a share, having previously been £25. I say that because at the last AGM, in November, 2011, there was no move to raise the price at all, and certainly not to £100. And raising the share price would be a decision for shareholders at the AGM.I have only mentioned the possibility of it having been quietly raised because last autumn, when the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust cobbled together £3,400 to buy shares, the price it was quoted was £100 a share. But since, as explained, there was no move at the AGM to raise the price from £30, the likelihood is that £30 is still the price. Why the Supporters'' Trust was quoted £100 is a question. Possibly it was some kind of joke by the directors at the trust''s expense. Literally and metaphorically. Possibly it is now the unofficial price and will be formalised at the next AGM. Such an increase would be a way of putting a more realistic price on the company, which was undervalued at £30 a share, even when in the third tier.

[/quote]So the person who tells me that the shares are currently being valued at £100 per share and have indeed been offered for sale at that price tells me I''m wrong when I point out that £100 > (3 x £30).......... because the shares aren''t currently valued at £100.[:S] Now I''m even more confused than I was when I tried to work out how a company which turns over £70m pa in the prem and has a guaranteed income of £100m+ in the next three years come what may before even selling a ticket, meal, pint or programme can be worth exactly the same as a company who just a couple of years ago only seemed to stop short of putting charity collection tins on the turnstiles because at the time they didn''t even have a pot suitable for us to put our p''s in.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"]So clearly this phenomenal new wealth can only have something to do with the recent rise in the values of their shareholdings in NCFC. [:|]


[/quote]

 

No. As already explained this "phenomenal new wealth" doesn''t exist. It is a figment of someone''s imagination.

[/quote]

Well if you can more than treble the value of your shares and still not become any wealthier it''s hardly surprising we couldn''t attract any investors is it?
[/quote]

 

As non sequiturs go that sentence is an absolute corker. But just to be clear, before this supposed trebling becomes one of those internet "facts", it is not at all clear that Smith and Jones have trebled the value of their shares. As far as I am aware the current official share price is what it has been for several years - £30 a share, having previously been £25. I say that because at the last AGM, in November, 2011, there was no move to raise the price at all, and certainly not to £100. And raising the share price would be a decision for shareholders at the AGM.

I have only mentioned the possibility of it having been quietly raised because last autumn, when the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust cobbled together £3,400 to buy shares, the price it was quoted was £100 a share. But since, as explained, there was no move at the AGM to raise the price from £30, the likelihood is that £30 is still the price. Why the Supporters'' Trust was quoted £100 is a question. Possibly it was some kind of joke by the directors at the trust''s expense. Literally and metaphorically. Possibly it is now the unofficial price and will be formalised at the next AGM. Such an increase would be a way of putting a more realistic price on the company, which was undervalued at £30 a share, even when in the third tier.

[/quote]

So the person who tells me that the shares are currently being valued at £100 per share and have indeed been offered for sale at that price tells me I''m wrong when I point out that £100 > (3 x £30).......... because the shares aren''t currently valued at £100.[:S]

 Now I''m even more confused than I was when I tried to work out how a company which turns over £70m pa in the prem and has a guaranteed income of £100m+ in the next three years come what may before even selling a ticket, meal, pint or programme can be worth exactly the same as a company who just a couple of years ago only seemed to stop short of putting charity collection tins on the turnstiles because at the time they didn''t even have a pot suitable for us to put our p''s in.




[/quote]

 

Dear me, plainly I have to try one more time, but if you were confused by the two earlier explanations this probably won''t help.

There is a current official price, set at AGMs. This, unless I missed the announcement, which I am 99 per cent certain I haven''t, is £30. But the company may privately be varying that price. There are two pieces of evidence for that possibility. One is that, as explained, the Supporters'' Trust was quoted £100 a share a few months ago. The other is that in the 2011 financial year, with the current official price at £30, Foulger''s £2m purchase bought him 80,000 shares. And that works out not at £30 a share and certainly not £100, but the old price of £25. How d''ya like them apples?

As to your second paragraph you''re tilting at an imaginary windmill. In very broad terms the company is worth more now, two tiers up, and I have never said otherwise. On the contrary, I have said for years, even when we were on the verge of the third tier and others were claiming the shares were worthless, that the share price was too low, You wouldn''t believe it now, but my argument rather got ridiculed.

My point, which has been validated, was that even in the third tier £30 a share only valued the company, with all its potential, at a measly £16m. An easy comparison is with Birmingham, which was valued at  five times that in the Carson Yeung takeover. Look at the two clubs now. But also imagine the situation getting reversed again. Football is unpredictable. Even so, we still would be (at least officially) undervalued.

To sum up, I wouldn''t be at all surprised if the company is privately asking more for shares, and might formalise that at the next AGM, precisely in order to value the company at a higher - and more realistic - price.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"]The reference link (which is broken) links to the Times Rich list around four years back. Assuming they''ve arrived at the large figure by combining MWJ''s Sainsbury''s mag which I believe at various times were valued at a rather high amount.
[/quote]

 

That''s nonsense, I''m afraid.  Michael Wynn Jones sold his company, which published the Sainsbury''s magazine, for a bit over £7m, back in late 2004 or early 2005.

[/quote]

Hang on, are you saying I''m talking nonsense for suggesting the mag or the Times Rich list for citing such a high value?
[/quote]

 

Either or both. If the Sunday Times really did value the magazine/MWJ''s publishing house at hundred of millions of pounds then you should probably stop reading the paper. That would be absolute nonsense. And a moment''s thought should have made you realise it was nonsense. You might value Sainsbury''s at hundreds of millions, but not a two-bit publishing house that produces its magazine. As posted earlier, the price MWJ got was a few million.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

Thank you Purple your patience really is appreciated.What I was clumsily trying to establish was how a revaluation of the club might be implemented.As I understand it based upon a "value" of £30 the club is valued at £16m.Now we must all heartily agree the club is worth far more than that today but how can this increase be handled? Simply adjusting the share price to £100 per share might well magically value the club at approx £60m but would create no new money for the club. It might also lead to some people pointing out that far from being altruistic, Delias hinvestment has actually seen her shareholding more than treble in value, you know what people can be like.......So I confess to being troubled by the idea of the share price rising to £100 when the alternative is to issue another £44m of shares at £30 each (based on min £60m valuation).Of course the problem with this is that Delia and MWJ would have to purchase a large tranche of that issue to maintain their majority shareholding, such a large amount in fact that it''s questionable if they could actually afford to.The big plus is that revaluing the club and issuing new shares will bring a significant amount of money into the club, certainly enough to pay for stadium expansion outright and some.The big minus is that £44m of shares on the open market could see a change of ownership forced through unless our current maj shareholders maintain their stake by purchasing large numbers themselves.If it weren''t football and was just another company I think the second option is clearly the way to go but in the circumstances I can''t see it happening.This means that upon revaluation the club stands to lose significant new investment in order to maintain the status quo in the boardroom.I shall be voting against any proposal to increase the share value to £100 that might be raised by the club in favour of a new share issue which if the club really is worth say £60m could see enough of a cash injection to give us a 35,000 seater stadium and all that goes with it without affecting the playing budget in the slightest.We''ve a once in a lifetime opportunity here to put down foundations for generations I do hope we don''t miss out because when push comes to shove our maj shareholders can''t afford to pay the going rate for a 60 odd percentage holding in a company worth in excess of £60,000,000 so we end up going for the "cheap" method of revaluing the club.

[T 191]

Oh dear. The football club has a zero economic value because it does not generate any cash for the owners like most football clubs. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay for the trophy of owning a football club which is higher in the prem league. The nominal quoted value fo the shares is just that nominal and absolutely meaningless.

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

I''ll let you know how many shares I get for my £10m.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]Oh dear. The football club has a zero economic value because it does not generate any cash for the owners like most football clubs. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay for the trophy of owning a football club which is higher in the prem league. The nominal quoted value fo the shares is just that nominal and absolutely meaningless.[/quote]

Oh Dear in deed!

So in 2 years,IF we stay in the premier league, debts are cleared as per the club intentions and capacity increased.

A turnover of 75M+ (whatever the new exorbitant tv fees are) ,  you say the club will not be able to repay ALL loans and declare a dividend on shares?

(They do now on preference shares )

It''s all potential BUT sometimes a gamble pays off and IF we are in that very healthy state then the value of the club and therefore the share value

in the club MUST increase.

SHOULD an investor finally meet all laid down criteria then perhaps those new values might be realised.

There are still a few billionairs out there daily making even more money that they need to part with!

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="T"]Oh dear. The football club has a zero economic value because it does not generate any cash for the owners like most football clubs. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay for the trophy of owning a football club which is higher in the prem league. The nominal quoted value fo the shares is just that nominal and absolutely meaningless.[/quote]So does this mean you think £13m is a fair offer for Delia and MWJ''s shareholding for the club as it stands T? Seems like a bargain to me, strong brand, asset rich and guaranteed to turnover a 9 figure income over the next three years at a minimum, i''d say the clubs worth a lot more than £16m but how can this be realised without either diluting the ownership or handing the shareholders a very hefty profit?

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Pink un Role Model"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"]The reference link (which is broken) links to the Times Rich list around four years back. Assuming they''ve arrived at the large figure by combining MWJ''s Sainsbury''s mag which I believe at various times were valued at a rather high amount.[/quote]

 

That''s nonsense, I''m afraid.  Michael Wynn Jones sold his company, which published the Sainsbury''s magazine, for a bit over £7m, back in late 2004 or early 2005.

[/quote]Hang on, are you saying I''m talking nonsense for suggesting the mag or the Times Rich list for citing such a high value?[/quote]

 

Either or both. If the Sunday Times really did value the magazine/MWJ''s publishing house at hundred of millions of pounds then you should probably stop reading the paper. That would be absolute nonsense. And a moment''s thought should have made you realise it was nonsense. You might value Sainsbury''s at hundreds of millions, but not a two-bit publishing house that produces its magazine. As posted earlier, the price MWJ got was a few million.

[/quote]I probably did realise it was nonsense straight off the bat, but it was more out of curiosity how the figure was arrived at.  And whether it was the combined wealth of Smith, Jones & Foulger and included the turnover of their businesses. (which is still off the mark) Anyway its all by the by.

[T 191]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="T"]Oh dear. The football club has a zero economic value because it does not generate any cash for the owners like most football clubs. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay for the trophy of owning a football club which is higher in the prem league. The nominal quoted value fo the shares is just that nominal and absolutely meaningless.[/quote]

Oh Dear in deed!

So in 2 years,IF we stay in the premier league, debts are cleared as per the club intentions and capacity increased.

A turnover of 75M+ (whatever the new exorbitant tv fees are) ,  you say the club will not be able to repay ALL loans and declare a dividend on shares?

(They do now on preference shares )

It''s all potential BUT sometimes a gamble pays off and IF we are in that very healthy state then the value of the club and therefore the share value

in the club MUST increase.

SHOULD an investor finally meet all laid down criteria then perhaps those new values might be realised.

There are still a few billionairs out there daily making even more money that they need to part with!

[/quote]

preference shares are effectively debt. The economic value of a business is the cash it generates for its shareholders. As nearly all football clubs put all their money back into the club and are run as a not for profit organisation then nearly all football clubs have a zero economic value. In fact most football clubs have a negative economic value as they are subsidised by their owners: The only value a football club is whatever a future owner pays for it. ManU, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool are the only football clubs with any innate economic value

[T 191]

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"][quote user="T"]Oh dear. The football club has a zero economic value because it does not generate any cash for the owners like most football clubs. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay for the trophy of owning a football club which is higher in the prem league. The nominal quoted value fo the shares is just that nominal and absolutely meaningless.[/quote]

So does this mean you think £13m is a fair offer for Delia and MWJ''s shareholding for the club as it stands T? Seems like a bargain to me, strong brand, asset rich and guaranteed to turnover a 9 figure income over the next three years at a minimum, i''d say the clubs worth a lot more than £16m but how can this be realised without either diluting the ownership or handing the shareholders a very hefty profit?
[/quote]

Technically, the econimc fair value of the club is zero at best as that is the discounted net present value of the dividends for ordinary shareholders. The brand, assets and turnover are absolutely worthless from an economic fair value point of view as they do not generate any cash for the shareholders as all the cash is used to pay the players, staff, agents and operating expenses. However, the market value of the club is what ever someone is willing to pay for owning a football club. Apart from the big 4 clubs no one has ever made any money from operating a football club. The owners outside the big 4 have all made their money elsewhere hance football clubs are economically worthless.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"][quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="T"]Oh dear. The football club has a zero economic value because it does not generate any cash for the owners like most football clubs. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay for the trophy of owning a football club which is higher in the prem league. The nominal quoted value fo the shares is just that nominal and absolutely meaningless.[/quote]

Oh Dear in deed!

So in 2 years,IF we stay in the premier league, debts are cleared as per the club intentions and capacity increased.

A turnover of 75M+ (whatever the new exorbitant tv fees are) ,  you say the club will not be able to repay ALL loans and declare a dividend on shares?

(They do now on preference shares )

It''s all potential BUT sometimes a gamble pays off and IF we are in that very healthy state then the value of the club and therefore the share value

in the club MUST increase.

SHOULD an investor finally meet all laid down criteria then perhaps those new values might be realised.

There are still a few billionairs out there daily making even more money that they need to part with!

[/quote]

preference shares are effectively debt. The economic value of a business is the cash it generates for its shareholders. As nearly all football clubs put all their money back into the club and are run as a not for profit organisation then nearly all football clubs have a zero economic value. In fact most football clubs have a negative economic value as they are subsidised by their owners: The only value a football club is whatever a future owner pays for it. ManU, Spurs, Arsenal and Liverpool are the only football clubs with any innate economic value

[/quote]

I see your body swerve is still looking good!

[T 191]

Preference shares pay a fixed return just like debt so is debt by another name. Common misunderstanding.