thorpie the sinner Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 With the share price plummetting, surely there is an investor out there willing to take a chance on a proud club who has fallen on hard times. A bit of TLC is all thats needed..........well and a major overhaul, but hey.... Come on, lets be aving you.....oh ****, thats a different club!!! Please.......
skintsaint Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Did I hear right that we are 27m in the red? So thats on top of buying enough shares. It isnt cheap?
Frank's cousin Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 YOu dont necessarily have to pay of the debt in a takover, provided you can demonstrate a strong and rock tight case for continuing th repaymenta nd renegotiate the contracts - it would be tricky though. Given teh current situation, If someone had 20 mil say, baught al the shares for 10 paid off the overdraft and had 2-3 mil left as a slush fund for when low monthly gates put pressure on the SMS loan repayments, it would be possible, but would not really release any cash for player investment and thats after 20 Mil, 30 and it could be done.
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 More share 'hoovering' this morning.... http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB0007922114GBGBXAIMI0792211SOO
Channon's Sideburns Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 More share 'hoovering' this morning.... http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB0007922114GBGBXAIMI0792211SOO Just depends who is doing the hoovering... Out of interest, if it is Lowe's Cabal hoovering up as many as possible, having used the Daily Mail as a mouthpiece and the Echo regarding our potential 'administration'....is it not Insider Dealing.... IF THEN the Interim Results come out and actually show that we are NOWHERE near Admin? Which in turn would increase the Share Price = Nice Fat Profit. Just a thought...
saint1977 Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Just depends who is doing the hoovering... Out of interest, if it is Lowe's Cabal hoovering up as many as possible, having used the Daily Mail as a mouthpiece and the Echo regarding our potential 'administration'....is it not Insider Dealing.... IF THEN the Interim Results come out and actually show that we are NOWHERE near Admin? Which in turn would increase the Share Price = Nice Fat Profit. Just a thought... To be fair, that's more Askham's trick than Lowe's. I don't like Lowe at all either but Askham has a track-record in creaming off money out of the club. Considering he's put about 50p in and isn't a fan, isn't it about time a total boycott stopped his gravy train?
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Just depends who is doing the hoovering... Out of interest, if it is Lowe's Cabal hoovering up as many as possible, having used the Daily Mail as a mouthpiece and the Echo regarding our potential 'administration'....is it not Insider Dealing.... IF THEN the Interim Results come out and actually show that we are NOWHERE near Admin? Which in turn would increase the Share Price = Nice Fat Profit. Just a thought... Nah...can't possibly be that....'market manipulation' is against the rules...
saint1977 Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 (edited) Nah...can't possibly be that....'market manipulation' is against the rules... Didn't stop people in 1996 (allegedly) did it? Edited 4 February, 2009 by saint1977
Weston Saint Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 If my understanding is correct anyone holding 3% or above for the first time are required to report it to the club who will inform the Stock Market by notice. Anyone who holds 3% or more whose % reduces or increases by 1%age point has to report such change. As there have been no reports to date we have to assume that any movement of shares in the past few weeks are insignificant and do not tell any stories. Assume it is so on the AIM.
saint1977 Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 If my understanding is correct anyone holding 3% or above for the first time are required to report it to the club who will inform the Stock Market by notice. Anyone who holds 3% or more whose % reduces or increases by 1%age point has to report such change. As there have been no reports to date we have to assume that any movement of shares in the past few weeks are insignificant and do not tell any stories. Assume it is so on the AIM. That was my understanding as well.
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 If my understanding is correct anyone holding 3% or above for the first time are required to report it to the club who will inform the Stock Market by notice. Anyone who holds 3% or more whose % reduces or increases by 1%age point has to report such change. As there have been no reports to date we have to assume that any movement of shares in the past few weeks are insignificant and do not tell any stories. Assume it is so on the AIM. Say I own +3% of 'company X' and get my mum, brother, uncle, nan, next door neighbour, old school friend, etc, etc, to buy 2.99% each 'on my behalf', would that slip in under the legal radar?
SaintRichmond Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Just depends who is doing the hoovering... Out of interest, if it is Lowe's Cabal hoovering up as many as possible, having used the Daily Mail as a mouthpiece and the Echo regarding our potential 'administration'....is it not Insider Dealing.... IF THEN the Interim Results come out and actually show that we are NOWHERE near Admin? Which in turn would increase the Share Price = Nice Fat Profit. Just a thought... Correct, you can bet your bottom dollar that they are being purchased in his name ..... next season ... "The St Rupert Lowe Stadium"
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Another nice tidy round 25,000 traded. That's 89,500 thus far today.... Cue "that's a drop in the ocean" replies.
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Say I own +3% of 'company X' and get my mum, brother, uncle, nan, next door neighbour, old school friend, etc, etc, to buy 2.99% each 'on my behalf', would that slip in under the legal radar? Anyone?
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Another nice tidy round 25,000 traded. That's 89,500 thus far today.... Cue "that's a drop in the ocean" replies. And a further 10,500 = almost 90,000 today now. Loving the new avatar, Trousers
Channon's Sideburns Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I wonder how many shares Lowe's crony Lord Marland has? Or David Ross (ex-Carphone Warehouse)? He has plenty of 'associates' who are probably 'worldly-wise' when it comes to the rules around shares.... Oops...that rules out Ross then
derry Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Anyone? I am sure that is an unconnected purchase, Stelios at Easyjet controls his sisters shares, giving him about 43% I believe, but he doesn't have to make an offer.
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I wonder how many shares Lowe's crony Lord Marland has? Or David Ross (ex-Carphone Warehouse)? He has plenty of 'associates' who are probably 'worldly-wise' when it comes to the rules around shares.... Oops...that rules out Ross then And let's not forget Bransgrove who's a pal of Marland and who has (allegedly) been a naughty boy too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jan/27/digger-ecb-marland
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I am sure that is an unconnected purchase, Stelios at Easyjet controls his sisters shares, giving him about 43% I believe, but he doesn't have to make an offer. So, bottom line then.....Lowe (or whoever) could be hoovering up shares without anyone noticing because they are clever enough to keep under the 3% 'individual ownership' radar?
Minsk Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Just depends who is doing the hoovering... Out of interest, if it is Lowe's Cabal hoovering up as many as possible, having used the Daily Mail as a mouthpiece and the Echo regarding our potential 'administration'....is it not Insider Dealing.... IF THEN the Interim Results come out and actually show that we are NOWHERE near Admin? Which in turn would increase the Share Price = Nice Fat Profit. Just a thought... Could a company who deal stocks and shares and with whom share holders with more 3% are involved (W H Ireland, for example) buy up shares without it appearing on the radar? I believe it was alledged that Askham did such a thing back in '96.
miserableoldgit Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I am probably being very naive, but I don`t understand why Lowe would want to buy the club after administration as so many people think. The general opinion is that he and The Jellyfish came back purely to protect their investments. I don`t how admin would cover this and why Lowe would want a League One club with no money and a very bleak future. I know people will say that he will buy the club for a quid because he is the Devil Incarnate and just to **** the supporters off, but it can`t be as simple as that - can it?:confused:
charliemiller Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Another nice tidy round 25,000 traded. That's 89,500 thus far today.... Cue "that's a drop in the ocean" replies. They are all sells , look at the traded price 17.5p Offer is 19p . Actually in a way thats more worrying , people jumping ship
Channon's Sideburns Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I am probably being very naive, but I don`t understand why Lowe would want to buy the club after administration as so many people think. The general opinion is that he and The Jellyfish came back purely to protect their investments. I don`t how admin would cover this and why Lowe would want a League One club with no money and a very bleak future. I know people will say that he will buy the club for a quid because he is the Devil Incarnate and just to **** the supporters off, but it can`t be as simple as that - can it?:confused: MOG...think about the assets that the club holds - you may be correct in assuming that he isn't interested in the FOOTBALL CLUB... It could mean however that he and Wilde want to be in pole position to hoover up some of the other assets (Jacksons Farm will be worth more in 3-5 years time when Government give approval to build...) Now, as majority controlling shareholders, it would be in their interests to ride off into the sunset after Admin with that as a prize, therefore leaving Leon to pick up the FC pieces. There HAS to be a REAL reason for their alliance...it ain't the Football folks.
Snowballs2 Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 YOu dont necessarily have to pay of the debt in a takover, provided you can demonstrate a strong and rock tight case for continuing th repaymenta nd renegotiate the contracts - it would be tricky though. Given teh current situation, If someone had 20 mil say, baught al the shares for 10 paid off the overdraft and had 2-3 mil left as a slush fund for when low monthly gates put pressure on the SMS loan repayments, it would be possible, but would not really release any cash for player investment and thats after 20 Mil, 30 and it could be done. Frank you spelling is worse than mine...In fact its sh1t
paris Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Is there really no way we can find out who's buying these share today and over the last few month's ? They are all sells , look at the traded price 17.5p Offer is 19p . Actually in a way thats more worrying , people jumping ship
GenevaSaint Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I am probably being very naive, but I don`t understand why Lowe would want to buy the club after administration as so many people think. The general opinion is that he and The Jellyfish came back purely to protect their investments. I don`t how admin would cover this and why Lowe would want a League One club with no money and a very bleak future. I know people will say that he will buy the club for a quid because he is the Devil Incarnate and just to **** the supporters off, but it can`t be as simple as that - can it?:confused: Surely he could buy the whole club for a minimum amount of money (not sure of an amount), and then IF (big one) we ever got back to the Prem he could sell for say 50 million. That's a hell of a return even if it is reliatively long term! A pretty good gamble in anyones eyes, not costing a huge amount of money and you wouldn't have to put any money into the club (no change there ;-) ) Would he be personally liable if it failed again as the owner???
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 MOG...think about the assets that the club holds - you may be correct in assuming that he isn't interested in the FOOTBALL CLUB... It could mean however that he and Wilde want to be in pole position to hoover up some of the other assets (Jacksons Farm will be worth more in 3-5 years time when Government give approval to build...) Now, as majority controlling shareholders, it would be in their interests to ride off into the sunset after Admin with that as a prize, therefore leaving Leon to pick up the FC pieces. There HAS to be a REAL reason for their alliance...it ain't the Football folks. CS I've always thought Jacksons Farm was instrumental in all this. However, IF the club went into administration I don't think they would end up with it. Surely, as an asset, it would be sold to put into the fund to pay off creditors?
Gingeletiss Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I am probably being very naive, but I don`t understand why Lowe would want to buy the club after administration as so many people think. The general opinion is that he and The Jellyfish came back purely to protect their investments. I don`t how admin would cover this and why Lowe would want a League One club with no money and a very bleak future. I know people will say that he will buy the club for a quid because he is the Devil Incarnate and just to **** the supporters off, but it can`t be as simple as that - can it?:confused: Jacksons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Weston Saint Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 They are all sells , look at the traded price 17.5p Offer is 19p . Actually in a way thats more worrying , people jumping shipFor there to be a sell there must be someone who is buying. The traders will not hold onto such stock unless someone is instructing them. The directors will not be able to deal until they release the half year results so I doubt it is them selling. The activity is speculation (as insider trading is illegal). If Jonah was about he might be able to provide a more technical explanation. My knowledge is limited on these matters.
charliemiller Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Is there really no way we can find out who's buying these share today and over the last few month's ? It is possible that these shares are currently being held in a brokers trade account. Market makers often purchase trades on T10 if they believe the stock is likely to move in the next two weeks or if they have a client who has asked for a set volume of notes that cant be achieved by a single purchase . In short you may well find that this a mopping up process on behalf on someone who needs to achieve in excess of 5% in one hit. That 5% could be critical with regard to only needing two major shareholders ownership to achieve in excess of 51 % IMHO of course.
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Surely he could buy the whole club for a minimum amount of money (not sure of an amount), and then IF (big one) we ever got back to the Prem he could sell for say 50 million. That's a hell of a return even if it is reliatively long term! A pretty good gamble in anyones eyes, not costing a huge amount of money and you wouldn't have to put any money into the club (no change there ;-) ) Would he be personally liable if it failed again as the owner??? I don't think he could continue as a director if it failed twice. I've just been reading this interesting thread - interesting to see the list of clubs that have gone to the wall over the years (towards the end of the document). http://www.playthegame.org/upload/billeder%202007%20konference/speakers/speakerdocuments/beechjohn.pdf On page 29 it says "anyone who has been a director of a club that has been in administration twice in a 5 year period....." would not pass the Fit and Proper Person test, so effectively be barred from being a director of a football club again. I'm sure this happened to a northern team recently, but I can't for the life of me find out any more.
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 It is possible that these shares are currently being held in a brokers trade account. Market makers often purchase trades on T10 if they believe the stock is likely to move in the next two weeks or if they have a client who has asked for a set volume of notes that cant be achieved by a single purchase . In short you may well find that this a mopping up process on behalf on someone who needs to achieve in excess of 5% in one hit. That 5% could be critical with regard to only needing two major shareholders ownership to achieve in excess of 51 % IMHO of course. If pushed for a guess, which two would you recommend I put my money on?
Gemmel Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I'm not sure that the share price falling helps those of us that want to rid the club of wilde and lowe. I can't see any of the major shareholders selling at the current figure and the lower it goes and the less the shares are worth, there's no incentive for them to do anything but carry on regardless, hoping that the players / team come good.
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Oops another 15,000 just traded - that's 115,500 traded today :shock:
The Incongruous Monk Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I'm not sure that the share price falling helps those of us that want to rid the club of wilde and lowe. I can't see any of the major shareholders selling at the current figure and the lower it goes and the less the shares are worth, there's no incentive for them to do anything but carry on regardless, hoping that the players / team come good. True. But even at 20p a share 2 million share's is £400,000. There may come a point where £400,000 is a damn site more appealing than the nothing they'd be worth in administration.
buctootim Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Just because shares are cheap doesnt mean they are good buy. BMW had to give a 'dowry' of £800million to the purchasers of Rover just so they could get it off their hands for £1 (ie they paid someone £799,999,999) just to take it away. How well is Rover doing now?
OldNick Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 True. But even at 20p a share 2 million share's is £400,000. There may come a point where £400,000 is a damn site more appealing than the nothing they'd be worth in administration.Couldnt LC buy £2m worth instead of saying the things he did in the press last week? I suspect it would put him in a position where he'd have to buy the whole out if he did though.
miserableoldgit Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Jacksons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How big is Jacksons Farm? I work in house-building and the way things are at the moment it is going to be quite some time before it is liable to be a sought after piece of land. I believe that Bovis have an option on it that must run out soon. Can`t see any of The Jellyfishes companies (if they still exist after the recession) being able to do much with it.
Window Cleaner Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Couldnt LC buy £2m worth instead of saying the things he did in the press last week? I suspect it would put him in a position where he'd have to buy the whole out if he did though. From whom ?? 10 million shares that would be. That would give him a 45% (or so) holding and under those circumstances he'd have to bid for the rest at 65p (I think) He's snookered like that, everybody knows it. He was rash and brash and now he's f*cked.
The Incongruous Monk Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Couldnt LC buy £2m worth instead of saying the things he did in the press last week? I suspect it would put him in a position where he'd have to buy the whole out if he did though. If he can convince someone to sell yes. However, he'd be mad and it would only serve to help oust Lowe. The club wouldn't see any of that money so it's not the same as a direct loan. Also his loan proposition would pretty much remove the threat of Administration (pay off the o/d), thus protecting his £2m. He'll get it back someday (probably). Buying up shares could very easily lose him the lot.
Weston Saint Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 From whom ?? 10 million shares that would be. That would give him a 45% (or so) holding and under those circumstances he'd have to bid for the rest at 65p (I think) He's snookered like that, everybody knows it. He was rash and brash and now he's f*cked. No, if he bought at 18p he only has to offer 18p for the rest. Forget he paid 65p, that is history and no bearing on any offer he makes for the club now.
saint1977 Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Just because shares are cheap doesnt mean they are good buy. BMW had to give a 'dowry' of £800million to the purchasers of Rover just so they could get it off their hands for £1 (ie they paid someone £799,999,999) just to take it away. How well is Rover doing now? Don't! I still remember that awful "Where's your Rover gone?" song at Villa fans when we were 2-0 up in 2005. We were soon quiet after such `heroic` defending by Jakobsson and Davenpoop in the second half, not to mention Olivier Bernard who thought he was a CM and left a gaping hole down our left-hand side. Can't believe someone has actually paid £3m for Davenport, he hasn't improved since either even if his Dad was a good player (Peter Davenport).
Window Cleaner Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 No, if he bought at 18p he only has to offer 18p for the rest. Forget he paid 65p, that is history and no bearing on any offer he makes for the club now. Hmmm, my understanding of Rule 9.5 is flawed then. Not surprising I'm a physicist not a banker.
Gordon Mockles Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 If my understanding is correct anyone holding 3% or above for the first time are required to report it to the club who will inform the Stock Market by notice. Anyone who holds 3% or more whose % reduces or increases by 1%age point has to report such change. As there have been no reports to date we have to assume that any movement of shares in the past few weeks are insignificant and do not tell any stories. Assume it is so on the AIM. Never under estimate those that know the Stock Market (i.e. Lowe). They could always have an "associate" hoover up shares and then commit their holding at a later date to the Lowe/Cowen proxy (or cabal/coven of money hungry parasites, etc.) I am VERY dubious with any business activities of Lowe's PLC (and how this vehicle has been abused by the shareholder to the detriment of the club - from the reverse takeover until today). Sorry to peddle the worn out line BUT unless we are bust and freed of these men (Lowe, Askham, Richards, Cowen, etc.) I fear the business will continue to be bandied as a business playground for those shareholders to profit, in some manner, despite how detrimental this may be to the club. * Look at the facts - we are at our lowest point in years and none of these "people" that supposedly have the club's best interests at heart have raised so much as a finger to help (maybe raised a middle finger!) * Look at the manner certain shareholders and chairmen have acted since relegation - in our hour of need NOTHING has been done to preserve the football side of the club (bar Crouch) yet Lowe demands 6 million from Crouch to help his investment...basically, a huge F*CK OFF and another illustration of egotistical contempt towards the opposing shareholders, the club, the fans and any hope we have for Championship survival. Lowe and his proxy = complete c**ts!
dubai_phil Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Issued capital approx 28,000,000 shares. We are discussing here the trading of 115,000 shares or about 0.4% Lowes group holds around 46%, Leon around 9% Doesn't look like it's gonna make a very big difference to the overall picture:-) But if it gets into the 4% of shares it could be interesting. Again though - There is NO point Leon buying ANY shares - The CLUB needs the money not some investor or fan somewhere. The idea of Lowe et al buying shares at this moment when he MUST know the complete condition and future of the club also seems outstandingly unlikely.
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 Issued capital approx 28,000,000 shares. We are discussing here the trading of 115,000 shares or about 0.4% Lowes group holds around 46%, Leon around 9% Doesn't look like it's gonna make a very big difference to the overall picture:-) But if it gets into the 4% of shares it could be interesting. At a 0.4% burn rate, it would only take another 9 similar 'hoovering events' to reach the 4% mark....and there have been plenty of similar 'round 5 figure' trading patterns over recent times....IMHO of course
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 At a 0.4% burn rate, it would only take another 9 similar 'hoovering events' to reach the 4% mark....and there have been plenty of similar 'round 5 figure' trading patterns over recent times....IMHO of course Indeed, and in fact over 200,000 have been traded in these first few days of February alone.
jonah Posted 4 February, 2009 Posted 4 February, 2009 I agree with Ron that the Rule 9 offer is only relevant to prices paid within the last 12 months, so the 65p price is old hat now and irrelevant. As for the rules about 3% shareholdings etc (Companies Act 1985 I think), you basically have to include spouse and children under 18. You also have to include beneficial holdings, CFDs and spread bets. And holdings by companies in which you have a controlling interest and any proxies of course. [Hence Lowe doesn't include his father's holdings, but Wilde had to include Merlion's and the proxies from McMenemy, Corbett, etc]. But you wouldn't have to notify selling down from say 3.9% to 3.1% as that doesn't cross a threshhold. I did metion in a post last week that some CFD/spreadbet companies were changing margins significantly which could cause people to close open positions - if this were the case then those trades could just be people closing their long positions.
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