Kanye West Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Money2.gif Oh dear, that is brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheffieldOwl47 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Money2.gifAbsolute Quality That!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edmontonowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Hats off to Whitechapel Owl Brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gazzaswfc Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 It's jeff sheard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevthelodgemoorowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Whitechapel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaskedowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Whitechapel: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaskedowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 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 More sharing options...
mosleyowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 That gif has made my morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Had to start another thread with it. It deserves wider viewing Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crag the owl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Money2.gif This is the best thing I have ever seen on the internet. Well done sir! 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deleted member Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Triple O seems to have it nailed there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shandypants Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 All as clear as mud. There are maybe some new shares, maybe owned by unamed person or persons. New shares may or may not be important or irrelevant. Thanks Mr F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple O Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 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 More sharing options...
daveyboy66 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) 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 January 26, 2015 by daveyboy66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concrete Owl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 All this speculation & configuration is hurting my brain. I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 MM sticking for 30 mill he wont drop further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest totemowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 It is possible that it is to do with loans but my interpretation is that it won't be. However that is just a view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now