alehouseboys Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 So, is that a 'buy', 'sell' or 'hold' recommendation....?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Just dropped another whole 50p to 15.50p :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 Just dropped another whole 50p to 15.50p :shock: You mean 0.5p, Shirley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 February, 2009 Share Posted 19 February, 2009 [/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmary Posted 20 February, 2009 Share Posted 20 February, 2009 Down 1.61% to 15.25p. Latest batch of shares sold for 14p/share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 February, 2009 Share Posted 20 February, 2009 Down 1.61% to 15.25p. Latest batch of shares sold for 14p/share. And a piece in the Echo about it too http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/4140900.Saints__share_price_dives_to_record_low/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Beeeuuuuuummmmppppppp Interesting to see that the share price has now dropped below the 15p mark and the market cap is getting close to £4m. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB0007922114GBGBXAIMI0792211SOO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Share price now at 14.75. Is that an alltime low? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Sorry,didn't finish reading all of the posts before posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Share price now at 14.75. Is that an alltime low? Not sure, but the last trade was 13.5p so heading for the single figure mark.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 If it does maybe just maybe we will find a benefactor fully able to take the strain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Not sure, but the last trade was 13.5p so heading for the single figure mark.... What a mug to sell for 13.5p to be honest.I mean not everyone could afford 5000 odd shares.If he/she/they were that desperate for £900 there must have been another way of raising it.As it hasn't been announced that we're going into administration and we still have a chance of maintaining CCC status why sell shares at such a ridiculous price.That person/entity probably wets his pants if someone pops a crisp bag behind him/her.The time for selling SLH PLC shares is long past, you can only stick it out till the price goes up again now,if of course that ever happens.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 What a mug to sell for 13.5p to be honest.I mean not everyone could afford 5000 odd shares.If he/she/they were that desperate for £900 there must have been another way of raising it.As it hasn't been announced that we're going into administration and we still have a chance of maintaining CCC status why sell shares at such a ridiculous price.That person/entity probably wets his pants if someone pops a crisp bag behind him/her.The time for selling SLH PLC shares is long past, you can only stick it out till the price goes up again now,if of course that ever happens.. Maybe desperation doesn't come in to it. Maybe he/she/they is/are pig sick of the way the club's being run and just feels they can't support it any more by holding shares? Just a thought :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Maybe desperation doesn't come in to it. Maybe he/she/they is/are pig sick of the way the club's being run and just feels they can't support it any more by holding shares? Just a thought :smt102 Well in that case a very principled person. However the time to have principles was a long time ago.Anyone stupid enough to wait until now can't be very bright. Nothing has changed since September or October and the person could have made far more from their gesture then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Well in that case a very principled person. However the time to have principles was a long time ago.Anyone stupid enough to wait until now can't be very bright. Nothing has changed since September or October and the person could have made far more from their gesture then. Just a thought! May be he/she did and have been off loading small tranches of a much larger shareholding over a period of time, as not to raise suspicion? :smt102 :smt102 :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Just a thought! May be he/she did and have been off loading small tranches of a much larger shareholding over a period of time, as not to raise suspicion? :smt102 :smt102 :smt102 And going to the extent of not selling in round numbers to hide the fact? Everything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Well in that case a very principled person. However the time to have principles was a long time ago.Anyone stupid enough to wait until now can't be very bright. Nothing has changed since September or October and the person could have made far more from their gesture then. No doubt you're right. However, I imagine there are some shareholders who have bought their shares for sentimental reasons rather than financial gain. Maybe, for them, the events at the beginning of this year were the final straw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncoboy Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Gosh, that share price really is low. Anyone would have thought we were a really rubbish team led by an unproven non-entity of a manager employed by a hated toff who appears to be the most arrogant man ever to shoot a duck, in charge of a motley crew of also rans and kids who are about to get relegated into football's third tier, crippled by debts and with no credible investors anywhere near our horizon. Oh. Titter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 I open myself here up to ribald laughter laced perhaps with a small dollop of pity. I actually bought my tranch of shares in SFH in 1997 (I think) for £1.46. What a wonderful investment!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 I open myself here up to ribald laughter laced perhaps with a small dollop of pity. I actually bought my tranch of shares in SFH in 1997 (I think) for £1.46. What a wonderful investment!! Still if we win on Saturday you might get 15p for them come Monday. If we stay up and out of admin the share price could get qyuite a nice boost by June or July, might make 25p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Just a thought! May be he/she did and have been off loading small tranches of a much larger shareholding over a period of time, as not to raise suspicion? Suspicion from whom I wonder?! Offloading small tranches like that would be reeeeeally stupid because, as demonstrated, it just pushes the price right down as well as incurring dealing costs each time. As WindowCleaner says, the time to sell was a long time ago - namely the day Crouch spiked the price by paying 20% over the market rate for his shares. Having said that, I can see why some would sell now - if you think the club is going into administration then £900 is better than nothing. And if you read this forum or the Echo that might be a common view just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Suspicion from whom I wonder?! Offloading small tranches like that would be reeeeeally stupid because, as demonstrated, it just pushes the price right down as well as incurring dealing costs each time. As WindowCleaner says, the time to sell was a long time ago - namely the day Crouch spiked the price by paying 20% over the market rate for his shares. Having said that, I can see why some would sell now - if you think the club is going into administration then £900 is better than nothing. And if you read this forum or the Echo that might be a common view just now. Well it was 700£ really.I just can't see the point, unless of course it's a forced sale, bank calling in a loan or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 I open myself here up to ribald laughter laced perhaps with a small dollop of pity. I actually bought my tranch of shares in SFH in 1997 (I think) for £1.46. What a wonderful investment!! Don't worry, nobody's going to laugh ...... ........until we know how many you bought. :smt004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Mywords Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 To be precise, when Lowe returned in May last year the share price was 33.75p, valuing the company at £9,480,000. Today the price is 14.75p with a valuation of £4,143,000, which means that SLH has lost over 56% of its value since Lowe's return. I dread to think what it might have been if he hadn't come back to protect his investment!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 It may have escaped your attention, guys, but we are in the midst of a global economic downturn, characterized particularly by a major credit crisis, and stocks across the board have been tumbling, with several major stock exchanges world wide having lost 50% or more of their value. You expect SLH to somehow avoid this global trend? Not to say that the looming threat of relegation and possible administration are not important factors too, but let's keep things in perspective, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 This is a fair point as my general share portfolio has dropped an average 30% and some individual share holdings have approached the 50% reduction mark since 2007. However would be interesting to see how Saints shares compare with other Football clubs on the market. Which clubs still remain listed? Sheff Utd/Millwall/Spurs/Celtic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 This is a fair point as my general share portfolio has dropped an average 30% and some individual share holdings have approached the 50% reduction mark since 2007. However would be interesting to see how Saints shares compare with other Football clubs on the market. Which clubs still remain listed? Sheff Utd/Millwall/Spurs/Celtic? Spurs price is down 51% from this time last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Well it was 700£ really.I just can't see the point, unless of course it's a forced sale, bank calling in a loan or something like that. It may well have been a probate sale. There are a multiple of reasons - potentially. IMHO a lot of business will go bust, including quoted ones. Getting 13.5p now is better than getting nothing in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Spurs price is down 51% from this time last year. Lowe Out!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Celtic down 43% from this time last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del boy Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Not to say that the looming threat of relegation and possible administration are not important factors too, but let's keep things in perspective, eh?This is a Saints forum - we don't do perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 This is a Saints forum - we don't do perspective Well just to try, the whole club is now worth the same amount we paid for Delap. Less than Newcastle paid for Titus Bramble And half the amount Spurs paid for Dean Richards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 I dread to think what it might have been if he hadn't come back to protect his investment!!! I would imagine it would have been zero as Crouch would have dragged us into administration by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 I would imagine it would have been zero as Crouch would have dragged us into administration by now. What a stupid comment. Just for the record, RF Webb, (One of lowes companies) recently pleaded with their creditors not to put them into administration and merllion homes (Wildes company) looks like it could be wound up. Crouch would appear to be the most succesfull of the three Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis78 Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 If Rupert Lowe won't leave SFC on his own, then maybe some sort of action needs to be taken which might put him in a position where he has to leave? He is currently a director or on the board of quite a few major companies. If enough Saints fans wrote to the CEO or Chairman or whatever and pointed out that RL had presided over a company whose shares are now worth a mere fraction of what they were a couple of years ago (independent of the recession etc), and ask if this the sort of person they want to be associated with? If they suddenly gets hundreds of letters all alluding to the same thing, then they might be forced to call him up and ask to discuss his financial prowess, which could be embarrassing, even for Rupert. The companies are: Appleclaim Limited – insurance Appleclaim Ltd Sidcup House 12-18 Station Road United Kingdom Coverpoint Holdings Limited – internet insurance management St Clare House 30/33 Minories London EC3N 1DD Intelligence Research Limited – worldwide market and political data Intelligence Research Ltd 61 Old Street London EC1V 9HW United Kingdom IP Maestrale Energy Italy 3 LLP – electricity generation SENATOR HOUSE 85 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET LONDON EC4V 4DP WH Ireland Group plc – stock broker and corporate finance house 11 St. James's Square Manchester M2 6WH Also, if he can work at somewhere like WH Ireland, who specialise in providing finance for things like corporate takeovers, and can't refinance Saints, then he must be numpty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Interesting first post Sir. Welcome to the message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 By the way....did someone buy 6 shares (c.£1) last week because they wanted to secure a seat and/or vote at an EGM? (if one were to take place in the future) Can't think of any other reason why someone would go to the trouble of buying a token number of shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 By the way....did someone buy 6 shares (c.£1) last week because they wanted to secure a seat and/or vote at an EGM? (if one were to take place in the future) Can't think of any other reason why someone would go to the trouble of buying a token number of shares. Gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 If Rupert Lowe won't leave SFC on his own, then maybe some sort of action needs to be taken which might put him in a position where he has to leave? He is currently a director or on the board of quite a few major companies. If enough Saints fans wrote to the CEO or Chairman or whatever and pointed out that RL had presided over a company whose shares are now worth a mere fraction of what they were a couple of years ago (independent of the recession etc), and ask if this the sort of person they want to be associated with? If they suddenly gets hundreds of letters all alluding to the same thing, then they might be forced to call him up and ask to discuss his financial prowess, which could be embarrassing, even for Rupert. The companies are: Appleclaim Limited – insurance Appleclaim Ltd Sidcup House 12-18 Station Road United Kingdom Coverpoint Holdings Limited – internet insurance management St Clare House 30/33 Minories London EC3N 1DD Intelligence Research Limited – worldwide market and political data Intelligence Research Ltd 61 Old Street London EC1V 9HW United Kingdom IP Maestrale Energy Italy 3 LLP – electricity generation SENATOR HOUSE 85 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET LONDON EC4V 4DP WH Ireland Group plc – stock broker and corporate finance house 11 St. James's Square Manchester M2 6WH Also, if he can work at somewhere like WH Ireland, who specialise in providing finance for things like corporate takeovers, and can't refinance Saints, then he must be numpty. Very detailed research. And you registered a new user name just to post that. I guess the PR war is very much on. I wonder who was instructing Genghis to post that info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Very detailed research. And you registered a new user name just to post that. I guess the PR war is very much on. I wonder who was instructing Genghis to post that info? Its not very detailed research.....nothing that google couldnt give you in 2 seconds. As it happens it's missing quite a few and at least one of the companies listed hasn't traded in over two years. Heres a link that shows a few more, including two liquidated companies .....remind me again why Crouch would have had us in admin http://www.growthcompany.co.uk/aim/rns/2058711/directorate-change.thtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Heres a link that shows a few more, including two liquidated companies .....remind me again why Crouch would have had us in admin Simple, he would not have allowed Saga, John and Rasiak to go out on loan for fear of losing his good reputation amongst the fans. He would then given NP more than we could afford to buy new players. and voila, administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Simple, he would not have allowed Saga, John and Rasiak to go out on loan for fear of losing his good reputation amongst the fans. He would then given NP more than we could afford to buy new players. and voila, administration. Keeping saga and not bringing in upteem junior players, not bringing in a complete novice of a manager, not having to pay off the novice manager, might, have got a few more fans threw the gate and could well have had us higher up the the table and not staring relegation and administration in the face....just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Simple, he would not have allowed Saga, John and Rasiak to go out on loan for fear of losing his good reputation amongst the fans. This would explain why he let Rasiak and Skacel go out on loan last January then would it? Fact is Crouch had most of the ideas that Lowe has continued since his return, including shutting the corners and stopping the free buses, both of which were initiated under Crouch's leadership. You see the difference between Crouch and Lowe is that Crouch is a successful business man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Well just to try, the whole club is now worth the same amount we paid for Delap. Less than Newcastle paid for Titus Bramble And half the amount Spurs paid for Dean Richards You make a basic mistake here that gets made over and over, but is a mistake all the same: the share price is not a direct reflection of what the club is worth; it merely indicates what the business could, in theory, be bought for. I think you would find, however, if you did happen to have a spare 4 or 5 million lying around and tried to buy up Saints with it, that you wouldn't succeed at that price, or anything like it. Because of course, the club has assets, still, that are collectively worth (in the sense of potentially saleable for) a good deal more than the 4 or 5 million the share prices presently values the club at. A huge variety of factors influence the share price, and the actual policies of the CEO are only one of those factors, and often a rather minor one at that. There are plenty of things to criticize Lowe, and the others who have had a go at running saints in the past few years, for; but the share price at present is simply not in the control of or able to be significantly impacted by the CEO of this business, not underc current global economic circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Simple, he would not have allowed Saga, John and Rasiak to go out on loan for fear of losing his good reputation amongst the fans. He would then given NP more than we could afford to buy new players And then we would have been 15 points clear after 20 games, 40 points clear by now and the bank (and everyone else) happy that we would be heading for the Premiership and all our monies would evaporate overnight. (See it's easy to talk out of your ar5e and it's not something you've got a monopoly on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Every thread seems to be polluted with petty bickering tonight. Please can we all just have a night off from the sniping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 You make a basic mistake here that gets made over and over, but is a mistake all the same: the share price is not a direct reflection of what the club is worth; it merely indicates what the business could, in theory, be bought for. I think you would find, however, if you did happen to have a spare 4 or 5 million lying around and tried to buy up Saints with it, that you wouldn't succeed at that price, or anything like it. Because of course, the club has assets, still, that are collectively worth (in the sense of potentially saleable for) a good deal more than the 4 or 5 million the share prices presently values the club at. I'm afraid that you're the one who is making the basic mistake here. It is all very well mentioning that we may have assets collectively worth more than our Market Capitalisation, but you have missed out a slightly bigger and more concerning number i.e. our debts and creditors. Being close to £30m in debt has somewhat more of an impact on the value of the Club than a few assets which would never cover this figure. A huge variety of factors influence the share price, and the actual policies of the CEO are only one of those factors, and often a rather minor one at that. There are plenty of things to criticize Lowe, and the others who have had a go at running saints in the past few years, for; but the share price at present is simply not in the control of or able to be significantly impacted by the CEO of this business, not underc current global economic circumstances. As with most Club's in debt to the tune we are, our value is negligible, demonstrated by the fact that most Championship Clubs that have been sold recently, have been for nominal amounts, with the real cost being the acceptance of the massive debts. Our negligible value is down to our relegation from the top flight and the fact we continue to trade in this division (a division where the current Football Club Chairman believes we cannot wash our face on normal business). Therefore those who oversaw relegation and the failure to get promotion are arguably responsible for our current value (or lack of it), how much and where you divy that all up is very much an individual opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Simple, he would not have allowed Saga, John and Rasiak to go out on loan for fear of losing his good reputation amongst the fans. He would then given NP more than we could afford to buy new players. and voila, administration. I agree. He would not have allowed all 3 to go. This is because he's not a cretin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipstryker Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 And then we would have been 15 points clear after 20 games, 40 points clear by now and the bank (and everyone else) happy that we would be heading for the Premiership and all our monies would evaporate overnight. (See it's easy to talk out of your ar5e and it's not something you've got a monopoly on). But he does specialise in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 This would explain why he let Rasiak and Skacel go out on loan last January then would it? Fact is Crouch had most of the ideas that Lowe has continued since his return, including shutting the corners and stopping the free buses, both of which were initiated under Crouch's leadership. You see the difference between Crouch and Lowe is that Crouch is a successful business man. Not to mention that Crouch doesn't sack perfectly good managers and replace them with incompetent buffoons. 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