| Takeover Confirmed on 11:16 - Jun 8 with 1862 views | MoscowJack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:03 - Jun 8 by whiterock |
Some good points Nick
I've seen it in print many times that the Trust was willing to listen to offers about selling its shares, however, it suited HJ's agenda to wrongly assume otherwise.
This was mentioned in a public Forum in April at the Liberty and again at the the London Forum in May with HJ as guest. |
As you said, it's been mentioned a few times but have certain voices been louder in the American's ears? Did the Americans read the EP or Western Mail article or the Trust's comments in one of the very few statements where they've mentioned the willingness to sell?
Even if they read all of that, someone else has more control over what they hear every day anyway.
Also, why would they need to buy the Trust's 21% when 79% gives them everything they need? |  |
|  |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:20 - Jun 8 with 1852 views | whiterock |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:16 - Jun 8 by MoscowJack |
As you said, it's been mentioned a few times but have certain voices been louder in the American's ears? Did the Americans read the EP or Western Mail article or the Trust's comments in one of the very few statements where they've mentioned the willingness to sell?
Even if they read all of that, someone else has more control over what they hear every day anyway.
Also, why would they need to buy the Trust's 21% when 79% gives them everything they need? |
Someone else has certainly been in the American's ear that's for sure, hope he's happy | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:50 - Jun 8 with 1816 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:16 - Jun 8 by MoscowJack |
As you said, it's been mentioned a few times but have certain voices been louder in the American's ears? Did the Americans read the EP or Western Mail article or the Trust's comments in one of the very few statements where they've mentioned the willingness to sell?
Even if they read all of that, someone else has more control over what they hear every day anyway.
Also, why would they need to buy the Trust's 21% when 79% gives them everything they need? |
You're assuming they have 79%. Whoever is left would have a critical part to play in that regard.
You're right, majority or 75% control gives you enough to do pretty much what you want. However the Trust does have some soft, and hard, power should it choose to wield it. That will very much depend on the upcoming discussions.
Irony is if I were the Americans, a Venn diagram of my goals and the Trust's would relatively neatly align. It's in everyone's interests for the value of the club to grow, and projects such as stadium expansion, stadium purchase, keeping a reign on debt and preserving our PL status would be critical to those. Assuming they're rational of course which, having not met them, I couldn't possibly comment on. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 12:10 - Jun 8 with 1800 views | MoscowJack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:50 - Jun 8 by Uxbridge |
You're assuming they have 79%. Whoever is left would have a critical part to play in that regard.
You're right, majority or 75% control gives you enough to do pretty much what you want. However the Trust does have some soft, and hard, power should it choose to wield it. That will very much depend on the upcoming discussions.
Irony is if I were the Americans, a Venn diagram of my goals and the Trust's would relatively neatly align. It's in everyone's interests for the value of the club to grow, and projects such as stadium expansion, stadium purchase, keeping a reign on debt and preserving our PL status would be critical to those. Assuming they're rational of course which, having not met them, I couldn't possibly comment on. |
The Venn diagram and goals could well be perfectly aligned, but unless they want to talk to you, it's not very relevant.
It seems, from the outside anyway, that they have very little respect for the Trust or they would have been building the relationship in the same way they have been cuddling up to other shareholders. I know many might think "but the Trust aren't sellers, so why should they cuddle up to them?" but the Trust is going to have 21% of the club after the sale, so isn't it important to have some trust between business partners?
The cynical person inside me thinks they're not getting too cosy because they know what's coming and the Trust won't like it, but I could be very wrong. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 12:13 - Jun 8 with 1790 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 12:10 - Jun 8 by MoscowJack |
The Venn diagram and goals could well be perfectly aligned, but unless they want to talk to you, it's not very relevant.
It seems, from the outside anyway, that they have very little respect for the Trust or they would have been building the relationship in the same way they have been cuddling up to other shareholders. I know many might think "but the Trust aren't sellers, so why should they cuddle up to them?" but the Trust is going to have 21% of the club after the sale, so isn't it important to have some trust between business partners?
The cynical person inside me thinks they're not getting too cosy because they know what's coming and the Trust won't like it, but I could be very wrong. |
You may be right. You may be wrong. I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic. Frankly I think they've acted poorly to date, whether that is due to bad advice or their choice.
If they're sensible, they will know the best way to keep the fans onside is to keep the Trust onside, and to do that will take a number of guarantees and potentially concessions. We will see. I think the way they have ensured the local press is in their back pocket shows how sensitive they are to PR issues. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 12:25 - Jun 8 with 1771 views | max936 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 12:13 - Jun 8 by Uxbridge |
You may be right. You may be wrong. I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic. Frankly I think they've acted poorly to date, whether that is due to bad advice or their choice.
If they're sensible, they will know the best way to keep the fans onside is to keep the Trust onside, and to do that will take a number of guarantees and potentially concessions. We will see. I think the way they have ensured the local press is in their back pocket shows how sensitive they are to PR issues. |
This 79% l thought they had aquire 60% of the shares with some shareholders holding on to the other 19%, although in fairness that does virtually mean 79% because those other 19% aren't gonna object to what those Yanks may do. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 12:29 - Jun 8 with 1760 views | fbreath |
From a rational point of view you would think that the new shareholders would want the status quo.i.e. don't fix what isn't broken and just change the things that are obvious to increase revenue, efficiency etc.
But these people are ruthless in their actions, they are the kind of people who will do what they want and squash the little people in the way (not nice but this is business for them).
They will say all the right things but if it suits their agenda do the opposite. Think about what current shareholders have said/done.
In my experience in business it is not what people say you look at but what people do. There are a lot of smiling knives out there. |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 00:17 - Jun 9 with 1543 views | Rogerstone |
Has there been any statements or press release from the American businessmen? |  |
| "Gylfi's on fire, your defence is terrified!" |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Takeover Confirmed on 00:27 - Jun 9 with 1531 views | WarwickHunt |
| Takeover Confirmed on 00:17 - Jun 9 by Rogerstone |
Has there been any statements or press release from the American businessmen? |
Been a few in the EP and Western Mail. |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 02:31 - Jun 9 with 1508 views | SwansNZ |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:50 - Jun 8 by Uxbridge |
You're assuming they have 79%. Whoever is left would have a critical part to play in that regard.
You're right, majority or 75% control gives you enough to do pretty much what you want. However the Trust does have some soft, and hard, power should it choose to wield it. That will very much depend on the upcoming discussions.
Irony is if I were the Americans, a Venn diagram of my goals and the Trust's would relatively neatly align. It's in everyone's interests for the value of the club to grow, and projects such as stadium expansion, stadium purchase, keeping a reign on debt and preserving our PL status would be critical to those. Assuming they're rational of course which, having not met them, I couldn't possibly comment on. |
With regard to “keeping a reign on debt” — couldn’t the new owners actually be looking to do the opposite? Say they were to lend the club 50 million, then they could charge a higher percentage than they’d get elsewhere, and the club would have quite a debt? |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:34 - Jun 9 with 1452 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 02:31 - Jun 9 by SwansNZ |
With regard to “keeping a reign on debt” — couldn’t the new owners actually be looking to do the opposite? Say they were to lend the club 50 million, then they could charge a higher percentage than they’d get elsewhere, and the club would have quite a debt? |
Yes. And that would be a problem. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:37 - Jun 9 with 1445 views | monmouth |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:34 - Jun 9 by Uxbridge |
Yes. And that would be a problem. |
It's the only way they could fund stadium purchase or work though isn't it? Palatably to everyone (no dilution) I mean, so it must happen? The only argument is about the interest rate? I'm tired so might be talking gash. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:49 - Jun 9 with 1431 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:37 - Jun 9 by monmouth |
It's the only way they could fund stadium purchase or work though isn't it? Palatably to everyone (no dilution) I mean, so it must happen? The only argument is about the interest rate? I'm tired so might be talking gash. |
Heres a quick Google with regards to implications if selling shareholders do assign their voting rights on the residual shares to the VCs - taking their voting rights to 79%.
Special Resolutions
Certain more fundamental matters relating to a company require a special resolution. If you hold 75% or more of the shares you can ensure the passing of a special resolution. If you hold more than 25% of the shares (i.e. 25% plus 1 share) you can block the passing of a special resolution.
Special resolutions are required to:
- amend the company’s articles of association;
- change the company name;
- re-register the company as a public company;
- disapply members’ pre-emption rights when new shares are issued;
- reduce the company’s share capital;
- allow the company to buy back shares (including out of capital);
- wind the company up (though directors and creditors may also apply to court to initiate the winding up process in certain circumstances);
- if the company is being wound up in a solvent members’ voluntary liquidation, to authorise the liquidator to take certain steps in relation to the liquidation;
- to approve a scheme of arrangement or compromise with creditors proposed to be entered into by the company. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:57 - Jun 9 with 1415 views | monmouth |
Huh? My point is that we must take on £30m plus or so of debt to fund stadium purchase and work so we are going to be 'loaded up' with debt. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:20 - Jun 9 with 1387 views | dougie |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:37 - Jun 9 by monmouth |
It's the only way they could fund stadium purchase or work though isn't it? Palatably to everyone (no dilution) I mean, so it must happen? The only argument is about the interest rate? I'm tired so might be talking gash. |
Can they put loans in under ffp ? I thought money from owners had to be through equity ? | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:32 - Jun 9 with 1365 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:57 - Jun 9 by monmouth |
Huh? My point is that we must take on £30m plus or so of debt to fund stadium purchase and work so we are going to be 'loaded up' with debt. |
VCs will have debt covenants with £30m plus of debt and 79% equity.
The Trust will be squeezed by combination of VCs debt covenants and 79% voting rights.
Trust will have 2 directors on the Board though? | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:37 - Jun 9 with 1358 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:32 - Jun 9 by Nookiejack |
VCs will have debt covenants with £30m plus of debt and 79% equity.
The Trust will be squeezed by combination of VCs debt covenants and 79% voting rights.
Trust will have 2 directors on the Board though? |
Above in the thread there was discussion about not dismissing the VCs as maybe - there is goal alignment between the Trust's objectives and the VCs
I don't see how the club taking on £30m plus of debt (on top of current debt position - maybe this position improves in short term before players salaries catch up under new TV deal) will be aligned to Trust's previous objectives of not saddling the club with debt. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:04 - Jun 9 with 1340 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 07:37 - Jun 9 by monmouth |
It's the only way they could fund stadium purchase or work though isn't it? Palatably to everyone (no dilution) I mean, so it must happen? The only argument is about the interest rate? I'm tired so might be talking gash. |
No, concede that debt is inevitable if we want to expand or purchase. I was talking about punitive interest rates.
Debt in itself isn't an issue. It just needs to be serviceable and for a good reason. Stadium expansion is a good reason, buying players isn't. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:10 - Jun 9 with 1245 views | MoscowJack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:04 - Jun 9 by Uxbridge |
No, concede that debt is inevitable if we want to expand or purchase. I was talking about punitive interest rates.
Debt in itself isn't an issue. It just needs to be serviceable and for a good reason. Stadium expansion is a good reason, buying players isn't. |
What if the Americans put in 25m of their own money (well.....money from the members of their fund) instead of borrowing and the Trust had to put in their share of it to keep up the balance of power? | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:34 - Jun 9 with 1210 views | tomdickharry |
| Takeover Confirmed on 00:17 - Jun 9 by Rogerstone |
Has there been any statements or press release from the American businessmen? |
They aren't the owners yet,have to be approved by the PL,so until then they really can't say a lot if anything.Lets just all wait and see what their policy is going to be in the short/medium term,probably investment in the team,more expertese in the commercial department and stadium expansion could be high on their agenda. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:38 - Jun 9 with 1202 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:20 - Jun 9 by dougie |
Can they put loans in under ffp ? I thought money from owners had to be through equity ? |
I think ( may be wrong) that you can do for capital projects like the stadium and you can't for players salaries etc? The wording is something about funding losses through equity rather than loans - stadium expansion can be capitalised and won't hit losses (it does through amortisation but not in full - it's spread over several years). | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:21 - Jun 9 with 1153 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:10 - Jun 9 by MoscowJack |
What if the Americans put in 25m of their own money (well.....money from the members of their fund) instead of borrowing and the Trust had to put in their share of it to keep up the balance of power? |
We'd probably get into the unfairly prejudiced area in that scenario.
Dilution is a major concern of course. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:31 - Jun 9 with 1139 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:21 - Jun 9 by Uxbridge |
We'd probably get into the unfairly prejudiced area in that scenario.
Dilution is a major concern of course. |
Protection extends to value though not percentage. In other words, if they put in money at the same value as established in the sale (let's say £1m per 1% for ease - don't know what it actually is) then although the Trust own a lower % the value of investment is maintained. Because the club is worth more than it was (by the amount put in as equity).
Protection stops them putting in money at a discount - that's all.
If the prejudice claimed is ability to monetise and realise the increase in value underpinned by the sale, that's already happened (when the deal is completed).
Either money goes in via equity or debt - if neither happens there has been no investment in the club in which case claims of the deal being good for the club can't possibly be correct. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:34 - Jun 9 with 1133 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:31 - Jun 9 by londonlisa2001 |
Protection extends to value though not percentage. In other words, if they put in money at the same value as established in the sale (let's say £1m per 1% for ease - don't know what it actually is) then although the Trust own a lower % the value of investment is maintained. Because the club is worth more than it was (by the amount put in as equity).
Protection stops them putting in money at a discount - that's all.
If the prejudice claimed is ability to monetise and realise the increase in value underpinned by the sale, that's already happened (when the deal is completed).
Either money goes in via equity or debt - if neither happens there has been no investment in the club in which case claims of the deal being good for the club can't possibly be correct. |
Yep agreed .... I was trying to keep it simple :-)
The nature of what investment actually is seems to be lost on many. Nobody is ever going to gift money to the club ... there will be consequences to either scenario, as you outline. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:38 - Jun 9 with 1127 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:34 - Jun 9 by Uxbridge |
Yep agreed .... I was trying to keep it simple :-)
The nature of what investment actually is seems to be lost on many. Nobody is ever going to gift money to the club ... there will be consequences to either scenario, as you outline. |
Indeed - and neither is necessarily bad as you pointed out re debt.
Using debt to pay for stadium expansion is completely reasonable. Using it to pay for another Gomis is not. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
