Jump to content

Takeover...


Recommended Posts

This may be just a way of putting the equity and debts into order before a complete buyout.

The people who have loaned money by way of a charge on the ground may have accepted some of the new shares with MM taking the majority. This way all owners of shares get their proportion of the resulting sale.

The shares may be £1 each but this may not relate to the value of these shares at the point of sale.

For instance any buyer might have agreed to pay £37 per share and this way the value of the purchase is over £30000000.

Only a theory but quite often when the shares are not floated on the stock exchange the nominal value is just a pound or even a penny and this has no meaning as no-one can just buy them from a broker as there has to be an agreement to buy.

FWIW, this sounds more plausible to me than a lot of theories posted so far. But, maybe I'm just hoping that it had something to do with a possible takeover. However, as said earlier (sorry, I don't remember who said it) we don't even know who is behind the takeover "talks" so not sure how to feel about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all just theorising because until the annual return is completed by the club (not due until July) we simply don't have the evidence. Well unless the annual accounts say something by way of a post balance sheet event note

The favourites in no particular order are

1) UKFI just putting more money in but by way of new shares not a loan

2) As above but the money is backed by 3rd party money coming into UKFI

3) The conversion of the secured loans or part of them but with a re- jigging of the overall share ownership structure.

In my opinion 3 doesn't stack up just because the form says the new shares were issued at par. The conversion of a loan to equity should be done at the prevailing market value of the shares. The loan owner for tax reasons would want this. If it is 3 then in the near future we would see the charges being cleared. So not discounting it just consider it less probable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see why it's simpler. In fact I just don't buy into this loan conversions theory.

All those who have loans have a secured, defined sum with a defined rate of return. It doesn't make sense that they would agree to have those loans converted into shares, whose value will go up or down based on how much the buyer pays for the club.

But the value of the shares is defined by the seller and they don't fluctuate as they are not floated on the stock exchange.

Therefore IF agreement/payment has already/is about happen the new shares simply give the other interested parties a share of the purchase monies in proportion to the shares they hold. The purchases don't then need to negotiate or even communicate with the smaller share holders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the value of the shares is defined by the seller and they don't fluctuate as they are not floated on the stock exchange.

Therefore IF agreement/payment has already/is about happen the new shares simply give the other interested parties a share of the purchase monies in proportion to the shares they hold. The purchases don't then need to negotiate or even communicate with the smaller share holders.

Re read it...you could be right

Edited by daveyboy66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest totemowl

But the value of the shares is defined by the seller and they don't fluctuate as they are not floated on the stock exchange.

Therefore IF agreement/payment has already/is about happen the new shares simply give the other interested parties a share of the purchase monies in proportion to the shares they hold. The purchases don't then need to negotiate or even communicate with the smaller share holders.

The shares don't have any value unless there is a buyer, at least down the line. For instance, the seller may value them at X now, but at less than X when they are desparate to sell in the future.

What IF agreement has been reached but it falls through.The converted loans wouldn't be secured against the stadium, they wouldn't be getting interest, they would increase or decrease in value according to the value of the club. The loan holders could finish up a lot worse off. If they finished up a lot better off, than MM would have lost out by converting the loans.

Finally you last sentence assumes that negotiation has already taken place to convert the loans. Just doesn't stack up that this would save time or overheads, in fact it would waste them, not least on lawyers, etc etc.

It's simply not plausible, unlike those explanations put forward by alleycat and mkowls.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...