How come

[saint_stevo]

Man City can get taken over in about half an hour yet we have been trying for about 2 years?

 

2 takeovers in 2 years, just plain greedy!

[Stu Man Do]

Perhaps the Thai bloke has seen what great potential there is here and will shortly be tabling a bid? =-o Isn't there a rule where by you can't own major shares in 2 clubs? I'm soooooo not ITK though if you know what I mean.

[Give it to Ron]

Are they a PLC??

[Window Cleaner]

Perhaps the Thai bloke has seen what great potential there is here and will shortly be tabling a bid? =-o Isn't there a rule where by you can't own major shares in 2 clubs? I'm soooooo not ITK though if you know what I mean.

 

I expect it's more to do with having to raise a bit of cash to pay for a new solid

gold lavvy seat as his Thai bank accounts are frozen.

[Window Cleaner]

a) I would rather remain poor forever, go into administration and end up supporting my team in the conference than take money from the likes of Shiniwatra for success.

 

.

 

I wouldn't, I have no scruples whatsoever as far as obtaining money for SFC goes I'm afraid. They could go and rob banks after training every day if it would save us from administration.'spect I'll get a lot of hassle for my "unhealthy" attitude eh what.

[Whitey Grandad]

I suspect it is because the business is a more attractive proposition, Premier League and all that.

[Deanovski]

i agree i dont care if its from saudi arabia ,pakistan HELL AFGHANISTAN WILL DO

as long as i see kaka in a saints shirt in my life time ill be happy,he does look good in one on fifa ^_~

[Wes Tender]

Taksin only took over Manchester City because it was a way of laundering all the money he pocketed with dodgey deals and corruption in Thailand. Most of his assets are in his wife's name to avoid being taken back. The benefit of taking over Man City was also because the Thais are avid watchers of the game and the name of the other Manchester club connects with them and the appearance of the City stadium on their TVs each week makes him out to be a much more important and influential figure in the World than otherwise. Although he would be put on trial on charges of corruption if he ever set foot in Thailand again, his party continues to do well in the polls because it bribes the voters in the poorer agricultural areas.

 

But like Adrian, I'd rather have somebody in charge of the club with money that they had obtained through honest endeavour, rather than from fraud, bribery or extortion.

[itchen]

Is it because City are a "massive club" ™?

[Window Cleaner]

Taksin only took over Manchester City because it was a way of laundering all the money he pocketed with dodgey deals and corruption in Thailand. Most of his assets are in his wife's name to avoid being taken back. The benefit of taking over Man City was also because the Thais are avid watchers of the game and the name of the other Manchester club connects with them and the appearance of the City stadium on their TVs each week makes him out to be a much more important and influential figure in the World than otherwise. Although he would be put on trial on charges of corruption if he ever set foot in Thailand again, his party continues to do well in the polls because it bribes the voters in the poorer agricultural areas.

 

But like Adrian, I'd rather have somebody in charge of the club with money that they had obtained through honest endeavour, rather than from fraud, bribery or extortion.

 

It's not the same thing Wes, if there's a choice between honest money and dishonest money ,it's a non-starter.But if there's the choice of administration or iffy money ,it's not quite so clear cut.

[alpine_saint]

Are they a PLC??

 

Nail head well-and-truly struck..

[Belgiansaint]

(...) They could go and rob banks after training every day if it would save us from administration. (...)

 

Saints only do night clubs.

[Whitey Grandad]

as long as i see kaka in a saints shirt in my life time ill be happy,he does look good in one on fifa ^_~

I've seen cack in a Saints shirt.

[eelpie]

Man City can get taken over in about half an hour yet we have been trying for about 2 years?

 

Because their Board said 'yes'.

[Leslie Charteris]

The current owner might need a bit of cash to grease a few palms back home soon. One of the hazards of having a dodgy foreign owner...

 

 

...eerie silence from the skates!

[saint1977]

Because of the tangled mess of share splits that Guy Askham has created in his dealings that made him a very wealthy man in the mid-1990s. No-one wants to deal with all of the different bickering parties and you can hardly blame them. Until Askham snuffs it and loosens one of the solid share proxies, it's status quo and likely further slide down the Leagues.

[buctootim]

Because their Board said 'yes'.

...to someone with the money.

[Window Cleaner]

...to someone with the money.

 

Talking of takeover money, are Coventry splashing the cash since Sisu took them over?

Ipswich have dobbed a bit, but woah they've had the same start as us .

[buctootim]

Talking of takeover money, are Coventry splashing the cash since Sisu took them over?

Ipswich have dobbed a bit, but woah they've had the same start as us .

 

Dunno.

hth

[saint1977]

...to someone with the money.

 

Correct although even for a buyer with the money, there are a lot of blockages at SFC, not to mention Mike Wilde who really needs to recoup some money on his shares after over-stretching to buy them. Whilst Askham is still around, I cannot see SFC moving towards a much-needed buy out.

[saint1977]

Talking of takeover money, are Coventry splashing the cash since Sisu took them over?

Ipswich have dobbed a bit, but woah they've had the same start as us .

 

In Cov's case, they were about 30 mins from administration, we can probably hobble on until XMAS although it's going to be tough. I did hear that administration might be an option pre-XMAS if we were in the relegation zone as the club really is struggling, it isn't just players' wages either, the academy is one of the best in the country but not viable in it's current size and form on CCC income sadly. So we need investment ASAP just to stay afloat.

[Delmary]

Because of the tangled mess of share splits that Guy Askham has created in his dealings that made him a very wealthy man in the mid-1990s. No-one wants to deal with all of the different bickering parties and you can hardly blame them. Until Askham snuffs it and loosens one of the solid share proxies, it's status quo and likely further slide down the Leagues.

At the moment the major shareholders are holding out for too much money to attract the right investor (not aka tyre-kickers - Fulthorpe and co). We are overpriced. They refused the SISU bid which was about 45p per share. The club realistically is only worth max 10p-18p per share. Until the major shareholders realise this, we are stuck with the current status quo or at worse administration. IMHO.

[aintforever]

Talking of takeover money, are Coventry splashing the cash since Sisu took them over?

Ipswich have dobbed a bit, but woah they've had the same start as us .

 

Compared to us Coventry have been splashing the cash. I said at the time we should have accepted SISU. Lowe, Wilde and Crouch refused it simply because of their own selfish reasons.

[Window Cleaner]

Compared to us Coventry have been splashing the cash. I said at the time we should have accepted SISU. Lowe, Wilde and Crouch refused it simply because of their own selfish reasons.

 

How much have they "splashed" then, genuine question;

[aintforever]

How much have they "splashed" then, genuine question;

 

I dunno how much they have spent but I know they have bought quite a few in, including Morrison and Eastwood. Plus they could afford a manager with a track record who is not being forced to field their youth team after having an entire first team flogged.

[BotleySaint]

It is easier to fool people into thinking they are buying Manchester United on the cheap?

[RinNY]

Man City can get taken over in about half an hour yet we have been trying for about 2 years?

 

2 takeovers in 2 years, just plain greedy!

 

The answer is simple: there were real people with real money interested in buying Man City. This as opposed to Saints, where we have had only false rumours (Paul Allen, Dubai investment consortium, the group involving Gregg), tire kickers with no real funds (Fulthorpe & co., Souness & co.), and one consortium turned down by the shareholders (Ranson & SISU).

 

If/when any real purchasers with real money do decide they want to buy Saints, you won't find the evidence on here from ITKers or other internet rumour-mongering. The evidence will be plain and very simple: an announcement that SFC is being bought. Goodness knows it's easy enough to do: an attractive offer for their shares to Lowe & co., Wilde, Crouch, & Corbett, allied with a general offer to all shareholders on the same terms. It just takes the money and the will. Unfortunately, both of those two things have been and are, and seem likely to remain, lacking.

[Window Cleaner]

Fair enough, but I wouldn't be able to support it, which would be crap for me as I love saints. I'd also struggle if we signed Joey Barton!

 

Some things are more important than football, IMO of course.

 

But this is football,ask any Chelsea,City or Pompey fan if they worry where the money comes from-of course they don't. To them it's a means to an end, it just isn't their problem. They pay their money and go to watch a horde of planetary stars wearing their team's shirt and winning (or perhaps) trophies.You support the team,who cares where the money that pays for it came from.Barton is a thug apparently, I wouldn't want him playing for us,nor Jack the Ripper neither

but as for worrying about the provenance of the wherewithal to pay for them-forget it.

[Amesbury Saint]

Because of the tangled mess of share splits that Guy Askham has created in his dealings that made him a very wealthy man in the mid-1990s. No-one wants to deal with all of the different bickering parties and you can hardly blame them. Until Askham snuffs it and loosens one of the solid share proxies, it's status quo and likely further slide down the Leagues.

 

offer 75p a share and I am sure a buyer could get 90% of the shareholding.

[lordswoodsaints]

3 options, pick which one you fancy...

a) nobody wants us

b) nobody has the money and time to buy us.

c) we aint worth what they are asking .

[Minty]

But this is football,ask any Chelsea,City or Pompey fan if they worry where the money comes from-of course they don't. To them it's a means to an end, it just isn't their problem. They pay their money and go to watch a horde of planetary stars wearing their team's shirt and winning (or perhaps) trophies.You support the team,who cares where the money that pays for it came from.Barton is a thug apparently, I wouldn't want him playing for us,nor Jack the Ripper neither

but as for worrying about the provenance of the wherewithal to pay for them-forget it.

 

I'm with adriansfc... any success that has been bankrolled by outside investment is very hollow to me... football has been ruined by money and I sincerely do not want Saints to become a part of something I strongly disagree with... that would be a moral dilemma I would rather not have to deal with.

 

The current set-up is as near as I've become to beign 'happy' with things, in terms of promoting young players from within, in a league that isn't awash with investment, for years. Hopefully we'll achieve something with them (over the coming years), even if it's just the ability to compete in the Championship. Ideally, the Premiership, or certainly top clubs with huge investment, will bugger off and leave the rest of us to compete for a title that means something if you win it, and not just having a big fat cheque book.

[washsaint]

Completely agree Minty....it actually feels like OUR club again (at least to me) because we have so many players that have come through the ranks rather than those looking for one last big pay day. And we're trying to do it the right way by playing attacking attractive football.

 

It was also interesting listening to Radio Hampshire last night when someone phoned in to say Lallana turned up for a charity event on Saturday night even though Saints lost and he was gutted. That speaks volumes for Adam and also the way these youngsters have been brought up by the club and their parents.

 

Compare this tale to the ones in recent years of players out on the lash all the time, making a nuisance of themselevs, etc. Since our younger players have started this season I have not heard any lurid tales of their behaviour (aside from BWP and Dyer months ago).

[alpine_saint]

A friend of mine stopped by here last weekend on his way home from holiday in the Balkans. He used to be a member of London Saints.

 

He reckons that certain investors were really willing to invest in SFC, once Lowe had sold up his shares following his resignation from SFC/SLH just over two years agao, but that the investment was conditional on Lowe selling his shares and having nothing more to do with the club.

 

As we know, Lowe dug his foot in about Crouch's offer because he wanted it extended to his whole group of cronies, and Crouch was unwilling or unable, and no-one else would offer the price Lowe wanted.

 

As a result, Mike Wilde's manifesto was left high-and-dry, Hone and Agent Orange got fooked off and booted him out with Crouch's help and the rest, as we know is history.

 

So ask yourself the question: is the block to investment the same now, as it was then, as it was before that : Rupert Lowe ???

[Legod Second Coming]

I'm with adriansfc... any success that has been bankrolled by outside investment is very hollow to me... football has been ruined by money and I sincerely do not want Saints to become a part of something I strongly disagree with... that would be a moral dilemma I would rather not have to deal with.

 

The current set-up is as near as I've become to beign 'happy' with things, in terms of promoting young players from within, in a league that isn't awash with investment, for years. Hopefully we'll achieve something with them (over the coming years), even if it's just the ability to compete in the Championship. Ideally, the Premiership, or certainly top clubs with huge investment, will bugger off and leave the rest of us to compete for a title that means something if you win it, and not just having a big fat cheque book.

 

Minty you are spot on fella.

 

Football at the highest level will simply consume itself.

 

You'll have a ridiculous league - a bit like the NFL or World-Series -where clubs will have no homes and play wherever around the world the highest bidder takes them - like the F1 circuit.

 

Why? Because money rules and there's more Liverpool fans paying more money in China and Russia than there are in Stanley Park.

 

Which will leave a kind of 'provincial' league here in the UK.

 

Of which we will be a part and with any luck we'll be a significant player within that league.

 

And slowly, as the world wakes up to that old Cree Indian philosophy, people will come to appreciate us for what we are and do.

 

The philosophy? Oh yeah, it's on my office wall:

 

"Only when the last tree has been cut down,

Only when the last river has been poisoned

Only when the last fish has been caught,

Only then, then will you learn that money cannot be eaten."

 

Shame football doesn't appreciate this, or governments, but there you go...

[um pahars]

At the moment the major shareholders are holding out for too much money to attract the right investor (not aka tyre-kickers - Fulthorpe and co). We are overpriced. They refused the SISU bid which was about 45p per share. The club realistically is only worth max 10p-18p per share. Until the major shareholders realise this, we are stuck with the current status quo or at worse administration. IMHO.

 

I definitely agree that we are overpriced, but have to say I also think that even at 10p (valuing us at £3m) we are still overpriced.

 

We are losing money big time and it would be a big ask for someone to come in and pay for the privilege of funding our losses.

 

The vast majority of takeovers in the Championship in recent years have been for nominal sums for this very reason.

 

I am amazed that people are considering paying anything for the shareholdings of the Lowe cabal and Wilde.

[OldNick]

I definitely agree that we are overpriced, but have to say I also think that even at 10p (valuing us at £3m) we are still overpriced.

 

We are losing money big time and it would be a big ask for someone to come in and pay for the privilege of funding our losses.

 

The vast majority of takeovers in the Championship in recent years have been for nominal sums for this very reason.

 

I am amazed that people are considering paying anything for the shareholdings of the Lowe cabal and Wilde.

Doesn't the market decide a stocks value? OK the major players can hold off for a big price but there is no general trading of shares and so until there is a seller it is hard to assess what the value really is. If one of the bigger holders decided to cash in you may then see a drop in price because I doubt there is a fund manager who would wish to pay 30 p at present and so the offer would be much lower for a large stake.

[dubai_phil]

A friend of mine stopped by here last weekend on his way home from holiday in the Balkans. He used to be a member of London Saints.

 

He reckons that certain investors were really willing to invest in SFC, once Lowe had sold up his shares following his resignation from SFC/SLH just over two years agao, but that the investment was conditional on Lowe selling his shares and having nothing more to do with the club.

 

As we know, Lowe dug his foot in about Crouch's offer because he wanted it extended to his whole group of cronies, and Crouch was unwilling or unable, and no-one else would offer the price Lowe wanted.

 

As a result, Mike Wilde's manifesto was left high-and-dry, Hone and Agent Orange got fooked off and booted him out with Crouch's help and the rest, as we know is history.

 

So ask yourself the question: is the block to investment the same now, as it was then, as it was before that : Rupert Lowe ???

 

Yes

 

and No.

 

The story of the Rupert offer has been dissected on TSF before. I'm pretty sure that if any of us asked him he would say that he felt a loyalty to those who had "got him into power in the first place". I cannot criticise that belief, but I can, like you, argue that it wasn't the right decision.

 

What we SHOULD ask, is that when that happened, WHY didn't the incoming crew themselves "bite the bullet" and extend the offer to the other shareholders?

IMHO either they did not have enough money (which SHOULD have set off alarm bells) OR their ONLY motivation was to get rid of Rupert (which leaving his cronies around would NOT have really happened)

 

I have heard that he would sell, but then we've all heard different rumours from different places, the problem is still the "value" placed on those shares or the "price" paid hasn't a cat in hell's chance of being realised in the CURRENT economic climate. IF we survive this season and we have a sensible cost base, IF the kids really mature, THEN the shares may be worth something again and they may have the chance to recoup some of their investment (or shares in lieu of payment)

 

I said when Rupert returned that he was taking one hell of a gamble, not just on coming back but also on the management and the strategy. I felt then it may be one risk too many, but IF you stand to lose "everything" then most of us would TRY and put up one last fight, so I understand them doing that.

 

Anyway, with the two main shareholders working together there ARE still ways of getting investment in stages that doesn't involve selling up yet.

 

We'll see if it happens, but cannot see it myself until we (or the economy) are out of intensive care and into a stable but poorly condition. Unless there is another sovereign wealth fund out there that likes to build from the bottom up rather than from the top down.....

[OldNick]

Yes

 

and No.

 

The story of the Rupert offer has been dissected on TSF before. I'm pretty sure that if any of us asked him he would say that he felt a loyalty to those who had "got him into power in the first place". I cannot criticise that belief, but I can, like you, argue that it wasn't the right decision.

 

What we SHOULD ask, is that when that happened, WHY didn't the incoming crew themselves "bite the bullet" and extend the offer to the other shareholders?

IMHO either they did not have enough money (which SHOULD have set off alarm bells) OR their ONLY motivation was to get rid of Rupert (which leaving his cronies around would NOT have really happened)

 

I have heard that he would sell, but then we've all heard different rumours from different places, the problem is still the "value" placed on those shares or the "price" paid hasn't a cat in hell's chance of being realised in the CURRENT economic climate. IF we survive this season and we have a sensible cost base, IF the kids really mature, THEN the shares may be worth something again and they may have the chance to recoup some of their investment (or shares in lieu of payment)

 

I said when Rupert returned that he was taking one hell of a gamble, not just on coming back but also on the management and the strategy. I felt then it may be one risk too many, but IF you stand to lose "everything" then most of us would TRY and put up one last fight, so I understand them doing that.

 

Anyway, with the two main shareholders working together there ARE still ways of getting investment in stages that doesn't involve selling up yet.

 

We'll see if it happens, but cannot see it myself until we (or the economy) are out of intensive care and into a stable but poorly condition. Unless there is another sovereign wealth fund out there that likes to build from the bottom up rather than from the top down.....

Has anyone else factored in the fact that a major shareholder paid 60p+ for his stake and may not wish to take less than half back?

It is always seen as RL as not willing to sell where surely LC would not be too keen to lose so much.I dont know if he is all systems go to do so but it would gall him to lose a million or so easily.

[um pahars]

Doesn't the market decide a stocks value?

 

But there is no real "market" for our shares.

 

There are no major institutional shareholders and instead the majority of our shares are in the hands of a few players i.e. Lowe's cabal, Wilde, Crouch & Corbett's.

 

On top of that there are a vast number of shareholders who are fans and hold them as a sentimental investment as opposed to an investment that they might trade.

 

They are simply worth what anyone is prepared to pay (and the AIM listing is almost irrelevant), and recent history has shown that Championship Clubs do not fetch anything other than a nominal value (Wolves, Coventry, Ipswich, Leicester etc).

 

Lowe's cabal and Wilde have nothing to gain by letting their shares go for a nominal fee (even if it is in the Club's best interests), and so instead will sit on them and hope that things turn wround on the pitch before more drastic options are considered.

[Whitey Grandad]

Has anyone else factored in the fact that a major shareholder paid 60p+ for his stake and may not wish to take less than half back?

It is always seen as RL as not willing to sell where surely LC would not be too keen to lose so much.I dont know if he is all systems go to do so but it would gall him to lose a million or so easily.

They've already lost the money. They have been spending far more than the company is worth so their net value is now almost nothing.

[dubai_phil]

Has anyone else factored in the fact that a major shareholder paid 60p+ for his stake and may not wish to take less than half back?

It is always seen as RL as not willing to sell where surely LC would not be too keen to lose so much.I dont know if he is all systems go to do so but it would gall him to lose a million or so easily.

 

Well I did:-)

 

It's like the "revulsion" many feel at paying a dividend (when we could). At the end of the day the company SLH gives it's shares as security for "investment" that can be financial (at the time of listing) or for "services" as stock options or grants to employees they wish to reward. (We can all argue whether the employees were WORTH it!)

 

But the same people who feel that way would not expect to get a bank loan without interest and would expect serious problems in their life when/if they don't/can't repay. The money for the shares was a LOAN which the investors hoped would make a return. UNTIL the UK Gov changes the way capitalism works, sentimental investors remain few and far between.

 

Why should we expect people (like Leon) to give away their money, rather than TRY and get some or all of it back? I know you guys had New Labour for a long time but didn't think we'd gone totally commie share everything with everyone (after those in power get most of it!)

[saint_stevo]

Sod moral dilemmas, i don't wanna be crap anymore.

[aintforever]

If we went into administration could the shareholders be forced to accept a realistic price as some sort of rescue package?

 

Surely the only way the ownership of the club will change is if we either manage to get promoted on a shoestring (very unlikley) or go down and go into admin (way more likley).

[um pahars]

What we SHOULD ask, is that when that happened, WHY didn't the incoming crew themselves "bite the bullet" and extend the offer to the other shareholders?

 

Crouch offered to buy out Lowe's shares (at I think 60p+), but he was never in a position to buy the rest as this would have taken him over the 30% figure and he never had the money to bid the circa £20m or the entire share capital.

 

Crouch never claimed to have that level of funding (nor did Wilde).

 

the problem is still the "value" placed on those shares or the "price" paid hasn't a cat in hell's chance of being realised in the CURRENT economic climate. IF we survive this season and we have a sensible cost base, IF the kids really mature, THEN the shares may be worth something again and they may have the chance to recoup some of their investment (or shares in lieu of payment)

 

I said when Rupert returned that he was taking one hell of a gamble, not just on coming back but also on the management and the strategy. I felt then it may be one risk too many, but IF you stand to lose "everything" then most of us would TRY and put up one last fight, so I understand them doing that.

 

Exactly.

 

If your shares are going to be worthless in administration and you're not being offered anything other than a nominal figure then your instinct might be to tough it out and hope you can turn it around.

 

Of course selling for a nominal figure to someone else might be in the best interests of the Club, but I think Lowe's cabal and Wilde are putting their own interests first here.

 

Anyway, with the two main shareholders working together there ARE still ways of getting investment in stages that doesn't involve selling up yet.

 

What were you thinking of????

 

Can't see how anyone from outside would invest as a minority and I can't see those two groups putting any money in.

[OldNick]

Well I did:-)

 

It's like the "revulsion" many feel at paying a dividend (when we could). At the end of the day the company SLH gives it's shares as security for "investment" that can be financial (at the time of listing) or for "services" as stock options or grants to employees they wish to reward. (We can all argue whether the employees were WORTH it!)

 

But the same people who feel that way would not expect to get a bank loan without interest and would expect serious problems in their life when/if they don't/can't repay. The money for the shares was a LOAN which the investors hoped would make a return. UNTIL the UK Gov changes the way capitalism works, sentimental investors remain few and far between.

 

Why should we expect people (like Leon) to give away their money, rather than TRY and get some or all of it back? I know you guys had New Labour for a long time but didn't think we'd gone totally commie share everything with everyone (after those in power get most of it!)

Perhaps some are happy for others to lose money on a football club, but stay away and not pay into the pot themselves, but then feel free to criticise those that do.

LC is likely to be the biggest victim and although I am very critical in his involvment I do find he has been the biggest fall(fool) guy in all of this.

It is unfortunate but perhaps vanity got in the way of good financial sense.

[dubai_phil]

What were you thinking of????

 

Can't see how anyone from outside would invest as a minority and I can't see those two groups putting any money in.

 

Just something that was once said by someone in a response to something I posted on the old JF thread on TSF. No idea how, when or if it could work but I do wonder it it may have some mileage after the "option" expires. And no I ain't stupid enough to post my nutty theories on here:-)

 

How was the tour of Asia?

[dubai_phil]

Perhaps some are happy for others to lose money on a football club, but stay away and not pay into the pot themselves, but then feel free to criticise those that do.

LC is likely to be the biggest victim and although I am very critical in his involvment I do find he has been the biggest fall(fool) guy in all of this.

It is unfortunate but perhaps vanity got in the way of good financial sense.

 

Fan first businessman second is the wrong mix.

 

Maybe ONE day it will be possible, it used to be "once upon a time", as I think Ashley is finding up in Toon land and Leon did here. Tough lesson

[saint_bert]

Sorry for sounded thick but what exactly happens at board room level if a club goes into admnistration? Would Rupert et al lose their shareholdings?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

All of this is just killing football. It's starting to become an fookin circus. It won't be long before all of the mega rich clubs (give it 10 years) in the prem lobby the FA to stop promotions and relegations.

[scooby]

 

b) They got over 30,000 fans a lot of the time when in league 1, yet we manage 15,000 a league above with a young team that needs support. Perhaps they deserve a bit more success than us.

 

Here-here!

 

The boo boys and the stay aways have a lot to answer for.