RIP sale thread.

[Martin Lol]

I'm guessing that MA's mate won't be bidding to buy NUFC off him.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/24/paul-kemsley-lehman-bets-spreadex

 

Lehmans bet lands tycoon in high court

 

Nick Mathiason The Observer, Sunday 24 May 2009

 

It was a brave call. In the week before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Paul Kemsley, one of the property world's most colourful figures, placed a series of bets, each worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, that shares in the doomed US financial giant would recover.

 

In many ways, it was a reasonable gamble. That Lehman Brothers would be allowed to fail was almost inconceivable. In fact, on the weekend prior to its bankruptcy it appeared that there were two suitors vying to rescue the US giant.

 

But that wager and a series of others are at the heart of a dispute now heading to a high court trial following a ruling in the Royal Courts of Justice last Wednesday. In that ruling, it also emerged that retail tycoon Sir Philip Green volunteered to lend his friend £2m to meet a margin call.

 

The situation faced by Kemsley comes as a surprise because he is considered very wealthy. A well-known figure in the London and New York property market, his businesses are said to be trading well despite difficult conditions.

 

He has a history of making property investment and share transactions and built up a large position in property firm Quintain. He sold his stake to HBOS, which then unsuccessfully attempted to buy the whole company.

 

In 2004 Rock, his investment vehicle backed by currency speculator Joe Lewis, built up a 28% stake in Countryside Properties. Kemsley sold to Alan Cherry, the chairman and founder of Countryside, with backing from HBOS, making a £12m profit. His most spectacular deal involved a building in the heart of the City, which Kemsley and HBOS bought for £40m and sold for a £30m profit to a former Russian deputy finance minister just five months later.

 

The gamble by Kemsley, who is an associate of Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley and Apprentice supremo Sir Alan Sugar, was placed with Spreadex, a leading spread betting firm that he regularly used.

 

The dispute between the two is over a £2m "margin security" to cover losses suffered on a series of spread bets. Spreadex made an application to the high court to get a summary judgment without the need for a full trial. That was rejected last Wednesday on the grounds that "there was a direct conflict of evidence which would ... be inappropriate for the court to resolve on a summary judgment". Spreadex was given leave to appeal, and costs settlements have been deferred until a full hearing.

 

Like the rest of the financial community, Kemsley - who already had racked up large debts with Spreadex - is believed to have reacted with shock when he learned that, rather than being rescued by a rival bank, Lehman Brothers had crashed into bankruptcy. That event increased losses in other bets made with Spreadex as world markets collapsed.

 

Spreadex's case is that an agreement was in place that if Kemsley's losses exceeded £3.6m, he would pay £2m as "margin security" within 24 hours to cover them. By last October, Kemsley's debt easily exceeded that figure and Spreadex claims it said to the former Tottenham vice-chairman that if the money could not be paid, his positions would be closed.

 

Kemsley says that he did not agree to have the positions closed, that he was in a position to pay the margin call, and that there had been a misunderstanding.

 

Kemsley's lawyers have issued a counterclaim against Spreadex to get security for legal costs, in the event that the firm has to pay his fees. Kemsley believes it is hard to gauge the strength of the firm's finances as it has not filed "account information of value" since March 2008.

 

For Spreadex, the situation is "frustrating" because when a spread betting firm receives a bet from a punter, it takes out the same bet with a counterparty broker to cover itself in the event of a big payout. Spreadex claims it has already paid out on that counterparty bet on Kemsley's losses, which it believes indicates its financial strength.

 

When asked about the bet on Lehman Brothers, Kemsley's lawyer stated that the wagers were part of Spreadex's claim. He added that Kemsley believes that "if Spreadex [had] behaved properly" and not closed certain other positions on company shares, Kemsley's position would be far more favourable than is now the case.

 

Kemsley believes Spreadex should have acted more responsibly by not allowing him to take on positions when he was already in debt. The situation is a dilemma for spread betting firms: if they act, they could offend clients, and altering the terms of existing agreements may make them liable to claims against them. Kemsley, Spreadex and Green all declined to comment.

 

[Dave]

Skit.

[Slugsy]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

I hate to stand up for the Fat patron saint of Greggs pasties, but Shepherd was extremely concerned about Ashley. It was Sir John Hall who was not that bothered who bought the club as long as he got his wedge of cash for it.

[Dokko]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Dave]

Can't blame Shepherd tbh.

[madras]

Can't blame Shepherd tbh.

we can for lots of things but not for whom the club was sold to.

[Guest dover]

I dont believe theres any talk of Ashley writing off his 100m debt. The fact hes put the club up for sale at £80 m should tell you that. He only paid £130 m for the club himself, the rest is a loan. Its all very well saying the wage bill will be slashed and weve a good management team willing to sign four year contracts and all the rest of the paper bollocks but the facts dont lie to an investor.

 

The facts are that were a chamionship side, with a ruined reputation, the laughing stock of the country. £100m in debt with no management structure, no scouting network, no major sponsor, no big name players and in short nothing worth investing your hard earned money in. Ask yourself would you pay £80m for us?

 

I voted dismayed, because I dont believe anyone will come  in for us at that price, with a £100m debt hanging over us. The only way forward is for Mike to say on and ivest to get us back into the premiership and then sell, or bite the bullet and write off that £100m loan. Will he though? I doubt it, not because hes a shrewd business man, but because hes as thick as pork, hes Risdale with a bigger wallet.

[jimmymag]

I was just looking at Sports Direct's share price thinking that if I had shares in Ashley's other business I'd want to get rid based on the woeful way he's run NUFC, and was surprised to see that it's doing rather well. Sports Direct's share price has doubled since Christmas '08, they're increasing market share, and some analysts are recommending investors to add Sports Direct to their portfolio. He's obviously employed some shrewd and experienced businessmen to run that company for him so why can't he run NUFC using the same principle of employing the best people available who know the football industry?

 

Llambias has obviously been way out of his depth as Chairman, so if I were Ashley I'd bring back Chris Mort and allow him to employ an experienced team of directors to maximise the potential of NUFC. Obviously this would mean that Ashley would have to invest more money into the club, and I appreciate that we don't know if this is possible due to his own personal finances, but surely, as a gambling man, this must be more preferable to him than just walking away and taking the £150 million hit.

 

 

[Dave]

.cock makes me laugh.

 

Hope: 'So what do we do today, put something on about Ashley looking to appoint Seymour Pierce? Shearer talks? We've got to say something, surely?'

Club: 'Put some shit up about Ranger or something.'

Hope: 'No worries.'

[madras]

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.

 

 

 

 

you'll have to explain that one again to me ?

[Dave]

Can't blame Shepherd tbh.

we can for lots of things but not for whom the club was sold to.

 

That's all I was referring to, obviously.

[Parky]

I'm guessing that MA's mate won't be bidding to buy NUFC off him.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/24/paul-kemsley-lehman-bets-spreadex

 

Lehmans bet lands tycoon in high court

 

Nick Mathiason The Observer, Sunday 24 May 2009

 

It was a brave call. In the week before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Paul Kemsley, one of the property world's most colourful figures, placed a series of bets, each worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, that shares in the doomed US financial giant would recover.

 

In many ways, it was a reasonable gamble. That Lehman Brothers would be allowed to fail was almost inconceivable. In fact, on the weekend prior to its bankruptcy it appeared that there were two suitors vying to rescue the US giant.

 

But that wager and a series of others are at the heart of a dispute now heading to a high court trial following a ruling in the Royal Courts of Justice last Wednesday. In that ruling, it also emerged that retail tycoon Sir Philip Green volunteered to lend his friend £2m to meet a margin call.

 

The situation faced by Kemsley comes as a surprise because he is considered very wealthy. A well-known figure in the London and New York property market, his businesses are said to be trading well despite difficult conditions.

 

He has a history of making property investment and share transactions and built up a large position in property firm Quintain. He sold his stake to HBOS, which then unsuccessfully attempted to buy the whole company.

 

In 2004 Rock, his investment vehicle backed by currency speculator Joe Lewis, built up a 28% stake in Countryside Properties. Kemsley sold to Alan Cherry, the chairman and founder of Countryside, with backing from HBOS, making a £12m profit. His most spectacular deal involved a building in the heart of the City, which Kemsley and HBOS bought for £40m and sold for a £30m profit to a former Russian deputy finance minister just five months later.

 

The gamble by Kemsley, who is an associate of Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley and Apprentice supremo Sir Alan Sugar, was placed with Spreadex, a leading spread betting firm that he regularly used.

 

The dispute between the two is over a £2m "margin security" to cover losses suffered on a series of spread bets. Spreadex made an application to the high court to get a summary judgment without the need for a full trial. That was rejected last Wednesday on the grounds that "there was a direct conflict of evidence which would ... be inappropriate for the court to resolve on a summary judgment". Spreadex was given leave to appeal, and costs settlements have been deferred until a full hearing.

 

Like the rest of the financial community, Kemsley - who already had racked up large debts with Spreadex - is believed to have reacted with shock when he learned that, rather than being rescued by a rival bank, Lehman Brothers had crashed into bankruptcy. That event increased losses in other bets made with Spreadex as world markets collapsed.

 

Spreadex's case is that an agreement was in place that if Kemsley's losses exceeded £3.6m, he would pay £2m as "margin security" within 24 hours to cover them. By last October, Kemsley's debt easily exceeded that figure and Spreadex claims it said to the former Tottenham vice-chairman that if the money could not be paid, his positions would be closed.

 

Kemsley says that he did not agree to have the positions closed, that he was in a position to pay the margin call, and that there had been a misunderstanding.

 

Kemsley's lawyers have issued a counterclaim against Spreadex to get security for legal costs, in the event that the firm has to pay his fees. Kemsley believes it is hard to gauge the strength of the firm's finances as it has not filed "account information of value" since March 2008.

 

For Spreadex, the situation is "frustrating" because when a spread betting firm receives a bet from a punter, it takes out the same bet with a counterparty broker to cover itself in the event of a big payout. Spreadex claims it has already paid out on that counterparty bet on Kemsley's losses, which it believes indicates its financial strength.

 

When asked about the bet on Lehman Brothers, Kemsley's lawyer stated that the wagers were part of Spreadex's claim. He added that Kemsley believes that "if Spreadex [had] behaved properly" and not closed certain other positions on company shares, Kemsley's position would be far more favourable than is now the case.

 

Kemsley believes Spreadex should have acted more responsibly by not allowing him to take on positions when he was already in debt. The situation is a dilemma for spread betting firms: if they act, they could offend clients, and altering the terms of existing agreements may make them liable to claims against them. Kemsley, Spreadex and Green all declined to comment.

 

 

Bet MA has been losing money all over the shop as well.

[NG32]

I dont believe theres any talk of Ashley writing off his 100m debt. The fact hes put the club up for sale at £80 m should tell you that. He only paid £130 m for the club himself, the rest is a loan. Its all very well saying the wage bill will be slashed and weve a good management team willing to sign four year contracts and all the rest of the paper bollocks but the facts dont lie to an investor.

 

The facts are that were a chamionship side, with a ruined reputation, the laughing stock of the country. £100m in debt with no management structure, no scouting network, no major sponsor, no big name players and in short nothing worth investing your hard earned money in. Ask yourself would you pay £80m for us?

 

I voted dismayed, because I dont believe anyone will come  in for us at that price, with a £100m debt hanging over us. The only way forward is for Mike to say on and ivest to get us back into the premiership and then sell, or bite the bullet and write off that £100m loan. Will he though? I doubt it, not because hes a shrewd business man, but because hes as thick as pork, hes Risdale with a bigger wallet.

 

Not going to happen, he wont be putting anymore money NUFCs way.  He has well and truely fucked up hence why he is will to take a hit, the club now for him is like having a mill stone round his neck.

[9]

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. 

 

i thought that myself but then thought i am sure tom,dick or harry could do far better than Ashley.

[Dokko]

I was in The Townhouse for the villa game (had to go straight to work after we'd been relegated, i felt like crying) and a decent amount of the fans were singing 'there's only one Freddie Shepherd'

 

 

 

[NG32]

I was in The Townhouse for the villa game (had to go straight to work after we'd been relegated, i felt like crying) and a decent amount of the fans were singing 'there's only one Freddie Shepherd'

 

 

 

 

Christ.

 

I wonder if Freddy will come out with the old line sof "i've been sent loads of emails asking for me to come back"

[Slugsy]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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

[Dokko]

I was in The Townhouse for the villa game (had to go straight to work after we'd been relegated, i felt like crying) and a decent amount of the fans were singing 'there's only one Freddie Shepherd'

 

 

 

 

Christ.

 

I wonder if Freddy will come out with the old line sof "i've been sent loads of emails asking for me to come back"

 

Entered my head when i was behind the bar holding back the tears.

[Guest neesy111]

who was it that appointed allardyce, shepherd

 

the club would of gone in administration due to the lack of fans at st james because of the awful football on show

[gray]

who was it that appointed allardyce, shepherd

 

the club would of gone in administration due to the lack of fans at st james because of the awful football on show

 

this is very true. some of the worst stuff ive seen. The Derby and Wigan away debacles not too mention the stuff served up at home.

[NG32]

This will drag out for weeks just like the transfer windows and the other time he tried to sell.  I think we may have to write off the coming season.

[thomas]

You really couldn't make it up. 

 

 

[JJ7]

who was it that appointed allardyce, shepherd

 

the club would of gone in administration due to the lack of fans at st james because of the awful football on show

 

this is very true. some of the worst stuff ive seen. The Derby and Wigan away debacles not too mention the stuff served up at home.

 

That was my fault. They were the only two away games I went to during his management.

[quayside]

I was just looking at Sports Direct's share price thinking that if I had shares in Ashley's other business I'd want to get rid based on the woeful way he's run NUFC, and was surprised to see that it's doing rather well. Sports Direct's share price has doubled since Christmas '08, they're increasing market share, and some analysts are recommending investors to add Sports Direct to their portfolio. He's obviously employed some shrewd and experienced businessmen to run that company for him so why can't he run NUFC using the same principle of employing the best people available who know the football industry?

 

Llambias has obviously been way out of his depth as Chairman, so if I were Ashley I'd bring back Chris Mort and allow him to employ an experienced team of directors to maximise the potential of NUFC. Obviously this would mean that Ashley would have to invest more money into the club, and I appreciate that we don't know if this is possible due to his own personal finances, but surely, as a gambling man, this must be more preferable to him than just walking away and taking the £150 million hit.

 

 

 

Ashley has still fleeced investors in Sports Direct though. He floated it at £3 a share (but kept about 55% of the shares iirc) and trousered £929 million in cash based on that valuation. Following the flotation at its worst it went down to about 40p a share and that was before there was a recession. The dive in price was due to poor performance and the company not delivering what it had said it would. It is also generally regarded as being one of the worst run PLCs on the market. The price has recently recovered, as you say, and is about 85p now, but thats still well short of the flotation value. When the price dived Ashley started buying up the shares again taking advantage of the lower price - last time I looked his holding was back up to about 75% of the company.