Whitey Grandad Posted 4 February, 2009 Share 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? The short answer is 'yes'. I think the relevant term is 'controlling' the shares as far as the Inland Revenue are concerned. Providing that they are bona-fide independent shareholdings with no agreement regarding voting rights then I reckon that you should be in the clear. But don't quote me on this or rush out and start buying them now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 February, 2009 Share 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. Is that because of the time that has lapsed since his initial purchase at 65p? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 I see the 'market' has now knocked the share price down to 17.50p to fall more in line with the price at which today's +100k tranche of shares has swapped hands at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 I see the 'market' has now knocked the share price down to 17.50p to fall more in line with the price at which today's +100k tranche of shares has swapped hands at. In fact, fellow share sleuth, the latest sale was at 16.50p (it was only a measly 325 shares though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 The amounts trading are minnimal - there are sme 28million shares out there so a couple of hundred thou is nothing significant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 The amounts trading are minnimal - there are sme 28million shares out there so a couple of hundred thou is nothing significant... Not necessarily (I won't bore people with my usual hypothesis on this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 The amounts trading are minnimal - there are sme 28million shares out there so a couple of hundred thou is nothing significant... Except for the people who've probably lost a packet of money on them. Take those 30K sells at 17p. It's very likely that those(that) investor paid 35/40p for them. 6.9K£ lost on an investment at least twice that size. Makes no sense to me but there must be a reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 If Crouch was prepared to invest £2million how about he buys £2million pounds worth ofLowe and Wildes shares instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 If Crouch was prepared to invest £2million how about he buys £2million ponds worth ofLowe and Wildes shares instead? Don't they need to want to sell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 If Crouch was prepared to invest £2million how about he buys £2million pounds worth ofLowe and Wildes shares instead? Leon: "Rupert, Michael. Top of the morning to you both. Please can I buy £2m worth of your shares at 16p a throw?" Rupert/Mike: "No" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 Don't they need to want to sell? We're getting quite good at this, aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 Now there's been another 25,000 but I don't understand what 'Bargain conditions apply' means :confused: http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=SOO&share=SOUTHAMPTON_LS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 Now there's been another 25,000 but I don't understand what 'Bargain conditions apply' means :confused: There's a closing down sale on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 There's a closing down sale on. Like a BOGOF you mean? I wish Rupey would bog off :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 Now there's been another 25,000 but I don't understand what 'Bargain conditions apply' means :confused: http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=SOO&share=SOUTHAMPTON_LS. Bargain conditions apply Definition A term used by the London Stock Exchange to denote that certain conditions were agreed between the two participants at the time of trading. http://www.finance-glossary.com/terms/bargain-conditions-apply.htm?id=1978&ginPtrCode=00000&PopupMode= "Certain Conditions".....now there's a phrase to whet the appetite of your average conspiracy theorist.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 If there is somebody daft enough to throw his/her millions into a football club , they will wait until administration, not pay a premium for an ailing organisation........so the true picture will only become known in that event..........probably won't be long before we find out!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 Although the share prices has gone down I honestly believe that things are not as desperate financially as Lowe makes out. I think it was an excuse to try his kids total football Dutch style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 I'll ask the question again is there really no way of finding out who's buying today and recently ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 I can understand people wanting to sell but why buy now, unless you are LC/MW etc? Given the debt the club has, its day to day financial position and its league position how much are shares really worth? Could they fall as low as 5p per share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 I can understand people wanting to sell but why buy now, unless you are LC/MW etc? Given the debt the club has, its day to day financial position and its league position how much are shares really worth? Could they fall as low as 5p per share? I reckon they will be 15p next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmary Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 (edited) I reckon they will be 15p next week.Further panic selling will drive the price down much lower. Not a good time to hold onto SFC shares. Edited 4 February, 2009 by Delmary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 Is LC our last hope? If so, how can we help him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 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: My hunch, no accusations, no evidence, just a gut feeling and, while sailing close to the wind, all probably above board and highly legit. Lowe and Wilde come back. In tow, and unbeknown to us, they have a consortium who are ready, willing and able. BUT they need to pay bottom dollar for whatever reason. So Lowe and Wilde, whilst doing their very best, happen to get to the stage where the club is placed in administration. Out from the shadows steps a consortium (fronted by RL and MW) who successfully negotiate control of the club, wiping all the overdraft and other lesser borrowings off (leaving only the stadium mortgage, which is amply provided for in the negotiations between the consortium, Aviva and the O.R.). Not only this but they can provide ample funds for a concerted push for promotion from L1 (despite any points deduction). Now, in all that we must remember that ALL the shareholders lost their holdings. However, in their first released trading figures, a year or so later, the consortium reveals that RL and MW received, over and above their salary, a 'brokerage fee' that is at least equal to the value of their lost shareholdings and is paid, tax free, in whatever way they use to describe it. As this is a hunch, and I am certainly no financial or legal whizz kid, I have to ask, is this possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Price now dropped to 15p and another 27,000 just traded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Price now dropped to 15p and another 27,000 just traded! still says 17.50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 still says 17.50 I have to be honest - I never know which is the ACTUAL price as three are shown: http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=SOO&share=SOUTHAMPTON_LS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWillie Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 My hunch, no accusations, no evidence, just a gut feeling and, while sailing close to the wind, all probably above board and highly legit. Lowe and Wilde come back. In tow, and unbeknown to us, they have a consortium who are ready, willing and able. BUT they need to pay bottom dollar for whatever reason. So Lowe and Wilde, whilst doing their very best, happen to get to the stage where the club is placed in administration. Out from the shadows steps a consortium (fronted by RL and MW) who successfully negotiate control of the club, wiping all the overdraft and other lesser borrowings off (leaving only the stadium mortgage, which is amply provided for in the negotiations between the consortium, Aviva and the O.R.). Not only this but they can provide ample funds for a concerted push for promotion from L1 (despite any points deduction). Now, in all that we must remember that ALL the shareholders lost their holdings. However, in their first released trading figures, a year or so later, the consortium reveals that RL and MW received, over and above their salary, a 'brokerage fee' that is at least equal to the value of their lost shareholdings and is paid, tax free, in whatever way they use to describe it. As this is a hunch, and I am certainly no financial or legal whizz kid, I have to ask, is this possible? ESB - I have been thinking this for some time. Certainly possible and very achievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 I have to be honest - I never know which is the ACTUAL price as three are shown: http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=SOO&share=SOUTHAMPTON_LS. One is the buy price (usually the highest), one is the sell price (usually the lowest) and one is the mid price, which is the average of the two and is the figure quoted in newspapers and on most websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Looks like someone is regularly dumping shares (as much as the market can take in one transaction) to get out of this market although I assume Mark's explanation might still apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 One is the buy price (usually the highest), one is the sell price (usually the lowest) and one is the mid price, which is the average of the two and is the figure quoted in newspapers and on most websites. So what's the 'trade price' then? In the link I gave, it's shown as 15p :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 So what's the 'trade price' then? In the link I gave, it's shown as 15p :confused: What you see is the last trade price for a batch of shares. The mid point has remained unaltered at 17.5p. I could by some shares for 50p and that would show as the last trade but it will unlikely alter the mid point price unless I bought a very large amount as Crouch did when he entered the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 What you see is the last trade price for a batch of shares. The mid point has remained unaltered at 17.5p Thanks R. (I think ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Thanks R. (I think )see my added comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Looks like someone is regularly dumping shares (as much as the market can take in one transaction) to get out of this market although I assume Mark's explanation might still apply. It would be interesting to find out just who is selling...Is someone trying to jump ship and get a small return before administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 It would be interesting to find out just who is selling...Is someone trying to jump ship and get a small return before administrationPossibly but not those on the inside. They should not be trading at the moment as they will be aware of the last 6 months trading figures but the market does not. Insider Trading Rules. Could be someone on the outside of course. Mark's (Jonah) explanation is probably the correct one though. If it is the same person and they hold over 3% of the stock then it will be reported when they go below that 3% or move between % points above that level. 4.95% to 4.05 % will not be reported but 4.95% to 3.99% will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 It would be interesting to find out just who is selling...Is someone trying to jump ship and get a small return before administration A logical hypothesis IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Possibly but not those on the inside. They should not be trading at the moment as they will be aware of the last 6 months trading figures but the market does not. Insider Trading Rules. Could be someone on the outside of course. Or someone in that grey area between the 'inside' and 'outside'....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Market cap now below £5m (@£4.92m) Significant psychological threshold perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Or someone in that grey area between the 'inside' and 'outside'....?If you have information from the inside which is not generally know and you act on that information for financial gain that is Insider Trading, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Possibly but not those on the inside. They should not be trading at the moment as they will be aware of the last 6 months trading figures but the market does not. Insider Trading Rules. Could be someone on the outside of course. Mark's (Jonah) explanation is probably the correct one though. If it is the same person and they hold over 3% of the stock then it will be reported when they go below that 3% or move between % points above that level. 4.95% to 4.05 % will not be reported but 4.95% to 3.99% will As we are operating "Normally" in a financial sense I have a feeling that the insider rules would not apply, there is enough "grey" at the moment to make this uncertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Except for the people who've probably lost a packet of money on them. Take those 30K sells at 17p. It's very likely that those(that) investor paid 35/40p for them. 6.9K£ lost on an investment at least twice that size. Makes no sense to me but there must be a reason for it. A loss of 6.9K is better than a total loss in 5 weeks time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 A loss of 6.9K is better than a total loss in 5 weeks time... Indeed, someone is dumping shares it wouuld seem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 If you have information from the inside which is not generally know and you act on that information for financial gain that is Insider Trading, is it not? Depends if someone 'inadvertently overhears' a conversation without telling anyone....? Ok, I know I'm alluding to illegal practices (and obviously don't intend to infer that is happening here) but, knowing how 'clever' people that 'play the markets' profess to be (in spite of recent global events) I would be surprised if there weren't loop holes to be exploited somewhere along the line.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 So the club is "worth" about 5mll at the moment. Thats only 6 sell out games at SMS. Or £170 stumped up by 30,000 fans... I would pay that as a "Saints Bond" or "Life Time Membership" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Another question presuming it's not Lowe and Wide who are buying or selling will they be aware of the sales this week and other recent sales ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Depends if someone 'inadvertently overhears' a conversation without telling anyone....? Ok, I know I'm alluding to illegal practices (and obviously don't intend to infer that is happening here) but, knowing how 'clever' people that 'play the markets' profess to be (in spite of recent global events) I would be surprised if there weren't loop holes to be exploited somewhere along the line.... That was the point I was trying to make in my above post number 90 above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 Looks like someone is regularly dumping shares (as much as the market can take in one transaction) to get out of this market although I assume Mark's explanation might still apply. If it's one person regularly dumping their shares then they are stupid (can't rule out Crouch then, ho ho) as they are moving the price downwards. They should have sold through the house brokers. Hence it seems more logical it's CFD/spreadbet sellers. Re the insider dealing, there's no real grey area - if you have inside information and trade *based on that info* then you're in trouble. The Directors also have their own Model Code Of Conduct to which they are supposed to adhere regarding buying and selling shares - these were broken once when Paul Thompson sold shares to Wilde without first disclosing the sale to the chairman, a blatant and deliberate breach (he claimed he hadn't done it in a boardroom meeting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 So the club is "worth" about 5mll at the moment. Thats only 6 sell out games at SMS. Or £170 stumped up by 30,000 fans... I would pay that as a "Saints Bond" or "Life Time Membership" You would pay £170 to buy a £20m debt? Are you sure?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 You would pay £170 to buy a £20m debt? Are you sure?? It's not every day you get the chance to own a debt like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 5 February, 2009 Share Posted 5 February, 2009 You would pay £170 to buy a £20m debt? Are you sure?? Where did I say that? Have a look at my thread for more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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