What Would They Be Buying?

[SilverFox]

Any idea how much he will have made from Portsmouth Jeff?

Not unless he is MM's bank manager:icon_lol:

 

[Durham Fox]

Any idea how much he will have made from Portsmouth Jeff?

I understand it was in the region of £30m

 

[Jeff]

I understand it was in the region of £30m

He sold the club for £30ish million, but that's not necessarily how much money he made from them. I don't know how much of his own money he put in, and how much he took out during his time there.

 

[Durham Fox]

He sold the club for £30ish million, but that's not necessarily how much money he made from them. I don't know how much of his own money he put in, and how much he took out during his time there.

Sorry my mistake, he sold for £34M I think. I would think his profit was a substantial part of that.

 

[bocadillo]

If the new share issue gives someone more than 50% ownership the decision making will be down to one person.

Can you really imagine that a board would issue so many additional shares? The FT has already admitted it is unlikely in the case of LCFC.

Additionally no businessman is likely to be willing to pay full price for newly issued shares if it is likely to suggest an unrealistic (in his opinion) valuation on those shares that are already in existence. A business is worth what it is worth - this is not necessarily the same amount as it was bought for.

 

[Jeff]

Can you really imagine that a board would issue so many additional shares?

Why not?

Additionally no businessman is likely to be willing to pay full price for newly issued shares if it is likely to suggest an unrealistic (in his opinion) valuation on those shares that are already in existence. A business is worth what it is worth - this is not necessarily the same amount as it was bought for.

Why do you think the club is worth less now than it was when the current owners bought it?

Liabilities have been reduced substantially since then, and some of our players now would fetch decent transfer fees, which wasn't the case 4 years ago.

 

[homer]

Why not?




Why do you think the club is worth less now than it was when the current owners bought it?

Liabilities have been reduced substantially since then, and some of our players now would fetch decent transfer fees, which wasn't the case 4 years ago.

Is he 'avin' a laff

I said is he 'avin' a laff........

 

[Jeff]

Is he 'avin' a laff

I said is he 'avin' a laff........

We turned down a million pound offer for one of our players in the summer.
The likes of McCarthy, Kisnorbo, Stearman, Hume, Fryatt would all fetch decent fees, and the younger players coming through will also be worth something with a few more games.

Compare that with 4 years ago when we had players like Flowers, Elliott, Jones etc all taking home tens of thousand pounds a week but we couldn't give them away.

 

[homer]

We turned down a million pound offer for one of our players in the summer.
The likes of McCarthy, Kisnorbo, Stearman, Hume, Fryatt would all fetch decent fees, and the younger players coming through will also be worth something with a few more games.

Compare that with 4 years ago when we had players like Flowers, Elliott, Jones etc all taking home tens of thousand pounds a week but we couldn't give them away.

We also had Walker, Izzett and Dickov who, collectively at that time, would be worth more than our current squad put together

We also had a squad that was onj our way to promotion to the Premier league - rather than one that was perilously close (for the third season running) to being on its way down to division 1

 

[Dunc]

We also had Walker, Izzett and Dickov who, collectively at that time, would be worth more than our current squad put together

We also had a squad that was onj our way to promotion to the Premier league - rather than one that was perilously close (for the third season running) to being on its way down to division 1

Apart from the fact no one wanted or could afford them. any potential buyer at that time would have been saddled with their wages for another 18months.

 

[bocadillo]

Because the debate started because of his alleged interest, and some people here seem to think it's only a matter of time before he turns up. They also seem to think that a good businessman can come into a club like ours and make a profit.

If someone comes in with the idea of making a profit I don't think the club should be sold on the cheap.

If someone comes in with a genuine interest in the club doing well I don't think there's any reason why the current shareholders should sell, just issue more shares. The money the new person puts in could then go into the squad rather than going to the existing shareholders.

Yours was the 34th message in this thread and only the 2nd to mention Mandaric in relation to his buying of a stake in the club. The initial debate here was in relation to what a buyer (any buyer) would actually be buying and has turned into a debate about the price the club might be purchased for.

I don't think that anybody has suggested that the club should be sold 'on the cheap' - just that it would sell for its value.

Whether the existing shareholders should sell or not would be a matter for them, but if they are interested in hanging on to control of the club, they are not likely to sanction the issuance of huge numbers of additional shares to fulfil your proposal. If somebody does come along with enough readies to buy the whole club, that is exactly what they will want to do. If they meet obstruction from current shareholders, they are likely to find another home for the money - this might not be in the best interests of the current shareholders who might then be left to reflect on their folly.

 

[homer]

Apart from the fact no one wanted or could afford them. any potential buyer at that time would have been saddled with their wages for another 18months.

True

They would also have been "saddled" with all of the premier league cash, and crowds of 30,000 a week

 

[Jeff]

We also had Walker, Izzett and Dickov who, collectively at that time, would be worth more than our current squad put together

We also had a squad that was onj our way to promotion to the Premier league - rather than one that was perilously close (for the third season running) to being on its way down to division 1

The players you mentioned may have been assets on the pitch, but off it, financially they were a huge burden on the club. They were liabilities, not assets.

We'd tried to sell or give away virtually the whole squad the previous summer but the only players we could get rid of were the kids who were on low wages.
No one wanted our players because they couldn't afford their wages. Dickov may have been affordable from a wages point of view, but he only had a few months left on his contract, so we couldn't have received a fee for him.


When the new owners took us out of administration the biggest 'debt' they took on was the value of the players contracts. The players we had at the time were due £17 million in wages.

 

[Jeff]

True

They would also have been "saddled" with all of the premier league cash, and crowds of 30,000 a week

We wouldn't have had 'all the premier cash' because at the time we weren't in the Premiership, and there was no guarantee we'd go up. We'd have been guaranteed the second year of parachute payments - and some clubs were trying to stop us getting that.

It's also misleading to talk about the 30,000 crowds as though the new owners received the gate money. When the new owners took over they received none of the season ticket money for that season, so the ticket income was more like what they'd receive from crowds half the size.
The same thing with sponsorships etc, the new owners received none of the money that companies had paid at the start of the season.

 

[bocadillo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bocadillo
Can you really imagine that a board would issue so many additional shares?

Why not?

In such circumstances the existing members would be likely to be marginalised very quickly. They have two realistic options: either they decline to issue such shares and hang on to control of the club and whatever that may bring; or they sell their holdings.

My opinion that the Board would not be likely to issue such a large number of shares seems to be shared by the FT (as per their posting last night.)

Why do you think the club is worth less now than it was when the current owners bought it?

Liabilities have been reduced substantially since then, and some of our players now would fetch decent transfer fees, which wasn't the case 4 years ago.

None of which necessarily means anything at all. The value of the club (and its shares) will be decided when (and if) an offer is made. It is not in the nature of the football business that investors in a club at our level are able to fully realise their investment.

 

[Jeff]

If somebody does come along with enough readies to buy the whole club, that is exactly what they will want to do.

But I would think it's in the best interests of the club if that doesn't happen.

If the club is for example worth £5 million, someone who wants to take over the club completely would have to pay £5 million to current shareholders before they can do anything to strengthen the playing side.

But if instead the club issues new shares for say £6 million, enough to give the new person control, all of that money could be spent on the squad.


If a potential new owner is not happy about owning 51% and wants to own 100% I'd question his motives, would he be doing it for his ego rather than for the good of the club?

 

[Durham Fox]

But I would think it's in the best interests of the club if that doesn't happen.

If the club is for example worth £5 million, someone who wants to take over the club completely would have to pay £5 million to current shareholders before they can do anything to strengthen the playing side.

But if instead the club issues new shares for say £6 million, enough to give the new person control, all of that money could be spent on the squad.


If a potential new owner is not happy about owning 51% and wants to own 100% I'd question his motives, would he be doing it for his ego rather than for the good of the club?

I very much doubt a big investor would come in on those terms.

 

[bocadillo]

But I would think it's in the best interests of the club if that doesn't happen.

If the club is for example worth £5 million, someone who wants to take over the club completely would have to pay £5 million to current shareholders before they can do anything to strengthen the playing side.

But if instead the club issues new shares for say £6 million, enough to give the new person control, all of that money could be spent on the squad.


If a potential new owner is not happy about owning 51% and wants to own 100% I'd question his motives, would he be doing it for his ego rather than for the good of the club?

I'm sorry. We are arguing round in circles here. What does it take for you to understand that the present board are not going to issue enough new shares for somebody to get a 51% holding.

 

[homer]

But I would think it's in the best interests of the club if that doesn't happen.

If the club is for example worth £5 million, someone who wants to take over the club completely would have to pay £5 million to current shareholders before they can do anything to strengthen the playing side.

But if instead the club issues new shares for say £6 million, enough to give the new person control, all of that money could be spent on the squad.


If a potential new owner is not happy about owning 51% and wants to own 100% I'd question his motives, would he be doing it for his ego rather than for the good of the club?

Why on earth would anyone want to invest £5 million into the club and then see the current "LCFC Co-operative" sit down and decide how to spend it? Therein lies madness
Of course you would want to have a controlling stake to safeguard your investment - that's just common sense, and nothing to do with ego. There are no altruisitc investors out there any more, and no one in their right mind would give five million big ones away to see the current set-up pizz it all down the drain

 

[Jeff]

What does it take for you to understand that the present board are not going to issue enough new shares for somebody to get a 51% holding.

If you give me a good reason I might understand it.

In such circumstances the existing members would be likely to be marginalised very quickly. They have two realistic options: either they decline to issue such shares and hang on to control of the club and whatever that may bring; or they sell their holdings.

You're talking about the club's current owners as though it's a single person.

The existing shareholders are already "marginalised". None of them have much influence. If someone owns 5% now and that may in future be only 2.5%, it won't really make much difference, so why would that be a reason for them to refuse to do it?