Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RuelFox

MCNALLY OUT

Recommended Posts

[quote user="dreamteam"]Ah, the old happy clapper insult.

So wounding, so unfair, so childish, so meaningless.[/quote]

LOLHave some pity, he can''t help it.

Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"£10m not £20m. And any new issue of shares to a minority investor worth making would now take Smith and Jones'' holding below 50 per cent and so end their majority control"

He was told it would cost him £56m

£16m for shares

£16m for bank debt

£20m promised player investment

£4m Directos loans

Wasn''t he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Le Juge"]"£10m not £20m. And any new issue of shares to a minority investor worth making would now take Smith and Jones'' holding below 50 per cent and so end their majority control"

He was told it would cost him £56m

£16m for shares

£16m for bank debt

£20m promised player investment

£4m Directos loans

Wasn''t he?[/quote]You are rather confused. You said Cullum was quoted £20m for Smith and Jones''s shares:So there has never been any doubt that they [Smith and Jones] are open to new investment and bringing in new board members, but the price they quoted Cullum suggested that they weren''t too keen on a complete parting of ways because £20m for their shares was a lot of money at the time considering the debt that the club had. Cullum was not quoted £20m for Smith and Jones''s shares. He was, as I said, quoted £10m, as the figures you have quoted indicate. The potential cost of buying ALL the shares, for which Cullum would have had to have made an offer, was £16m. Smith and Jones held roughly 60 per cent of those shares, coming to a price of around £10m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I get you.

So would now cost somewhere in the region of £35m to buy out Delia and MWJ at £100, but no debt.

The point still remains really, the club was overpriced.

There are now pretty much no bank debts and no directors loans (nominal amount).

So his offer to spend £20m plus £33m(ish), that gives a price of £53m.

The stated £56m, minus £6m, is £50m.

Is the club being overvalued now or undervalued in 2008?

Will the club revise their share valuation now that we are debt free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Le Juge"]So his offer to spend £20m plus £33m(ish), that gives a price of £53m.[/quote]Except he didn''t did he? He wanted "Control" for his £20m which meant new shares making D&M''s shares virtually worthless. They wouldn''t have got a penny. He also said he wouldn''t invest more further down the line so goodness knows where we''d be now had it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That''s not what I am saying lappinitup.

My point is that the price for Delia''s shares at £100 per share would now be £33m instead of the £10m being stated when he wanted control of the club.

So if he were to make the offer to invest £20m in players now then the price would be £33m + £20m, at the clubs current share price/valuation.

That is a total of £53m. There is now no debt (or pretty much none).

To take control in 2009 or whenever his interest came to light the stated cost was £56m.

So I''m saying that the club was probably way overvalued back then considering our financial health and status in football, or is undervalued now at £100 per share.

That''s where the £33m comes in, as that would be the value of a £10m stake at £30 share if that price rises to £100.

If Delia''s shares cost £30 each back then, and £100 now, and she holds the same number of shares, then that gives a value of around £33m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Le Juge"]That''s not what I am saying lappinitup.

My point is that the price for Delia''s shares at £100 per share would now be £33m instead of the £10m being stated when he wanted control of the club.

So if he were to make the offer to invest £20m in players now then the price would be £33m + £20m, at the clubs current share price/valuation.

That is a total of £53m. There is now no debt (or pretty much none).

To take control in 2009 or whenever his interest came to light the stated cost was £56m.

So I''m saying that the club was probably way overvalued back then considering our financial health and status in football, or is undervalued now at £100 per share.

That''s where the £33m comes in, as that would be the value of a £10m stake at £30 share if that price rises to £100.

If Delia''s shares cost £30 each back then, and £100 now, and she holds the same number of shares, then that gives a value of around £33m.[/quote]This is all water under the bridge and I can''t be bothered to go in the details, but the point is that Cullum''s supposed promise of £20m for players was in effect a mirage. There would not have been anything like that, if anything at all. As a way of trying (rather clumsily) to make that clear the directors itemised £20m separately to everything else. In other words the cost was only £56m to someone who had seemed to promise £20m for players. In practice the cost would have been somewhere between £10m and £16m, to buy out Delia and anyone else who wanted to sell.As to whether the club was overvalued then, I said at the time - and quite often - that it wasn''t. On the contrary I argued that it was undervalued. Because I was taking a long-term view, based on the essentials, and the essentials were solid. We were in a falsely low and almost certainly temporary position compared to what had become our place in the football pyramid, we owned the ground, we owned the training ground, and we had manageable debt. We know this for a fact because it was managed.That the club is now valued not at the £16m it was then but the £62m it is now rather suggests my long-term view was valid. My understanding is that the directors review the share price (and so the value of the club) on an annual basis. I would be surprised if it went down any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The club''s share price reflects the value of the club. Delia''s shares, like mine, are only worth what someone is prepared to pay or what she is prepared to accept.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear that is so just completely and utterly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry NN - that was CP - you are completely correct.

Maybe CP will watch your helpful link and realise a few other things I''ve being saying about figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]Sorry NN - that was CP - you are completely correct.

Maybe CP will watch your helpful link and realise a few other things I''ve being saying about figures.[/quote]Never fear, T, I have read your thoughts on the share price. More than once. But, funnily enough, to read is not the same as to be convinced. And there is one tricky problem with your view that I have been wrong about the share price. And that is that I can name seven people who seem to think my long-term view was pretty much spot on.They are Delia Smith, Michael Wynn Jones, Alan Bowkett, Michael Foulger, Stephan Philips, Stephen Fry and David McNally. They are the ones who more than trebled it from £30 to £100, so I suggest rather than carrying on the argument here you put forward a motion at the next AGM calling for the price to be severely downgraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I would be surprised if it went down any time soon"

Lost me at this bit. We have a debt free club which will turn over in excess of £100m this season, which in the event of relegation could see revenue of a third of that next season.

If you are trying to say that the club would be worth as much on 1st July 2014 post-relegation as it was on 1st July 2013 then I''d need you to offer some sort of explanation there.

We would be going down with some huge liabilities (player contracts).

If Marks & Spencers revenue dropped by two thirds overnight and it had the same liabilities (e.g. store leases) I''d expect the share price to slump wouldn''t you?

Can you give me one example in the history of English football where a Championship side has been sold for the equivalent of £60m (or pro-rata for majority stake)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Le Juge"]"I would be surprised if it went down any time soon"

Lost me at this bit. We have a debt free club which will turn over in excess of £100m this season, which in the event of relegation could see revenue of a third of that next season.

If you are trying to say that the club would be worth as much on 1st July 2014 post-relegation as it was on 1st July 2013 then I''d need you to offer some sort of explanation there.

We would be going down with some huge liabilities (player contracts).

If Marks & Spencers revenue dropped by two thirds overnight and it had the same liabilities (e.g. store leases) I''d expect the share price to slump wouldn''t you?

Can you give me one example in the history of English football where a Championship side has been sold for the equivalent of £60m (or pro-rata for majority stake)?[/quote]The M&S shares are listed on a stock market, so there is much more volatility. Ours are not listed. As to whether there would be a downgrade if we got relegated there might be. But - and this is what I meant by anytime soon - I doubt it would happen immediately. The price is reviewed every year but I suspect the directors would at least wait to see if we got promoted straight back. Even then they might stick with it, because of the longer-terms prospects.The further point is that this £100 price is only really relevant in terms of a takeover, and might well not be stuck to even then, no matter which division we were in. It could just be the starting point for negotiations. If, as it happened, we were in the Championship and we got a takeover bid and the share price was still officially £100 then I assume the would-be owner would argue very strongly for a lower figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I,ve just been reading a professional valuation report done by a team of professional international valuation experts covering the various valuation methods and strangely enough the arbitary price allocated by the directors is not included as a valuation method. Either the arbitary value of a non publicly traded share allocated by the directors has nothing to do with the value of a business or we have a genius on the message board who has come up with a way of valuing a business that no professional experts or academics have ever come up with.

I must admit that it is both impressive and worrying that some people get take in by what is complete and utter nonsense.

No doubt this is someone who will continue to deny CH has outperformed his budget despite the comments from McNally yesterday such is the power of belief and ignorance over knowledge on this messageboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"No doubt this is someone who will continue to deny CH has outperformed his budget"

I thought they had budgeted for 16th, so how is he outperforming his budget? We are 16th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have we really gone back this season compared to last season? Has our upward trajectory from League 1 days finally reversed direction?

On the face of it the answer might be yes if you compare the points obtained, the goals scored, the goals against us this season with last season.

But this is a very odd season that has ten clubs all within a few points of the relegation zone. In a typical season a couple of clubs might be cut adrift by now and perhaps you''d be looking at another three or four hovering near the zone.

But this season even the tenth placed club is in danger of relegation so it is difficult to say that we really have gone backwards because if that is true then so have nine other clubs.

I think the truth is that this season has seen a greater levelling of funds available to clubs so that little old Norwich can now afford players such as Fer, who nearly went to Everton, and are able to bring in two expensive strikers in the same season.

So the ten clubs are all much of a muchness with squads of ability more equal than in the past. Even the promoted teams have been able to make expensive signings.

That''s why it is going to be too close to call this year. I predict last day of the season and the same ten clubs will still not be clear going into the last game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Le Juge"]"I would be surprised if it went down any time soon"

Lost me at this bit. We have a debt free club which will turn over in excess of £100m this season, which in the event of relegation could see revenue of a third of that next season.

If you are trying to say that the club would be worth as much on 1st July 2014 post-relegation as it was on 1st July 2013 then I''d need you to offer some sort of explanation there.

We would be going down with some huge liabilities (player contracts).

If Marks & Spencers revenue dropped by two thirds overnight and it had the same liabilities (e.g. store leases) I''d expect the share price to slump wouldn''t you?

Can you give me one example in the history of English football where a Championship side has been sold for the equivalent of £60m (or pro-rata for majority stake)?[/quote]The M&S shares are listed on a stock market, so there is much more volatility. Ours are not listed. As to whether there would be a downgrade if we got relegated there might be. But - and this is what I meant by anytime soon - I doubt it would happen immediately. The price is reviewed every year but I suspect the directors would at least wait to see if we got promoted straight back. Even then they might stick with it, because of the longer-terms prospects.The further point is that this £100 price is only really relevant in terms of a takeover, and might well not be stuck to even then, no matter which division we were in. It could just be the starting point for negotiations. If, as it happened, we were in the Championship and we got a takeover bid and the share price was still officially £100 then I assume the would-be owner would argue very strongly for a lower figure.[/quote]Le Juge, just to add to this point. The directors raised the official share price from £30 to £100 in July 2011, following promotion to the Premier League. Obviously the extra income and the prospect of paying off the debt greatly influenced that decision.But back then there was no guarantee we were going to stay into a second season, let alone a third. And if we had got relegated straight away we would almost certainly still be paying off the debt, because that was the deal.But despite the directors reviewing the £100 price both summers since 2011 there has been no movement up or down. In other words they haven''t reacted to every change in our circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]I,ve just been reading a professional valuation report done by a team of professional international valuation experts covering the various valuation methods and strangely enough the arbitary price allocated by the directors is not included as a valuation method. Either the arbitary value of a non publicly traded share allocated by the directors has nothing to do with the value of a business or we have a genius on the message board who has come up with a way of valuing a business that no professional experts or academics have ever come up with.

I must admit that it is both impressive and worrying that some people get take in by what is complete and utter nonsense.[/quote]T, you are getting rather confused by this. I can live with that, actually, but there is a danger you might confuse others. You seem to think I have said the directors used the share price to value the share price, or the share price to value the company. Not only is that not what I said, it is, more importantly, not what the directors did. You have it entirely back to front.The directors looked at various methods of valuing the company in the wake of our improved circumstances, settled on one particular method, and presumably came up with a figure of a bit over £60m. As a result they adjusted the share price upwards to reflect their valuation of the company, and to provide a starting point for any future takeover talks. As I have said several times before, it is a moot point whether  £100/£62m would stay the price at the end of negotiations.Whether their chosen valuation method (which as it happens IS one of those you will find at least partially approved of by those experts) is the right one is a matter of judgment. But at no point did they use the share price as a valuation. The change in the share price was a result of their revaluation.

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...