Share / Financial Question

[Gemmel]

On the OS, with the other finanancial details, it has;

 

The percentage of AIM securities not in public hands is 36.60%

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/index.php?page_id=8873

 

Does that mean that the club manage or own a third of its own shares?

 

 

I remember seeing something in the annual report but didn't think it was that high.

Edited 16 March, 2009 by Gemmel

[jonah]

Does that mean that the club manage or own a third of its own shares?

 

Not really, the "public hands" figure usually includes:

 

* Directors' shareholdings

* Related party shareholdings

* Major shareholdings over 10%

 

So looking at the major shareholdings here:

 

http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp

 

If you add up those major shareholdings they total 36.07% if you exclude Crouch who isn't on the board - there's probably a bit more jiggery-pokery to get the exact number, eg. they probably don't include Cheviot but do include David Jones holding 5,230 and Andrew Cowen holding 472,491 as they are Directors and probably Windsor-Clive holding 466,190 as a related party?

[trousers]

Does that mean that the club manage or own a third of its own shares?

 

Not really, the "public hands" figure usually includes:

 

* Directors' shareholdings

* Related party shareholdings

* Major shareholdings over 10%

 

So looking at the major shareholdings here:

 

http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp

 

If you add up those major shareholdings they total 36.07% if you exclude Crouch who isn't on the board - there's probably a bit more jiggery-pokery to get the exact number, eg. they probably don't include Cheviot but do include David Jones holding 5,230 and Andrew Cowen holding 472,491 as they are Directors and probably Windsor-Clive holding 466,190 as a related party?

 

Significant Shareholders

 

Shareholders who hold more than 3%

 

......................................Amount..........%Holding

Michael Gordon Wilde..........4,622,470.........16.46

Leon Adrian Crouch.............2,794,230..........9.95

Rupert James Lowe.............1,577,969..........5.62

Guy Askham......................1,120,000...........3.99

R M Withers.......................1,000,000..........3.56

Cheviot Asset Management.....934,100..........3.33

Michael Richards...................873,000..........3.11

 

I still find it extraordinary that someone who 'only' has a £247k stake in a football club can have such a strangle hold over it for so long. That's roughly the price of an average house in the South of England.

 

How does that come to pass? (he asked semi-rhetorically)

[Frank's cousin]

Significant Shareholders

 

Shareholders who hold more than 3%

 

......................................Amount..........%Holding

Michael Gordon Wilde..........4,622,470.........16.46

Leon Adrian Crouch.............2,794,230..........9.95

Rupert James Lowe.............1,577,969..........5.62

Guy Askham......................1,120,000...........3.99

R M Withers.......................1,000,000..........3.56

Cheviot Asset Management.....934,100..........3.33

Michael Richards...................873,000..........3.11

 

I still find it extraordinary that someone who 'only' has a £247k stake in a football club can have such a strangle hold over it for so long. That's roughly the price of an average house in the South of England.

 

How does that come to pass? (he asked semi-rhetorically)

 

Thing is a chairman could have NO shares and have a stranggle hold if the majority of shareholder believe he is the best for the job and looking after their interests.Part of the problem we have is the dicotomy between what fans believe is in THEIR and the clubs interests and what the bopard believe to be in the best long term interests of the club and shareholders - fans tend to be focussed short term in results, shareholders in long term financial stabilty - thats fair enough but does cause no end of problems and certainly contributes to the fans oipinion of the boardroom.

 

What I find difficult to understand is why our shareholders are even interested inholding shares in the club as their is no real return in football, even in the prem, we broke even and the dividends were like 1p a share! when paid out and the shareprice has little to do with on the field success - eg 27p in 2003.

 

I can only speculate that for Lowe its the ego/galmour of being invlved in football, especially when in the prem, Askam, feck knows, Crouch the fan/ego, Wilde property opportunities?, and the others? - dont some Oxford based AV company have shares as well, who knows why.

[jonah]

I still find it extraordinary that someone who 'only' has a £247k stake in a football club can have such a strangle hold over it for so long. That's roughly the price of an average house in the South of England.

 

How does that come to pass? (he asked semi-rhetorically)

 

1. The "value" you are quoting is not a true market value at all

2. The housing bubble was inflated by Gordon "it's not my fault" Brown as the new UK economy

3. Someone with 5% shareholding doesn't have a "strangehold" - it's just an emotive misnoma used by people in an attempt to deride the majority decision of our shareholders

[docker-p]

1. The "value" you are quoting is not a true market value at all

2. The housing bubble was inflated by Gordon "it's not my fault" Brown as the new UK economy

3. Someone with 5% shareholding doesn't have a "strangehold" - it's just an emotive misnoma used by people in an attempt to deride the majority decision of our shareholders

Yeah like any Tory in government over the last decade would have increased social housing provision, increased the general housing stock, increased interest rates, banned mortgages of over 90%, banned reduced rates on second homes, or any of the other measures that would have cooled the housing market.

 

However, I would describe Lowes chairmanship as a stranglehold. Very few fans want him here, a large proportion of shareholders don't want him, but alas the old axis of Askham, Withers, Richards newly abetted by 'Spineless' Mike Wilde and hey presto, we got ourselves a stranglehold.

[bridge too far]

Significant Shareholders

 

Shareholders who hold more than 3%

 

......................................Amount..........%Holding

Michael Gordon Wilde..........4,622,470.........16.46

Leon Adrian Crouch.............2,794,230..........9.95

Rupert James Lowe.............1,577,969..........5.62

Guy Askham......................1,120,000...........3.99

R M Withers.......................1,000,000..........3.56

Cheviot Asset Management.....934,100..........3.33

Michael Richards...................873,000..........3.11

 

I still find it extraordinary that someone who 'only' has a £247k stake in a football club can have such a strangle hold over it for so long. That's roughly the price of an average house in the South of England.

 

How does that come to pass? (he asked semi-rhetorically)

 

Shouldn't that be 'semi-detachedly'?

[NickG]

Significant Shareholders

 

Shareholders who hold more than 3%

 

......................................Amount..........%Holding

Michael Gordon Wilde..........4,622,470.........16.46

Leon Adrian Crouch.............2,794,230..........9.95

Rupert James Lowe.............1,577,969..........5.62

Guy Askham......................1,120,000...........3.99

R M Withers.......................1,000,000..........3.56

Cheviot Asset Management.....934,100..........3.33

Michael Richards...................873,000..........3.11

 

I still find it extraordinary that someone who 'only' has a £247k stake in a football club can have such a strangle hold over it for so long. That's roughly the price of an average house in the South of England.

 

How does that come to pass? (he asked semi-rhetorically)

 

think the key question, and I know we have debated the personailities etc, but not sure we really know what exactly convinced Wilde so strongly that Lowe (whose removal was his whole reason for being here) was a better bet than Crouch.

[jonah]

Yeah like any Tory in government over the last decade would have increased social housing provision, increased the general housing stock, increased interest rates, banned mortgages of over 90%, banned reduced rates on second homes, or any of the other measures that would have cooled the housing market.

 

No, but they would have kept mortgage payments in the key inflation measurement such that when the housing bubble was created CPI would have risen and we'd have had a hike in interest rates to control it rather than cutting them in 2005 to further increase the bubble - and affordability is ultimately a more potent method of control than any of those other points - now who decided to change the CPI measurement to prevent that happening?

 

However, I would describe Lowes chairmanship as a stranglehold. Very few fans want him here, a large proportion of shareholders don't want him, but alas the old axis of Askham, Withers, Richards newly abetted by 'Spineless' Mike Wilde and hey presto, we got ourselves a stranglehold.

 

Whether the fans want him is irrelevant. What the shareholders want is relevant - so unless fans want to risk their own cash to have a say at corporate level (rather than just on the pitch) why should they have a greater say than shareholders? And however you try to dress up "a large proportion" wanting him out, they are still a minority which is why he's still there. Hence no, it's not a strangehold it's a fair democratic decision - SFC socialism is the SISA fantasy, not a realistic option.

[Gemmel]

Does that mean that the club manage or own a third of its own shares?

 

Not really, the "public hands" figure usually includes:

 

* Directors' shareholdings

* Related party shareholdings

* Major shareholdings over 10%

 

So looking at the major shareholdings here:

 

http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp

 

If you add up those major shareholdings they total 36.07% if you exclude Crouch who isn't on the board - there's probably a bit more jiggery-pokery to get the exact number, eg. they probably don't include Cheviot but do include David Jones holding 5,230 and Andrew Cowen holding 472,491 as they are Directors and probably Windsor-Clive holding 466,190 as a related party?

 

Cheers Jonah

[trousers]

Shouldn't that be 'semi-detachedly'?

 

..

[Amesbury Saint]

think the key question, and I know we have debated the personailities etc, but not sure we really know what exactly convinced Wilde so strongly that Lowe (whose removal was his whole reason for being here) was a better bet than Crouch.

 

A very good question.

[Lets B Avenue]

think the key question, and I know we have debated the personailities etc, but not sure we really know what exactly convinced Wilde so strongly that Lowe (whose removal was his whole reason for being here) was a better bet than Crouch.

 

Crouch wouldn't have him on the board. So finding himself to be "Johnny No-Mates" he sulked off back to Lowe who agreed to let him back in the sandpit, as long as he gave all his toys to Rupert and his gang

[ottery st mary]

Crouchey knew that Wildey wasn't up to it.

Rupey didn't care as he just needed to use Wildey and has now confirmed that Wildey isn't up to it.

Wildey didn't like Crouchey and sided with Lowey and then found out what he already knew....Lowey has never been up to it.

 

Thank God we are going to have an independent Fans Parliament to run these Directors.

I am sure to their lack of Football knowledge both Lowey and Wildey will hang on every word of the fans....Crouchey knows about football ..if you were wondering.

 

Mind you even though Lowey and Wildey have absolutely no clue about football...Theyr'e whizzzKidz at finances....Look at all their other businesses as well as the finances at Saints.....Theyr'e the best boys in town.