Guest inman Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Can anyone tell me why the investors with shares will be left potless when the takeover is completed. And when somebody comes in and buy new shares these will have no affect on the share prices that the present incumbants have?? Seth had an argument on the radio with a bloke who kept on about charter house and how they had given back to the board over £17 MILLION sqiuds worth. PLEASE HELP CONFUSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadingOwl Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Can anyone tell me why the investors with shares will be left potless when the takeover is completed. And when somebody comes in and buy new shares these will have no affect on the share prices that the present incumbants have?? Seth had an argument on the radio with a bloke who kept on about charter house and how they had given back to the board over £17 MILLION sqiuds worth. PLEASE HELP CONFUSED Seth was right partly. I think. (I am not an expert of the Clubs shareholding). Any new investor will be given shares in the Club. Thus, diluting the existing shares to such an extent that they will be valueless (I know they are valueless now - but this is the principle). The boards shares will also be valueless - they will not be selling them, as such. Just having them diluted. Seth said, on this basis, the board don't want anything - they want to walk away (he says he has been told). The board are only hanging on because they love the Club and want the best deal for the Club. What he continuously fails to acknowledge is this same board have also loaned money to the Club. They will not walk away until they have agreement over payment for their loans. That is the sticking point with the investors and the board. All the investors money will not go the Club - he knows that (Seth), In different proportions the loan note holders will want their money back at different times. He is being disengeuous or just ignorant. He attempts to exonerate the board on this falsity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inman Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Seth was right partly. I think. (I am not an expert of the Clubs shareholding). Any new investor will be given shares in the Club. Thus, diluting the existing shares to such an extent that they will be valueless (I know they are valueless now - but this is the principle). The boards shares will also be valueless - they will not be selling them, as such. Just having them diluted. Seth said, on this basis, the board don't want anything - they want to walk away (he says he has been told). The board are only hanging on because they love the Club and want the best deal for the Club. What he continuously fails to acknowledge is this same board have also loaned money to the Club. They will not walk away until they have agreement over payment for their loans. That is the sticking point with the investors and the board. All the investors money will not go the Club - he knows that (Seth), In different proportions the loan note holders will want their money back at different times. He is being disengeuous or just ignorant. He attempts to exonerate the board on this falsity. So if thats right it also means that by diluting the shares it makes anybody buying shares (investors) also with diluted shares and not worth nowt , still a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobsworth Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Not sure on the figures (paowl is the best to confirm this) but I think Charterhouse bought shares worth around £17m. The money was squandered and then Charterhouse were bought out by HSBC who didn't want a football club on their portfolio so they off-loaded their shares for about a £15m loss to Hulley, Addey & Allen. Because they were deemed to be acting as a consortium they could only purchase 29.9% so they gave the rest to the Owls Trust (later Wednesdayite). Like I say, I'm not too sure of the figures but the guy on FH was suggesting that they were given to the 3 board members for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadingOwl Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Like I say, I'm not too sure of the figures but the guy on FH was suggesting that they were given to the 3 board members for free. He did. I thought that was interesting but I have absolutely no idea on that. Have to ask someone 'who knows his stuff'. (Not me!) I think the poster was asking a different point? How would investment work viz a viz a new share issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobsworth Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 He did. I thought that was interesting but I have absolutely no idea on that. Have to ask someone 'who knows his stuff'. (Not me!) I think the poster was asking a different point? How would investment work viz a viz a new share issue. Here is a personal tale: I worked for Telewest and we did a "debt for equity" swap. Which was because we owed the bank an absolute fortune. So they effectively bought up 98.5% of the company in return for the wipeout of the debt. This in effect meant that your £1 share would end up being worth just over a penny. At the time the share price was already at around a £0.01p anyway so my 11,500 shares where worth sweet FA. This is the kind of scenario that I would expect to happen to ordinary share holders of the current stock in SWFC plc. I can't imagine anyone coming in with a fresh injection of cash and allowing the current shareholding to profit from anything that the impact of a large financial investment will have. The way I see it, those that have a very small shareholding aren't in it for the money, they are in it for the love of the club. So losing a big percentage of FA isn't going to upset them so long as they can see light at the end of the tunnel. I'm not that bothered about those that have a large shareholding - perhaps they should have safegarded their interests a little more wisely in the last decade or two, otherwise we wouldn't be the position we find ourselves in today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inman Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Here is a personal tale: I worked for Telewest and we did a "debt for equity" swap. Which was because we owed the bank an absolute fortune. So they effectively bought up 98.5% of the company in return for the wipeout of the debt. This in effect meant that your £1 share would end up being worth just over a penny. At the time the share price was already at around a £0.01p anyway so my 11,500 shares where worth sweet FA. This is the kind of scenario that I would expect to happen to ordinary share holders of the current stock in SWFC plc. I can't imagine anyone coming in with a fresh injection of cash and allowing the current shareholding to profit from anything that the impact of a large financial investment will have. The way I see it, those that have a very small shareholding aren't in it for the money, they are in it for the love of the club. So losing a big percentage of FA isn't going to upset them so long as they can see light at the end of the tunnel. I'm not that bothered about those that have a large shareholding - perhaps they should have safegarded their interests a little more wisely in the last decade or two, otherwise we wouldn't be the position we find ourselves in today? ken bates chelsea comes to mind he bought them for a qiud but paid off their debt, thanks nobsworth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadingOwl Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 ken bates chelsea comes to mind he bought them for a qiud but paid off their debt, thanks nobsworth But the loan note holders on the Board won't accept a quid, they want millions back. That is what Seth fails to mention (deliberately). The Boards shares have nothing to do with it. He always mentions this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 ken bates chelsea comes to mind he bought them for a qiud but paid off their debt, thanks nobsworth Thats what he said he would do Read the Tom Bower book from a few years back - Out of Time - has a very interesting chapter on what he did with Chelsea and whether he fully paid the debt. Weren't the sanctions back then 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