Legod Third Coming Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Right, so our board want to run a business do they? Well then, this is what you do. We have a rights issue next week at 20p a share. I'll buy some. You will buy some. We'll have a stake in the club. All these fans with cash can buy some. They will have a stake in the club. The club will have the money it needs to pay off some of the overdraft and stave off relegation. What's stopping you Rupert and Co - your own greed?? Above the needs of the business and shareholders you purpot to represent? Shame on you.
dubai_phil Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Good plan, but didn't some of the banks want to do this instead of the whole takeover thingy and it actually takes a long time to put together? No expert, just something I read
Window Cleaner Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Right, so our board want to run a business do they? Well then, this is what you do. We have a rights issue next week at 20p a share. I'll buy some. You will buy some. We'll have a stake in the club. All these fans with cash can buy some. They will have a stake in the club. The club will have the money it needs to pay off some of the overdraft and stave off relegation. What's stopping you Rupert and Co - your own greed?? Above the needs of the business and shareholders you purpot to represent? Shame on you. Wouldn't work, there are far too many rights issues just now. Everybody wants cash and nobody that has any is letting go of it easily.
bridge too far Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Wouldn't work, there are far too many rights issues just now. Everybody wants cash and nobody that has any is letting go of it easily. But I bet there's still a good number of fans who'd be willing to fork out £100. That would soon mount up. I would
Wade Garrett Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 I wouldn't give bugger all if Lowe and Wilde were going to be in charge of my investment.
exit2 Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 No point a share issue will raise less then 10% of the value of the company. I reckon £300k max
Window Cleaner Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 But I bet there's still a good number of fans who'd be willing to fork out £100. That would soon mount up. I would Sorry to say this BTF but 100£ is the square root of f-all. That's WI cake sale money. Rights issues concern current shareholders first and then new shareholders get a chance. If those that hold shares decline their part their investment ends up by being diluted. Do not forget that some mugs paid £1.50 a share at the outset.Do not forget either that we have 2 major shareholders who paid 49p and 65p respectively; If say Wilde turned down his share (or Crouch or Unicol engineering or whoever) and you bought their part at 20p a share your totally new shareholding obtained for a fraction of the price they paid would have an equal value to theirs. It's just not on, it means that those who havev already lost a packet would have to stump up more to saveguard their investment. this is why the major shareholders rolled about on the floor laughing at the SISA proposal.
bridge too far Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Sorry to say this BTF but 100£ is the square root of f-all. That's WI cake sale money. Rights issues concern current shareholders first and then new shareholders get a chance. If those that hold shares decline their part their investment ends up by being diluted. Do not forget that some mugs paid £1.50 a share at the outset.Do not forget either that we have 2 major shareholders who paid 49p and 65p respectively; If say Wilde turned down his share (or Crouch or Unicol engineering or whoever) and you bought their part at 20p a share your totally new shareholding obtained for a fraction of the price they paid would have an equal value to theirs. It's just not on, it means that those who havev already lost a packet would have to stump up more to saveguard their investment. this is why the major shareholders rolled about on the floor laughing at the SISA proposal. Points taken WC. My heart was ruling my head there for a moment
Legod Third Coming Posted 2 January, 2009 Author Posted 2 January, 2009 Sorry to say this BTF but 100£ is the square root of f-all. That's WI cake sale money. Rights issues concern current shareholders first and then new shareholders get a chance. If those that hold shares decline their part their investment ends up by being diluted. Do not forget that some mugs paid £1.50 a share at the outset.Do not forget either that we have 2 major shareholders who paid 49p and 65p respectively; If say Wilde turned down his share (or Crouch or Unicol engineering or whoever) and you bought their part at 20p a share your totally new shareholding obtained for a fraction of the price they paid would have an equal value to theirs. It's just not on, it means that those who havev already lost a packet would have to stump up more to saveguard their investment. this is why the major shareholders rolled about on the floor laughing at the SISA proposal. That's business. Directors buy shares all the time to prop up thier share price and to show they have FAITH they can turn things and the share price around. Are you saying our Directors/shareholders are exempt from blame on how the share price of their business performs?? This is a wonderful opportunity for them to increase their shareholding and when they make the club a success, for them to make a packet. Oh, you see a flaw don't you... IS it that the current Directors/shareholders are inept??
corky morris Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 I dont think Rupert would be happy to dilute his share holding. Mind you we would have been £1.4m better off if Rupert had not bought back shares Share Buybacks May 2002 400,000 @ 35p = £140,000 June 2002 2,746,153 @ 30p = £823,845 Oct 2002 1,120,000 @24p = £268,800 Sept 2004 450,000 @ 44p = £198,000 TOTAL - £1,430,645 At the AGM Lowe suggested it was to support the share price. And people believe that he is a sound business man! Beggers belief!
Legod Third Coming Posted 2 January, 2009 Author Posted 2 January, 2009 I dont think Rupert would be happy to dilute his share holding. Mind you we would have been £1.4m better off if Rupert had not bought back shares Share Buybacks May 2002 400,000 @ 35p = £140,000 June 2002 2,746,153 @ 30p = £823,845 Oct 2002 1,120,000 @24p = £268,800 Sept 2004 450,000 @ 44p = £198,000 TOTAL - £1,430,645 At the AGM Lowe suggested it was to support the share price. And people believe that he is a sound business man! Beggers belief! Then Rupert could fund £1.4m of a rights issue. Leon has offered £2m. We are already halfway through paying off our overdraft. And it's only taken twenty minutes so far. Keep going.
Scummer Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Then Rupert could fund £1.4m of a rights issue. Leon has offered £2m. We are already halfway through paying off our overdraft. And it's only taken twenty minutes so far. Keep going. That £1.4m was club money spent on buying back shares, not money Rupert earnt.
corky morris Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 That £1.4m was club money spent on buying back shares, not money Rupert earnt. And who suggested we buy back the shares then scummer? It was the only part of the AGM where the audience got the administrator to count the votes as by show of hands the board was out numbered. It may well not have been Ruperts money, but why the hell did Southampton football club need to buy back shares? I questionned Rupert & he got Andrew Cowan to answer who fluffed & puffed his way through to say absolutely nothing. It is a big a disgrace now as it was then. IMMORAL!
Legod Third Coming Posted 2 January, 2009 Author Posted 2 January, 2009 That £1.4m was club money spent on buying back shares, not money Rupert earnt. Who did the club buy the shares from?
WealdSaint Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 THe only way we are likely to have a rights issue would be if Rupert had some chums lined up to buy the shares. What Ruperts want less than anything is fans (particularly one Leon Crouch) owning too many shares..........heaven knows they might vote off the board again...FOR GOOD
Scummer Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Who did the club buy the shares from? The market.
Scummer Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 And who suggested we buy back the shares then scummer? It was the only part of the AGM where the audience got the administrator to count the votes as by show of hands the board was out numbered. It may well not have been Ruperts money, but why the hell did Southampton football club need to buy back shares? I questionned Rupert & he got Andrew Cowan to answer who fluffed & puffed his way through to say absolutely nothing. It is a big a disgrace now as it was then. IMMORAL! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was a good idea. I think the whole idea of trying to prop up the share price is stupid, especially for an illiquid stock like SLH where there are few shareholders.
Mole Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Lowe won't want his power or his shares worth watering down. My avatar shows what Lowe is all about.
Gemmel Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 At the AGM under special business, there was a motion for the authority to allot unissued shares. Does this mean they can go to lowe wilde, & cowan? Doers anybody know how many shares are invloved? Would these be the shares that the club used to buy? http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11126
buctootim Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 At the AGM under special business, there was a motion for the authority to allot unissued shares. Does this mean they can go to lowe wilde, & cowan? Doers anybody know how many shares are invloved? Would these be the shares that the club used to buy? http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11126 No they dont go to Lowe or Cowan or any other shareholder. The authority basically allows the directors to use the shares in the interests of the company - including a rights issue.
Gemmel Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 No they dont go to Lowe or Cowan or any other shareholder. The authority basically allows the directors to use the shares in the interests of the company - including a rights issue. Cheers, so i assume they could sell them to the open market? I only asked about them going to the directors as they are on reduced salaries, maybe they are part of some share option package or something similar. It would be interesting to know how many they are talking about
SET Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Why bother with rights issue. Setup something similar to MUST and as a collective group invest in shares, the long term aim being fan ownership of the club. http://www.joinmust.org With fans having the option of buying shares through a Saints Supporters Trust it would not take too long before fans held a sizeable chunk of the club.
buctootim Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Cheers, so i assume they could sell them to the open market? I only asked about them going to the directors as they are on reduced salaries, maybe they are part of some share option package or something similar. It would be interesting to know how many they are talking about They could sell them to the open market as part of a rights issue, offer them to specific external investors (like Barclays did with the Middle East sovereign funds recently), create a share option package for staff /directors or even to fund an all share take over of another company (unlikely I know). ps. Seeking this kind of authority is pretty routine annual occurrence at most companies. It means the directors have the authority to act if something comes up. It doesnt necessarily mean something is brewing.
SET Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Just had a look on AIM the club's share capital is currently £6.1m If 5103 people invested £100 a month into a Supporters trust, fans would own all Saints Shares in 12months I realise that's simplistic, but shows that it is acheivable and realistic to believe that fans could own SFC within the next 5-10 years if not sooner. Especially if you coud get Leon to hand over his Proxy as well
derry Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 (edited) Does that mean that nearly 5m of the total 28m are held by SLH? That would mean that Lowe, Wilde, etc have a much bigger percentage of the issued shares, 23m not 28m. Do the Directors have to give notice if they sell any of these shares? Edited 2 January, 2009 by derry
Scottie Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Why bother with rights issue. Setup something similar to MUST and as a collective group invest in shares, the long term aim being fan ownership of the club. http://www.joinmust.org With fans having the option of buying shares through a Saints Supporters Trust it would not take too long before fans held a sizeable chunk of the club. A supporters trust really won't help us. All this means is that we would own the club but it still would be broke/ Conversely a rights issue would inject money into the club thus improving our financial position. However a right's issue at 20p, even with the a 1 for 1 basis that would mean at best £6m injected into the club (probably lower due to costs). This would only help the problem in the short term.
Gemmel Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Does that mean that nearly 5m of the total 28m are held by SLH? That would mean that Lowe, Wilde, etc have a much bigger percentage of the issued shares, 23m not 28m. Do the Directors have to give notice if they sell any of these shares? Buctootim, seems to know his stuff with share info, but my undertstanding is they dont have to give notice, unless they are exercising options. I'm not sure where you get the 5million figure from? But i would be interested to know just how mnay shares we are talking. I know that we consistently (As a club) bought are own shares, so it might be a fairly significant chunk
bridge too far Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 At the bottom of this page is a list of shareholders owning more than 3% of the shares. Would the club's holding have to be shown too? http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp
Mole Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Why bother with rights issue. Setup something similar to MUST and as a collective group invest in shares, the long term aim being fan ownership of the club. http://www.joinmust.org With fans having the option of buying shares through a Saints Supporters Trust it would not take too long before fans held a sizeable chunk of the club. A supporters trust was tried at Saints and it failed for various reasons which have been well documented and discussed many times on here. The Saints Trust won't even publish their true membership number so i don't think they are transparent and besides who in their right mind would want to give Nick Illingsworth a platform for misrepresenting the feeling amonst the fanbase?
Weston Saint Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 When the shares are bought back by a company they are cancelled and of no value. The idea is to enhanse the value of the shares still in circulation. If you want to issue more new shares it can only be done with shareholders authority. The club say the recent intem on the AGM agenda was there to be used if necessary but no immediate intention of doing so.
70's Mike Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Funny how those who decry the original post are firmly in Ruperts camp. We are basically a private company who happen to have plc status. all over the country small business like slh , are being funded by their owners at this time either by loans or guaranteeing overdrafts etc BUT FOR SOME REASON this is not an acceptable thing for SLH. Those who have the most to lose must make a decision either fund the company or let it go broke because their current policy is just leading to a continued downward spiral, crap team leads to less fans so less income, to even crapier team. THE CHOICE IS YOURS MESSRS lowe, wilde, crouch, withers, askham, richards and co between you it is your business
aintforever Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 I dont think Rupert would be happy to dilute his share holding. Mind you we would have been £1.4m better off if Rupert had not bought back shares Share Buybacks May 2002 400,000 @ 35p = £140,000 June 2002 2,746,153 @ 30p = £823,845 Oct 2002 1,120,000 @24p = £268,800 Sept 2004 450,000 @ 44p = £198,000 TOTAL - £1,430,645 At the AGM Lowe suggested it was to support the share price. And people believe that he is a sound business man! Beggers belief! How do these buy backs benefit the football team? They obviously benefit Lowe because his shares are worth more, they obviously also benefit Lowe because it makes the club harder to takeover. How does it benefit the team?
70's Mike Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 How do these buy backs benefit the football team? They obviously benefit Lowe because his shares are worth more, they obviously also benefit Lowe because it makes the club harder to takeover. How does it benefit the team? do not hold your breath waiting for an answer that makes sense
corky morris Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 It never did benefit the team! That was the question i asked at the AGM & I did not get a sensible answer. Below is a table of the dividends & the shares we bought back under Ruperts command. Over £4.5m wasted. Basically if Rupert owned 5% of the company then he would be entitled to 5% of all the dividends. So on top of his salary, his share options, his pension scheme he also got a nice bonus when he supported the dividend. An extra £150k+ for relegating Southampton F.C. What could we do with that £4.5m now? Dividends Sept 2000 - £324,123 Sept 2001 - £328,070 Sept 2002 - £593,218 Sept 2003 - £856,227 Sept 2004 - £856,227 Sept 2005 - £140,000 TOTAL - £3,097,865 Share Buybacks May 2002 400,000 @ 35p = £140,000 June 2002 2,746,153 @ 30p = £823,845 Oct 2002 1,120,000 @24p = £268,800 Sept 2004 450,000 @ 44p = £198,000 TOTAL - £1,430,645
Legod Third Coming Posted 2 January, 2009 Author Posted 2 January, 2009 So far, all we have heard from Rupert is how he is saving money. Well, that's great. Every business needs to cut costs. BUT they also need to increase revenue or income. So come along Rupert, Michael and friends - what are the grand plans to raise money?? Now that all the silver is just about pawned... Once every player of any value is gone, then what's the idea?? And you had the audacity to criticise the last board for hoping that a white knight was out there, oh and they found one too - which you rejected. So what's your plan - quickly, the clock is ticking - another day wasted.
Amesbury Saint Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 Who are Cheviot Asset Management and Charles Stanley and Co (I assume they are holding the shares on behalf of someone else?) Shareholders who hold more than 3% Amount % Holding Michael Wilde 4,622,470 16.46 Leon Adrian Crouch 2,794,230 9.95 Rupert Lowe 1,577,969 5.62 R M Withers 1,125,000 4.00 Guy Askham 1,120,000 3.99 Cheviot Asset Management 939,430 3.34 Michael Richards 873,000 3.11 Charles Stanley & Co Ltd 863,185 3.07 I dont really undersatnd the Board's strategy. I understand the bit about needing to cut costs, up to a point. Getting rid of expensive ineffective players - ok. BUT by end of January we will be starting to discuss the early bird season ticket offer. Price will be a factor but how much optimism will the board have created regarding 09/10 season? Without a degree of optimism why will the same number of people buy season tickets. Buying a ticket is about watching a football match but its also about going with the optimism and hope that your team will win. In the premiership I always though Saints could beat Liverpool, Arse, Man Utd and on accassions we did. There are not many matches I now think we can win. Saga not getting international clearance is an example of a major **** up by the club management. He just may have been the player to score in the 86 minute to win us the game. But the club could not get clearance sorted on ending of a loan they knew the end date months ago. 2 good loan players going back on the eve of playing Man Utd. Does not make sense. Even if the club had no real say - did we get suitable replacements lined up? I dont think so. So do the Board have any real plans other than to cut costs? With falling income more costs have to be cut. Being a Saints fan is often about having unrealistic optimism. The Board has almost killed my optimism. When they plan their next budget with lower costs, dont automatically plan to have my ticket money. You need to do more than just put 11 boys out on the pitch in red and white stripped shirts. Andrew
SaintRobbie Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 I wouldn't give bugger all if Lowe and Wilde were going to be in charge of my investment. Yep I think that sums it up nicely. Good idea though.
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