Slugsy

As mentioned before, I don't believe a word that comes out of llambias' gob and none of these so called interested parties have been confirmed or denied. However, if it was a straight fight between an other and Shepherd, unless Shepherd's bid was much bigger, I'm sure Ashley would look to choose the other bid, god, could you imagine at completion, sitting across from the smuggest Shepherd ever, knowing he has just nicked an asset you paid him millions for, back for a song!

The legals could take a while depending on how much information was given to buyers, how satisified they were with the DD they did and how much warranties and indemnities they are asking off Ashley. There will also be some messy work around players contracts, ongoing legacy issues and the banking (if there is that 40m overdraft or raising any further debt) lawyers always take their time as well.

This process could last as long or as short as Ashley wants to make it.

You couldn't script this, its a never ending comedy.

Its the golf I'm concerned about, just hope Sky pick it back up

Fair enough, I was being a bit pedantic trying to get my point across, in the end, its only worth as much as someone is willing to pay and if that's £100m then good luck to them, as I said, I don't think its worth that in the current climate and current situation the club is in but if others are willing to pay that then good luck to them, juts hope they have enough left to get us back in the prem!

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £55m and a Premiership valuation of between £200m to £250m and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. The fact that four consortiums are interested at £100 million means in itself that the club hasn't been overvalued. As with all assets, the price depends on the level of demand and the perceived resale value down the line. All highly artificial. That doesn't mean they will pay £100m, they have only said they are interested and any offer will be subject to due diligence. I agree that the level of demand or competitve tension will impact on value and the perceived resale value but I'd like to hear how people are coming up with their valuations which have no actual basis at present other than Mike Ashley paid £x for it and Mike Ashley wants £x for it - that doesn't mean it's worth that. The thing is that there is no real valuation model for a football club. A lot of them are loss making, have negative net worth and would be insolvent if not for the owner propping them up. So you can't apply things like PE ratios or balance sheet valuations, they just don't work. A lot depends on the buyer's motives. If the buyer is looking at it in some sort of business context then all he can do is look at what's there and make a judgement call on it. A buyer has to assume that he is going to find a way to get it back into the Premiership, he has to factor in that the club will need quite a bit of further funding to get there. He also has to look at the assets the club has - stadium, training ground etc are all fit for purpose for a very high level of football indeed, so no further investment is needed there. And then you would have to form a view of what it might be worth if you succeed. On the other hand if the buyer is a billionaire looking for some fun (been there before I think) then the valuation becomes even more random. I agree with a lot of that, but disagree that you form a valuation based on what you could do - that is a classic situation where you are giving the Vendor value for something you are intending to do, which I would strongly advise against. But then again, if the buyer really wants it, if the Vendor is in a strong position and there is a competitive situation, that value may be given. I do appreciate that certain valuation models don't fit a football club and probably was being a bit pedentic to get my point across, what will be more important as you say is the buyer motives and how also they are funding the transaction because if they require bank funding, valuation models will apply as to the ability of the business to service a level of debt, which granted while we were in the premiership was better but is now much more limited. Billionnaire buyers do tend to screw these things up of course and it does become totally random, but if I'm looking at it as an acquisition with my head, I wouldn't be valuing the business at £100m - others who have the cash may do and good luck to them, then again not many people make money out of football clubs.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £50m and a Premiership valuation of £200m+ and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. So basically you have no basis? You want someone to pay £100m for a club that is operating at a loss, even before amortisation of players, that is expecting a fall in revenue from c£100m to £50m (optimistic as well), which with the current cost structure of the business translates into a much greater loss and for some bizarre, irrelevant premiership valuation that is again based on nothing apart from Mike Ashely's stupidity. Just because Mike Ashley was fool enough to pay silly money, doesn't mean its actually worth that. I agree with Parky, £100m is inflated and if you actually look at the numbers, a lot of that £100m value would have to be 'goodwill' as the numbers don't stack up. , you disagree with my reasoning so my opinion has no basis, well I disagree with you therefore yours has no basis I'd be interested in having a discussion but not a angst ridden internet war or words, I'm sick of those. Come back to me if you're willing to do that. Very happy to, let me start: The club is operating at a loss of c£2m before exceptionals and player amortisation (per last accounts), thus a valuation based on a earnings multiple is impossible at this point - certainly I wouldn't advise any of my client's to be bidding on any future forecast given the massive uncertainty of the business, reduced income, NO GUARANTEE of reducing the wage bill down, what happens to the playing squad if they do reduce the wage bill, lack of management structure etc. So I look at the asset value of the business which is -£40m - granted with a debt of c£100m in it. You mentioned that with the £100m written off then a value of £100m is acceptable. We write off that £100m debt and have an asset value of £60m. That asset value includes a number of players registrations whom values in the books would be very different to their REALISABLE value and thus £60m in itself is in my opinion, and with lack of further information, too high. But that aside, if we take the notional asset value of £60m, you are valuing the goodwill of the business at £40m - a number given our last 3 years track record, current league status, current management structure and current operating structure as far, far too great. You can argue we have a massive fan base, loads of potential etc, but that isn't actually delivering any value at the moment and it would be up to a new owner to create that value, why should a new owner pay for that and if they do, why should they pay so much as £40m. That's why I think a value of £100m is over inflated, now as Bobyule metioned, demand etc may change the actual price paid in reality but I don't think the actual numbers stack up at all.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £55m and a Premiership valuation of between £200m to £250m and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. The fact that four consortiums are interested at £100 million means in itself that the club hasn't been overvalued. As with all assets, the price depends on the level of demand and the perceived resale value down the line. All highly artificial. That doesn't mean they will pay £100m, they have only said they are interested and any offer will be subject to due diligence. I agree that the level of demand or competitve tension will impact on value and the perceived resale value but I'd like to hear how people are coming up with their valuations which have no actual basis at present other than Mike Ashley paid £x for it and Mike Ashley wants £x for it - that doesn't mean it's worth that.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £50m and a Premiership valuation of £200m+ and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. So basically you have no basis? You want someone to pay £100m for a club that is operating at a loss, even before amortisation of players, that is expecting a fall in revenue from c£100m to £50m (optimistic as well), which with the current cost structure of the business translates into a much greater loss and for some bizarre, irrelevant premiership valuation that is again based on nothing apart from Mike Ashely's stupidity. Just because Mike Ashley was fool enough to pay silly money, doesn't mean its actually worth that. I agree with Parky, £100m is inflated and if you actually look at the numbers, a lot of that £100m value would have to be 'goodwill' as the numbers don't stack up.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers?

Positive news at last!

This Oh and possibly a load of debt as well, with a load of overpaid players and liabilities attached to those players.

My feelings of disgust for Owen aside, the brochure is quite well put together - must have nicked Tony Blair's spin doctors to write it!

Everything about us is sh*t at the moment, even the away strip!

Who the F8ck was in charge of contracts for these players? Total lunacy!

Spot on, he was as well - I was at the golf day and he literally was just out of camera shot!

Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Who says he's written it off? Exactly, I've been harping on about this from day 1 - the debt is still there.

We are in so much trouble if Ashley really has ground the club to a halt.

Quite incredible turn of events - one of the last things I would do if I am selling my business is make it known to all and sundry that I am absolutely desperate to sell. The way his advisers have acted so far has been scary, hawking the club round to all and sundry in the public domain, but this announcement reaches new lows. There is no chance he is going to get £100m for this, why would anyone give him that when they know he needs out, clearly there isn't a raft of people bidding over it! If I was one of the two consortiums (and I'd have doubts over whether there is two), I'd be chuckling at this, talk about desperation to try and get some competitive tension.

you'll have to explain that one again to me ? Loose wording, apologies. Effectively, if he writes off the debt for the purposes of sale then he will have to pay it himself and thus the £100m he receives from a buyer will pay that off and he will be left with zero, thus he gets nothing. Overall, it will have cost him £130m (before any other injections) - the original cost of the investment. I don't think that is what he intends to do, I think he intends to leave the debt in the business and thus the overall cost to a buyer would be £200m (£100m to Ashley, £100m to re-finance the debt). Ashley in turn would receive £100m for what he paid £130m for (before any other injections), thus a £30m loss. The debt is owed to Ashley though, if it were owed to a 3rd party then your assessment would be correct but if he's willing to write off the debt owed to him then it doesn't require any re-financing. Ashley takes £100m for the club and writes off the £100m owed to him by the club. He takes a huge loss on the loans he's made to the club and the £34m extra that it cost him to buy the club, but he won't have to pay anything out of his pocket to sell the club, it's all money that's already been spent and now lost. I wasn't aware that Ashley had actually re-paid the debt, I thought he had re-financed it in the holding company. If he had paid the debt off already (which I can't understand why he would of) then he will pocket the notional £100m but the actual overall cost will be the same as a stated (pre £34m extra). The numbers would be a overall cost of £260m less £100m received = £130m loss, include the £34m and its £164m loss. I haven't looked at the accounts so not aware in detail of the structure of the financing.

you'll have to explain that one again to me ? Loose wording, apologies. Effectively, if he writes off the debt for the purposes of sale then he will have to pay it himself and thus the £100m he receives from a buyer will pay that off and he will be left with zero, thus he gets nothing. Overall, it will have cost him £130m (before any other injections) - the original cost of the investment. I don't think that is what he intends to do, I think he intends to leave the debt in the business and thus the overall cost to a buyer would be £200m (£100m to Ashley, £100m to re-finance the debt). Ashley in turn would receive £100m for what he paid £130m for (before any other injections), thus a £30m loss.

Sorry but you cannot blame Shepherd for that one, he was in hospital with a punctured lung (or something like that) while Sir John Hall sold out to Ashley forcing Shepherd to either launch a takeover bid from his hospital bed or sell up. Fair point

If he is willing to write off the debt (which I don't believe he will) and assuming the debt is circa £100m, then he effectively is giving away the club for free. Wonderful if that is the case but my main concern in all of this is that Ashley sells to the RIGHT buyer and not just the first tom dick or harry that pitches up with the cash. Shepherd didn't seem that concerned about Ashley's intentions when he sold and look where we have got to. If Ashley really wants to right the wrongs, he must think about the buyer, their resources, intentions going forward etc as we could easily end up with another Shepherd/Ashley and be back to square one or worse in 12 months time.

Depends on if Ashley wants £100m for the Enterprise Value of the business or £100m for the equity value. I'm assuming its equity value and thus the cost of the debt will be in addition.