70's Mike Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 I bet Crouch is pleased he did not! Must be time for LC to make his move for complete control soon? lowe and pals would not sell to Crouch out of spite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 lowe and pals would not sell to Crouch out of spite Crouch couldn't buy out Lowe & pals as he wouldn't have enough money left to put anything in to the club so we'd still be at square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Crouch couldn't buy out Lowe & pals as he wouldn't have enough money left to put anything in to the club so we'd still be at square one. disagree with your wording at 10p a share he could buy them out , agree that we would still be at square one but my post was in reply to one saying lc to gain control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 I bet Crouch is pleased he did not! Must be time for LC to make his move for complete control soon? Yes but there is a chance that it wouldnt have been down to 10p now under Crouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 disagree with your wording at 10p a share he could buy them out ' date=' agree that we would still be at square one but my post was in reply to one saying lc to gain control.[/quote'] Problem is Mike they have to want to sell. And I dont believe they do. When a FOR SALE sign appears in front of SMS I will believe the shareholders will want to leave forever. Until then any plc paperwork declaring that we would look at any offers is total bunkum IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 disagree with your wording at 10p a share he could buy them out ' date=' agree that we would still be at square one but my post was in reply to one saying lc to gain control.[/quote'] Mike. If Crouch was to buy out Lowe & Wilde to gain control he would not get the shares at the qoted 11.5p He would likey have to pay a premium. I would suspect at today's price 15p - 20p would be the likely figure. He would then own over 30% so triggering rules to bid for the whole company. His bid will have to be at least the price per share he pays for Lowe & Wildes. Then he has to service the £4m debt and rising, with Barclays. They want their money back. Then he has to find money to keep the club running and pay off any other debts. Then he has to employ a CEO who knows the football business. That would cost a lot more than RL & AC are taking at the moment if reports are correct. Then he has to service the Aviva Loan for the Stadium although that alone will not be a big issue. I am sure they would agree to contining on the same basis as before. He has the spector of Div 1 football next season with diminishing gates and next to no TV revenue. I would calculate he will need a bear minimum of £15m to come in just to gain control and stabilise the club. It is not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Out of curiosity, how much money would Crouch have in his pocket if he sold off his other company(s) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 As I see it, the issue is no longer about the equity value of the club. The share cap is now what - 3million? The club needs (using WS's numbers) something like 10-15mil as a cash/capital injection. Simplest answer would be a rights issue IF somebody was found. It takes time BUT we keep falsely IMHO assuming nobody will want to do it IF AN OFFER came along from SOMEBOBY WITH MONEY That would have the effect of so diluting the existing equity holders share that the investor would gain control without spending a penny on buying any shares. Again as I have said many times buying the shares does no good to the club in terms of cash, it just makes it more expensive and so a worse deal, but as the price falls a shrewd buyer could just lobby them to accept a dilution for the good of the club rather than a buy out Now it seems clear that LC does not have enough money to do this, 2mil as is quoted in previous articles as being what he can use and it does not get close to solving our problems. As someone said to me, Just take care in viewing things too simplistically, certainly the more I read the more complex things seem to be to me. Our assumptions are always that everybody from Barclays through shareholder/director/friends of the club are stupid Oh and Robbie - you could get a new control but all the amigos would still be around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Oh and Robbie - you could get a new control but all the amigos would still be around. I know Phil - I am well aware of that and have posted consistent warning about that on this messageboard since November I think. That worries me more than anything. But, if they're removed from decision-making we have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 As I see it, the issue is no longer about the equity value of the club. The share cap is now what - 3million? The club needs (using WS's numbers) something like 10-15mil as a cash/capital injection. Simplest answer would be a rights issue IF somebody was found. It takes time BUT we keep falsely IMHO assuming nobody will want to do it IF AN OFFER came along from SOMEBOBY WITH MONEY That would have the effect of so diluting the existing equity holders share that the investor would gain control without spending a penny on buying any shares. Which is effectively what happened at Ipswich. The refinancing that took place there saw existing shareholders get diluted from 100% to 12.5%, with any new money going in to the club as opposed to shareholders pockets. Even at 3m, our value is probably way over the top, so can't agree with Weston's assumption that anyone would need to pay a premium on that!!! That might be what the current owners would want, but in the current climate and looking at recent transactions of CCC clubs thery're not going to get it!!! I also know Evans looked at us at some point and wonder why his approach wasn't taken any further??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 (edited) As someone said to me, Just take care in viewing things too simplistically, certainly the more I read the more complex things seem to be to me. Although I fully accept that our financial position is complicated and somewhat worrying, I have to say that I do subscribe to the idea that it is fairly simplistic. That's not to say the solution is simple, easily available and it will be a doddle, but the overiding facts are that we only have two major creditors (Barclay's and Norwich Union). It is not in either of their interests to pull the plug on us and with some good management (and signs of progress on and off the pitch), it should be relatively easy to win them round. Our cost base is fairly simply structured with the biggest single cost being players wages (so look to get them down, but strike a balance with quality). Other income is fairly fixed or at least forecastable (TV rights & other) and the biggest variable revenue is gate receipts. Engender a spirit of togetherness and get some decent results on the pitch and the variable money rolls in, and we start a virtuous circle as opposed to a vicious one!!!!! Our assumptions are always that everybody from Barclays through shareholder/director/friends of the club are stupid And I have to say that is an assumption that is being proved to be right, and one that is holding us back, if not dobbing us in it even further Get someone in who doesn't perpetuate and extend our financial crisis by adopting crass strategies and we may have a chance of achieving what I have set out above. A failing footballing strategy, with ridiculous appointments and philosophies, will only take us one way. Edited 28 March, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Mike. If Crouch was to buy out Lowe & Wilde to gain control he would not get the shares at the qoted 11.5p He would likey have to pay a premium. I would suspect at today's price 15p - 20p would be the likely figure. He would then own over 30% so triggering rules to bid for the whole company. His bid will have to be at least the price per share he pays for Lowe & Wildes. Then he has to service the £4m debt and rising, with Barclays. They want their money back. Then he has to find money to keep the club running and pay off any other debts. Then he has to employ a CEO who knows the football business. That would cost a lot more than RL & AC are taking at the moment if reports are correct. Then he has to service the Aviva Loan for the Stadium although that alone will not be a big issue. I am sure they would agree to contining on the same basis as before. He has the spector of Div 1 football next season with diminishing gates and next to no TV revenue. I would calculate he will need a bear minimum of £15m to come in just to gain control and stabilise the club. It is not going to happen. A FAIR summary except i am not sure if the bank wants paying off or just a reduction afterall businesses have overdrafts from banks it is the way banks make their money. The half year accounts which are due very shortly will make interesting reading but it is ironic that £15m could achieve what £60m was required for a few years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Can't see why anyone would see Leon as a saviour of the Saints. His spell in the chair took us as close to relegation as its possible to be and the reason why there was a need for major cost cutting measures this season. If we do go down, its still Leon who has to bear his share of the blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Can't see why anyone would see Leon as a saviour of the Saints. His spell in the chair took us as close to relegation as its possible to be and the reason why there was a need for major cost cutting measures this season. If we do go down, its still Leon who has to bear his share of the blame. And so he will with the 2 million £ hit in the pocket that administration will bring to him. He should never, ever have tried his "coup d'etat" back in July 2007, if he hadn't done that he'd probably still be running the show and putting in 2 million £ every week or so.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Can't see why anyone would see Leon as a saviour of the Saints. His spell in the chair took us as close to relegation as its possible to be and the reason why there was a need for major cost cutting measures this season. If we do go down, its still Leon who has to bear his share of the blame. Rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Can't see why anyone would see Leon as a saviour of the Saints. His spell in the chair took us as close to relegation as its possible to be and the reason why there was a need for major cost cutting measures this season. If we do go down, its still Leon who has to bear his share of the blame. Ignoring the fact that he was in charge for 9 months, following wildes men and lowes mis handling of the relegation season and first season in the CCC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WealdSaint Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 i would be interested to know who is buying the shares at the moment. i know the numbers are not huge and the price is low, but i'd still like to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Ignoring the fact that he was in charge for 9 months' date=' following wildes men and lowes mis handling of the relegation season and first season in the CCC.[/quote'] More like 6 months, during which time I'm not sure he contributed as much on the negative side as the deluded Professor would like us to believe. He certainly has to take his share of the blame, but when it comes to tallying it all up, methinks he's way down the list when held up against the current incumbents!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 More like 6 months, during which time I'm not sure he contributed as much on the negative side as the deluded Professor would like us to believe. He certainly has to take his share of the blame, but when it comes to tallying it all up, methinks he's way down the list when held up against the current incumbents!! You might know this Um, How much did we get from the Scottish FA as compensation for Burley? Did Crouch drive a hard bargain ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 You might know this Um, How much did we get from the Scottish FA as compensation for Burley? Did Crouch drive a hard bargain ? The figure of £800K leapt into my mind. I'm not sure why! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 The figure of £800K leapt into my mind. I'm not sure why! That's a lot of moolah, strange that nothing at all shows up in the annual accounts about it.Would be in "player trading" I suppose. No mention of it whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Share price down 13.04% already today.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Share price down 13.04% already today.... Ha Ha Ha. Unlucky Rupert and Mike. 10p a share. Looks like you'll be joining the 1p club soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Ha Ha Ha. Unlucky Rupert and Mike. 10p a share. Looks like you'll be joining the 1p club soon. It makes very little difference to the true value of their shares - I appreciate this has only been explained 17,254 times on this forum, but anyway. Meanwhile, it makes it far less likely that somebody will offer them enough for their shares for them to leave (ha ha ha?), so you're stuck with them for even longer (ha ha ha?). The people it does affect are the small shareholders (ha ha ha?) and it also affects the club's ability to raise/secure any finance (ha ha ha?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 It makes very little difference to the true value of their shares - I appreciate this has only been explained 17,254 times on this forum, but anyway. Meanwhile, it makes it far less likely that somebody will offer them enough for their shares for them to leave (ha ha ha?), so you're stuck with them for even longer (ha ha ha?). The people it does affect are the small shareholders (ha ha ha?) and it also affects the club's ability to raise/secure any finance (ha ha ha?). Shame about your blue chip portfolio, ho ho ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Would you care to talk us through this graph Jonah oh wise one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 It makes very little difference to the true value of their shares - I appreciate this has only been explained 17,254 times on this forum, but anyway. Meanwhile, it makes it far less likely that somebody will offer them enough for their shares for them to leave (ha ha ha?), so you're stuck with them for even longer (ha ha ha?). The people it does affect are the small shareholders (ha ha ha?) and it also affects the club's ability to raise/secure any finance (ha ha ha?). He's down to his last marble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Actually, it's ok! I see my mistake, silly boy, so I shall correct it. I think it's worth straightening out the misunderstandings in case people continue reading it. In my original post, I used "beta" in the sense of regression coefficient, not the specific CAPM sense of regression coefficient with the market. In this sense, if I knew the true beta, it would be the variance-minimizing hedge ratio. That is, Y - beta*X would have the smallest variance of any portfolio composed of X and Y with weight 1 on Y. In practice, you estimate beta. That makes it essential to consider the correlation coefficient as well. Suppose I am hedging a basket of stocks that has correlation 0.8 with the S&P500, and correlation 0.1 with a 10-year treasury bond. Say the standard deviation of the basket and the S&P500 are the same, and eight times the standard deviation of the 10-year treasury bond. That means the naive variance minimizing hedge is 80% of notional for both the S&P500 and the 10-year treasury; but the S&P500 is likely to be a very good hedge while the 10-year treasury is about equally likely to increase as decrease variance. Phew, I hadn't realised what total tosh Jonah actually spoke until now, but at least it makes sense, but I think I can safely say that the above realisation clearly shows this! Well - that's cleared that up then ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Shame about your blue chip portfolio, ho ho ho. I'm not sure you're in a position to make jokes about chips, Tris. Would you care to talk us through this graph Jonah oh wise one. As stated above, the beta correlation is probably highest between SOO and the AIM and that graph shows it too - correlation is obviously not absolute on any given time scale so it won't match exactly, but now do the same graph from June 2006 to present and you'll see it roughly follows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 I'm not sure you're in a position to make jokes about chips, Tris. As stated above, the beta correlation is probably highest between SOO and the AIM and that graph shows it too - correlation is obviously not absolute on any given time scale so it won't match exactly, but now do the same graph from June 2006 to present and you'll see it roughly follows. So without the waffle what you mean to say is that SLH is doing considerably worse than the AIM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 So without the waffle what you mean to say is that SLH is doing considerably worse than the AIM. Eh? If you're having trouble reading the words perhaps you could find someone close by to read it out loud for you... what I said was the exact opposite, if you do a 3 year graph you will see SOO is pretty much matching the AIM index. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Eh? If you're having trouble reading the words perhaps you could find someone close by to read it out loud for you... what I said was the exact opposite, if you do a 3 year graph you will see SOO is pretty much matching the AIM index. A 3 year graph might suit your agenda (i.e pro Lowe rhetoric) but in the real World Sladey sensible people would look at the performance since the credit crunch occured. Over this period SLH has weathered the storm considerably worse than the AIM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 A 3 year graph might suit your agenda (i.e pro Lowe rhetoric) but in the real World Sladey sensible people would look at the performance since the credit crunch occured. Over this period SLH has weathered the storm considerably worse than the AIM. I suspect you and I have different ideas over the definition of "sensible people". My list wouldn't include Keeley Hazel, Ali G and Noel Edmonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 30 March, 2009 A 3 year graph might suit your agenda (i.e pro Lowe rhetoric) but in the real World Sladey sensible people would look at the performance since the credit crunch occured. Over this period SLH has weathered the storm considerably worse than the AIM. Got one of those 'Leisure industry only' AIM graphs yet? Or was that my job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 I suspect you and I have different ideas over the definition of "sensible people". My list wouldn't include Keeley Hazel, Ali G and Noel Edmonds. Sladey can we stick to topic please. Either you are completely clueless or you don't like telling it as it is because it doesn't suit your pro Lowe agenda. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Got one of those 'Leisure industry only' AIM graphs yet? Or was that my job? That's your task. I'm sure Jonah has one though but doesn't want to post it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 30 March, 2009 Share Posted 30 March, 2009 Stanley It is hard to evaluate the clubs performance on the back of rumour that we are going inot administration, the club perhaps being relegated.Of course the shares will drop but if we stay up they will recover a bit.If we push for promotion they will rise again. Football shares are hard to compare against other businesses. Now of course people will rightly say that the performance of the club reflects the share price , but they may also see that the club took measures to ward off instant crisis and are in the middle of emergency surgery. The damage has been done since relegation and then not making sure we could ride the storm if we didnt go straight back up.You cannot spin the roulette wheel and then not have bad results if it does not win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 31 March, 2009 Share price now in single figures. Who would stand to gain from driving down the share price....? (If indeed that is what is happening rather than it being 'natural' attrition) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 Stanley It is hard to evaluate the clubs performance on the back of rumour that we are going inot administration, the club perhaps being relegated.Of course the shares will drop but if we stay up they will recover a bit.If we push for promotion they will rise again. Football shares are hard to compare against other businesses. Now of course people will rightly say that the performance of the club reflects the share price , but they may also see that the club took measures to ward off instant crisis and are in the middle of emergency surgery. The damage has been done since relegation and then not making sure we could ride the storm if we didnt go straight back up.You cannot spin the roulette wheel and then not have bad results if it does not win. Sorry nick..Financial matters like planning and football are really not your thing..Best to leave well alone..I have been trying to tell jonah the same for years...not a clue.:smt017 Just the opinion of a very clever financial whizz jidz:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 Sorry nick..Financial matters like planning and football are really not your thing..Best to leave well alone..I have been trying to tell jonah the same for years...not a clue.:smt017 Just the opinion of a very clever financial whizz jidz:cool: I get by OSM, being in business for over 30 years and never having to get a business loan or overdraft in that time has served me well. Not very financially astute has obviously cost me dear Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 I get by OSM, being in business for over 30 years and never having to get a business loan or overdraft in that time has served me well. Not very financially astute has obviously cost me dear Lol. I share your love of the opera..Due to old age I get mixed up and forgetful..I have lost my crayons..I think jonag has confiscated them...Keep up the good work nick.:smt049 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 I share your love of the opera..Due to old age I get mixed up and forgetful..I have lost my crayons..I think jonag has confiscated them...Keep up the good work nick.:smt049 I have a special favour to ask, please put me on ignore. Thankyou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 I have a special favour to ask, please put me on ignore. Thankyou What and miss share movements like this:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivangolac Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB0007922114GBGBXAIMI0792211SOO Single figures ..... All hail Rupert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 Rupert Lowe the financial genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 Rupert Lowe the financial genius It of course could be argued that had he not come in we may be already worthless, there are 2 sides.Mark Dennis may be hurting the share price by saying such things of course.It will be interesting if Radio Hants have nayhtong more to say on their news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 9.5p a share now. Funny as ****. Where's Sladey with his noddyland spin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 Mark Dennis may be hurting the share price by saying such things of course.It will be interesting if Radio Hants have nayhtong more to say on their news. If he broadcast such that he was stating it as fact from an "insider source", then he's in danger of creating a false market which is market abuse (you don't have to have any intention of trading shares yourself, it's the result of your actions/comments that matters). Meanwhile I would guess that the head of Radio Hants received a telephone call from SMS this morning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 31 March, 2009 Meanwhile I would guess that the head of Radio Hants received a telephone call from SMS this morning... To congratulate them for insightful journalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 31 March, 2009 Share Posted 31 March, 2009 9.5p a share now. Funny as ****. Where's Sladey with his noddyland spin? Did you see a program on BBC2 a month or so ago called Million Dollar Traders? You remind me of the dozy bint who seemed to suffer a nervous breakdown every time the share price moved a little bit. So some bloke in Basingstoke sells 5000 shares @ 9p and that HUGE, M-A-S-S-I-V-E £450 trade is somehow a damning indictment of how the entire company is run?! I'm almost tempted to put in some rolling eyed crayon effects but I don't want my new stalker to reappear after I finally threw off the previous one... 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