Guest Heneage Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 .com made a good point about any serious parties will have signed a confidentiality agreement to look at the books. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norwegian-Geordie Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 http://www.lukewhostalking.co.uk/2008/07/newcastle-are-not-for-sale.html What the hell? :kasper: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 http://www.lukewhostalking.co.uk/2008/07/newcastle-are-not-for-sale.html What the hell? :kasper: Newcastle Are Not For Sale By Luke Edwards on Jul 10, 08 05:17 PM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norwegian-Geordie Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 http://www.lukewhostalking.co.uk/2008/07/newcastle-are-not-for-sale.html What the hell? :kasper: Newcastle Are Not For Sale By Luke Edwards on Jul 10, 08 05:17 PM I know, but it did fool me and several other people at another NUFC-forum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonarmy Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 An NDA can certainly say something to the effect of "you cannot disclose your interest until the sale is completed." However, I have rarely seen this outside of something like a bidding process for government defense contracts. One reason Ashley might request that is that if the bidders do not know who the other bidders are, it is harder for them to guess what the minimum they need to bid is, and therefore are more likely to simply outbid themselves. Bidders, on the other hand, would prefer many times to go public, both to get a feel for who their competitors are, and especially in the case of an entity like Newcastle that has so many influential shareholders (the fans), gauge fan response if they bought Newcastle before they actually commit to it. However, going public is a prisoner's dilemma-they know there are supposedly eight bidders. If they are one of the first two (Nigerians, South Africans for example), they are at risk for disclosing themselves and getting beat up by the public, while getting nothing out of the other bidders. So while I wouldn't discount a potential buyer simply because they were public with the bid, those that are public now were likely more desperate to get their name out there, either to hopefully lure some more investors, or get in so good with the public that they give themselves a leg up as a sort of de facto lead bidder. If enough of the bidders make themselves known to the public that we reach a tipping point where the rest feel they need to do so also to stay in the game, then it becomes a different story. So while, Ashley may not have made them sign NDAs that limit their public disclosure of interest (though it is certainly possible), I agree in general with .com's point that the most serious bidders have likely not made themselves public yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Dont believe the newspapers saying the credit crunch will stop a takeover, any serious bidders will not have financial worries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonarmy Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Dont believe the newspapers saying the credit crunch will stop a takeover, any serious bidders will not have financial worries. That's ridiculous. I don't think the credit crunch will stop a takeover, but to think that any serious bidders have no financial worries is incredibly wrong. First of all, those hit worst by the meltdown are those that had the highest percentage of assets in the market-i.e. the rich. On top of that, the wealthy are working on more than one project at a time, they will have to prioritize what to use their limited credit for now, and Newcastle might not be their top priority. Maybe a real estate deal in Dubai is, who knows. Beyond that, people don't just have 300 million pounds lying around in a bank generally. And even if they do, no one with that much money is stupid enough to just take that much out of a bank to buy something like a major football club. Even the billionaires will borrow to some extent to pay for the club. This credit crisis probably won't stop a takeover because there are many bidders in the process, most of whom will weather this pretty well. But it will likely delay the process-bidders will wait to see if they can survive this before they commit, and it will likely cause at least one or two bidders to drop out. The meltdown has already caused Ashley to lower his price, and I fully expect it to have further effects on the takeover process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Dont believe the newspapers saying the credit crunch will stop a takeover, any serious bidders will not have financial worries. That's ridiculous. I don't think the credit crunch will stop a takeover, but to think that any serious bidders have no financial worries is incredibly wrong. First of all, those hit worst by the meltdown are those that had the highest percentage of assets in the market-i.e. the rich. On top of that, the wealthy are working on more than one project at a time, they will have to prioritize what to use their limited credit for now, and Newcastle might not be their top priority. Maybe a real estate deal in Dubai is, who knows. Beyond that, people don't just have 300 million pounds lying around in a bank generally. And even if they do, no one with that much money is stupid enough to just take that much out of a bank to buy something like a major football club. Even the billionaires will borrow to some extent to pay for the club. This credit crisis probably won't stop a takeover because there are many bidders in the process, most of whom will weather this pretty well. But it will likely delay the process-bidders will wait to see if they can survive this before they commit, and it will likely cause at least one or two bidders to drop out. The meltdown has already caused Ashley to lower his price, and I fully expect it to have further effects on the takeover process. The chances of a consortium raising cash to buy Newcastle by borrowing are zero. Banks aren't lending to each other never mind to people wanting to buy a football club. Even if there is a multi-billionaire with the cash to buy NUFC can they actually get at their cash? We'll be lucky if Ashley can sell the club to anyone the way the financial system is melting down at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonarmy Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Dont believe the newspapers saying the credit crunch will stop a takeover, any serious bidders will not have financial worries. That's ridiculous. I don't think the credit crunch will stop a takeover, but to think that any serious bidders have no financial worries is incredibly wrong. First of all, those hit worst by the meltdown are those that had the highest percentage of assets in the market-i.e. the rich. On top of that, the wealthy are working on more than one project at a time, they will have to prioritize what to use their limited credit for now, and Newcastle might not be their top priority. Maybe a real estate deal in Dubai is, who knows. Beyond that, people don't just have 300 million pounds lying around in a bank generally. And even if they do, no one with that much money is stupid enough to just take that much out of a bank to buy something like a major football club. Even the billionaires will borrow to some extent to pay for the club. This credit crisis probably won't stop a takeover because there are many bidders in the process, most of whom will weather this pretty well. But it will likely delay the process-bidders will wait to see if they can survive this before they commit, and it will likely cause at least one or two bidders to drop out. The meltdown has already caused Ashley to lower his price, and I fully expect it to have further effects on the takeover process. The chances of a consortium raising cash to buy Newcastle by borrowing are zero. Banks aren't lending to each other never mind to people wanting to buy a football club. Even if there is a multi-billionaire with the cash to buy NUFC can they actually get at their cash? We'll be lucky if Ashley can sell the club to anyone the way the financial system is melting down at the moment. I actually agree with this. Anyone that has to raise cash by finding new investors or new credit will not be able to find it. However, the serious bidders presumably already have lines of credit that are active-i.e. with banks that haven't gone under. Some consortiums may drop out, not because they don't have lines of credit, but because they don't want to waste their few good remaining ones on Newcastle when they may need them for something like a real estate deal, or because they have to scramble now to save their remaining assets. But still, those that remain in the hunt aren't likely to commit to Newcastle anytime soon, not while there is so much uncertainty and the potential for a real global meltdown. I wouldn't expect anything to happen for weeks at least, and probably months. For good or bad, Ashley is almost certain to remain owner for a good while longer, even if he wanted to sell at a rock-bottom price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Richard Kimble Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Dont believe the newspapers saying the credit crunch will stop a takeover, any serious bidders will not have financial worries. That's ridiculous. I don't think the credit crunch will stop a takeover, but to think that any serious bidders have no financial worries is incredibly wrong. First of all, those hit worst by the meltdown are those that had the highest percentage of assets in the market-i.e. the rich. On top of that, the wealthy are working on more than one project at a time, they will have to prioritize what to use their limited credit for now, and Newcastle might not be their top priority. Maybe a real estate deal in Dubai is, who knows. Beyond that, people don't just have 300 million pounds lying around in a bank generally. And even if they do, no one with that much money is stupid enough to just take that much out of a bank to buy something like a major football club. Even the billionaires will borrow to some extent to pay for the club. This credit crisis probably won't stop a takeover because there are many bidders in the process, most of whom will weather this pretty well. But it will likely delay the process-bidders will wait to see if they can survive this before they commit, and it will likely cause at least one or two bidders to drop out. The meltdown has already caused Ashley to lower his price, and I fully expect it to have further effects on the takeover process. The chances of a consortium raising cash to buy Newcastle by borrowing are zero. Banks aren't lending to each other never mind to people wanting to buy a football club. Even if there is a multi-billionaire with the cash to buy NUFC can they actually get at their cash? We'll be lucky if Ashley can sell the club to anyone the way the financial system is melting down at the moment. I actually agree with this. Anyone that has to raise cash by finding new investors or new credit will not be able to find it. However, the serious bidders presumably already have lines of credit that are active-i.e. with banks that haven't gone under. Some consortiums may drop out, not because they don't have lines of credit, but because they don't want to waste their few good remaining ones on Newcastle when they may need them for something like a real estate deal, or because they have to scramble now to save their remaining assets. But still, those that remain in the hunt aren't likely to commit to Newcastle anytime soon, not while there is so much uncertainty and the potential for a real global meltdown. I wouldn't expect anything to happen for weeks at least, and probably months. For good or bad, Ashley is almost certain to remain owner for a good while longer, even if he wanted to sell at a rock-bottom price. You're right --other recessions and crashes the stock market has regained its value in around 1 year. If you had 250 million would you buy NUFC or wait alil longer for the flatline and make big coin in 12 months. This is the way the old bidders are thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Seymour pearce seem to be doing a good job of keeping the bidders (if there are any) secret and so it should be but like everyone it would be great to know who these people are and how much financial clout they have so we can have more fun like the South African and Nigerian bollocks which was all self promotion and big talk-no action imho .There may well be a wealthy Arab, or Russian Oil baron to turn us round as the global crunch would i guess not effect there wealth and the fact we have little debt will be a plus to us compared to Everton and there Ground move etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/oct/10/premierleague-newcastleunited Finding a buyer for Newcastle United could prove impossible in the current financial crisis, the man charged with selling the club admitted yesterday. Keith Harris, vice-chairman of the investment bank Seymour Pierce, said that the club's owner, Mike Ashley, could remain in control for much longer than anticipated, as a serious bidder has yet to emerge and the global meltdown of financial markets made it "easy for people to find an excuse" not to buy. Harris said that although several parties had shown an interest since Ashley asked him to help sell Newcastle last month, none had come up with a viable bid. Harris was speaking as Newcastle came to terms with yesterday's departure of Tony Jimenez, their vice-president in charge of recruitment and a key ally of Ashley and Dennis Wise. A Newcastle spokesman said Jimenez's departure would have no bearing on the future of Wise, the executive director (football), who has been the target of fans' resentment since the departure of the manager Kevin Keegan in September. Ashley - whose company Sports Direct is now worth £168m compared to £1.7bn in February because of the stockmarket crash - has placed a price of £300m on the club, a figure few are willing to meet in the current climate. "Mike did it [took over the club] for the right reasons and it hasn't worked out," said Harris. "It is a major iconic brand and we are attracting interest, but this is a very easy climate for people to find an excuse. Newcastle has been transformed as a football club, they are a big club and I can see them going somewhere, but it requires time and careful attention." When asked if Ashley would stay on as owner because of a lack of acceptable bids, Harris replied: "I wouldn't rule anything out." Harris, who believes the credit crunch will have a profound effect on the Premier League, defended Ashley's record, claiming he had wiped out the club's debt and invested heavily to improve the academy. "He has done a lot of good there with the academy, there has been a lot of investment. When you look back through the years so many good players have come from that north-east corner, but how many were signed up by Newcastle? Not many." Magpies fans had hoped to see the back of Ashley long before the opening of the transfer window in January, with many still hankering after the return of Keegan. News of Jimenez's departure briefly raised the possibility that, if there was no takeover imminent, there could be a major reshuffle, which might tempt Keegan back. However, with Wise and the managing director, Derek Llambias, still employed, that looks unlikely. "People should not fall into the mistake of believing that the departure of Jimenez is going to lead to the return of Kevin Keegan," said a club source. Jimenez, who wants to stay in football, is understood to have quit as a result of the uncertainty over the club's future ownership. Ashley has also indicated he will not fund the purchase of any new players in January if he is still in charge, effectively making Jimenez's recruitment job redundant. Meanwhile, Newcastle's Australian striker, Mark Viduka, is expected to be out for another six months as he needs an operation to solve a long-standing Achilles injury. The interim manager, Joe Kinnear, said: "We know there is a chance Viduka may need surgery and if this turns out to be the case we will be without his services for a minimum of six months. This is not good news." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Always said that this crisis would affect the Prem - BIG changes on the way, wouldn't be surprised to see some clubs in receivership, which means relegation... Whatever Ashley's faults, at least he has put NUFC in a relatively solid financial position and it WILL be an attractive sale once the crisis starts to ease...but this may take a year or so, maybe more. Unchartered waters lie ahead for English football as we knew it.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest saltspringer Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Assuming the club does not get sold owing to the current financial situation , what the hell happens next ? Does Ashley keep JFK on long term, does he put any money in during the Jan transfer window or are his resources too depleted ? I've a feeling we wont see a new owner till summer 2009 and it wont be from any group that's shaking the tree right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Absolutely no point trying to second guess what will happen to us now, probably...but from that article it seems pretty clear we'll have to work within the current framework in terms of team, coach, staffing etc until the economy has reecovered sufficiently for Ashley to realise the price he wants. Grim, when you think about it. No squad strengthening in January, stuck with Kinnear, Wise etc. We're becoming the Aston Villa of old...if we're lucky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Toon Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/oct/10/premierleague-newcastleunited Ashley - whose company Sports Direct is now worth £168m compared to £1.7bn in February because of the stockmarket crash Is that right - his company has lost 90% of it's value in 8 months??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovineblue Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/oct/10/premierleague-newcastleunited Ashley - whose company Sports Direct is now worth £168m compared to £1.7bn in February because of the stockmarket crash Is that right - his company has lost 90% of it's value in 8 months??? Boycott working then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I wonder if sales in Sports Direct - Sunderland branch have gone up recently? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Can someone explain what "He has invested a lot in the academy" actually means? Also wiping out the debt as a bragging point is pointless if it's included in the price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustynrg Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Can someone explain what "He has invested a lot in the academy" actually means? Also wiping out the debt as a bragging point is pointless if it's included in the price. But surely it makes the club a more viable option - especially in these times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Can someone explain what "He has invested a lot in the academy" actually means? Also wiping out the debt as a bragging point is pointless if it's included in the price. But surely it makes the club a more viable option - especially in these times. But as was mentioned by Keith Harris, the club is still in debt, but the debt is now owed to Mike Ashley. If he paid off the debt, and put the club up for sale at the price he paid for the club, i.e £134m, then you could say yes, he has paid off the debt. But as he is adding the debt amount onto his sale figure (circa £250m), then the debt exists in some form to any potential buyer, so effectively is still there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Can someone explain what "He has invested a lot in the academy" actually means? Also wiping out the debt as a bragging point is pointless if it's included in the price. But surely it makes the club a more viable option - especially in these times. Say the debt was £100m and he hadn't paid it off - the price could then be £200m with the new owneres knowing that they needed another £100m. As it is the price is £300m - no difference. In fact if the debt did still exist a new owner would have the option of servicing the debt instead of paying it off which you could argue would make it more attractive. This is compliacted by Ashley being forced to pay a lot of it off but the point stands - being debt free would only be an advantage if Ashley was staying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I'd like to know more about the terms of ashley paying off the debt -- the "poison pill", any early payment penalties, what rate we borrowed at etc -- before I would equate the hypothetical 100m of debt with a hypothetical flat 100m of the clubs future cost. I have a suspicion they're not equal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Can someone explain what "He has invested a lot in the academy" actually means? Also wiping out the debt as a bragging point is pointless if it's included in the price. But surely it makes the club a more viable option - especially in these times. Say the debt was £100m and he hadn't paid it off - the price could then be £200m with the new owneres knowing that they needed another £100m. As it is the price is £300m - no difference. In fact if the debt did still exist a new owner would have the option of servicing the debt instead of paying it off which you could argue would make it more attractive. This is compliacted by Ashley being forced to pay a lot of it off but the point stands - being debt free would only be an advantage if Ashley was staying. Weren't there other interested buyers before Ashley who pulled out after doing due diligence once they realised that £45m would have to be paid off within a month of the takeover? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie jamie Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I am actually really worried now that this will drag out for a very long time. I know they have given a deadline but after reading Keith Harris doesnt know how long it will take doesnt inspire confidence of a quick sell. Link to post 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