ChezGiven Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ok - if they acquire more than 30% they will then have to make a formal offer for all the shares. This could be rejected so they wont buy more than 30% until they know that the final offer they will make on all shares has a chance of being accepted. So, if they did buy all the Halls shares then they would then need to ensure they got a controlling stake and that Fred was prepared to sell his. They wouldnt want 44% of a company they didnt really control as one of the shqareholders wont play ball. Quite how the Halls have more than this 30%, yet were not subject to this FSA rule, am not sure on. Maybe because it is split between Sir John and Douggie? I don't understand any of that decent, well thought out post. Not surprised. You're at 'uni' and we all know standards are crap nowadays... The term 'student' has never meant so little Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6772/wankingrl4.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6772/wankingrl4.jpg And I've nearly finished this jar of Vaseline... So...what was it you wanted me to get back to you about Storm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stormrider Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6772/wankingrl4.jpg And I've nearly finished this jar of Vaseline... So...what was it you wanted me to get back to you about Storm? http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000BW56Z6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg Have this and spare me for the rest of the day Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6772/wankingrl4.jpg And I've nearly finished this jar of Vaseline... So...what was it you wanted me to get back to you about Storm? http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000BW56Z6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg Have this and spare me for the rest of the day Got an English version copy mate? I like to read not just look at the pics. :oops: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stormrider Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6772/wankingrl4.jpg And I've nearly finished this jar of Vaseline... So...what was it you wanted me to get back to you about Storm? http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000BW56Z6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg Have this and spare me for the rest of the day Got an English version copy mate? I like to read not just look at the pics. :oops: http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4840/david20beckham20nude2026yp.jpg You wanted english, I heard... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimburst Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 The fact that 90% of the posters in this thread are allowed to use Internet shows you what sort of standards are really out there are the other 10 percent not allowed to use the internet like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ok - if they acquire more than 30% they will then have to make a formal offer for all the shares. This could be rejected so they wont buy more than 30% until they know that the final offer they will make on all shares has a chance of being accepted. So, if they did buy all the Halls shares then they would then need to ensure they got a controlling stake and that Fred was prepared to sell his. They wouldnt want 44% of a company they didnt really control as one of the shqareholders wont play ball. Quite how the Halls have more than this 30%, yet were not subject to this FSA rule, am not sure on. Maybe because it is split between Sir John and Douggie? I don't understand any of that decent, well thought out post. Not surprised. You're at 'uni' and we all know standards are crap nowadays... Yes, because I was being serious in that post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ok - if they acquire more than 30% they will then have to make a formal offer for all the shares. This could be rejected so they wont buy more than 30% until they know that the final offer they will make on all shares has a chance of being accepted. So, if they did buy all the Halls shares then they would then need to ensure they got a controlling stake and that Fred was prepared to sell his. They wouldnt want 44% of a company they didnt really control as one of the shqareholders wont play ball. Quite how the Halls have more than this 30%, yet were not subject to this FSA rule, am not sure on. Maybe because it is split between Sir John and Douggie? The Halls owned all the shares at one point. When the club becmae a PLC it was from them releasing shores for other to buy. As they were reudcing to 60.%+ they weren't viewed as trying to buy the company. Subsequently they have done nothing but sell. This has taken them down to ~42% holding. Last year when there were shares given away rather than cash the club had to formally say that the potential increase in shareholding by the Halls was not an attempted takeover. The Hall's 42% is cleverly split. Sir John owns 29% which means he could sell all of those to someone without the new person having to say he wanted to buy them all. Each of the Hall shares cost them roughly 11p. Each of those 11p investments has subsequently been rewarded with dividends of 21p. What ever price is negotiated is pure profit. If the dividends had not been in place the club would have less debt and the new investors would be able to give more money to the team, instead they have to pay off the debt taken to to pay the Halls and Shepherds their dividends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ok - if they acquire more than 30% they will then have to make a formal offer for all the shares. This could be rejected so they wont buy more than 30% until they know that the final offer they will make on all shares has a chance of being accepted. So, if they did buy all the Halls shares then they would then need to ensure they got a controlling stake and that Fred was prepared to sell his. They wouldnt want 44% of a company they didnt really control as one of the shqareholders wont play ball. Quite how the Halls have more than this 30%, yet were not subject to this FSA rule, am not sure on. Maybe because it is split between Sir John and Douggie? The Halls owned all the shares at one point. When the club becmae a PLC it was from them releasing shores for other to buy. As they were reudcing to 60.%+ they weren't viewed as trying to buy the company. Subsequently they have done nothing but sell. This has taken them down to ~42% holding. Last year when there were shares given away rather than cash the club had to formally say that the potential increase in shareholding by the Halls was not an attempted takeover. The Hall's 42% is cleverly split. Sir John owns 29% which means he could sell all of those to someone without the new person having to say he wanted to buy them all. Each of the Hall shares cost them roughly 11p. Each of those 11p investments has subsequently been rewarded with dividends of 21p. What ever price is negotiated is pure profit. If the dividends had not been in place the club would have less debt and the new investors would be able to give more money to the team, instead they have to pay off the debt taken to to pay the Halls and Shepherds their dividends. Interesting stuff. Answered my question too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Each of the Hall shares cost them roughly 11p. Each of those 11p investments has subsequently been rewarded with dividends of 21p. What ever price is negotiated is pure profit. If the dividends had not been in place the club would have less debt and the new investors would be able to give more money to the team, instead they have to pay off the debt taken to to pay the Halls and Shepherds their dividends. emot-yawn.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Ok - if they acquire more than 30% they will then have to make a formal offer for all the shares. This could be rejected so they wont buy more than 30% until they know that the final offer they will make on all shares has a chance of being accepted. So, if they did buy all the Halls shares then they would then need to ensure they got a controlling stake and that Fred was prepared to sell his. They wouldnt want 44% of a company they didnt really control as one of the shqareholders wont play ball. Quite how the Halls have more than this 30%, yet were not subject to this FSA rule, am not sure on. Maybe because it is split between Sir John and Douggie? The Halls owned all the shares at one point. When the club becmae a PLC it was from them releasing shores for other to buy. As they were reudcing to 60.%+ they weren't viewed as trying to buy the company. Subsequently they have done nothing but sell. This has taken them down to ~42% holding. Last year when there were shares given away rather than cash the club had to formally say that the potential increase in shareholding by the Halls was not an attempted takeover. The Hall's 42% is cleverly split. Sir John owns 29% which means he could sell all of those to someone without the new person having to say he wanted to buy them all. Good informative post. No need for the last two paragraphs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 If the dividends had not been in place the club would have less debt and the new investors would be able to give more money to the team, instead they have to pay off the debt taken to to pay the Halls and Shepherds their dividends. That's low, even for you. I don't believe for a second you're naive enough to believe that. If these new investors are so benevolent, why don't they just buy SJH's 29% and make do with that for now? They'd be the major shareholder, and would be able to do pretty much what they liked. They'd be able to put in place all these top people that are going to take the club to another level, and donate all the extra money for transfers. I'm sure the holders of the remaining 30%(?) of the shares not held by the evil Freddy & Doug wouldn't complain. Then, even if they can't get the other shareholders to agree to stop the club paying dividends (which I'm sure is what they'd want obviously), they could at least put all theirs back into the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 no potential investor would be interested in buying 40%. FF isn't the largest shareholder, but he is chairman of the club with the explicit permission of the other directors (the halls). Therefore, the buyer of the hall's shares would walk straight into a boardroom battle with FF over a new chairman, with FF able to veto any potential candidate. All important decisions in the plc would be majority decisions, meaning nothing would ever get decided if FF was against it. A new owner wants 75% so they can take the club off the stock exchange, leaving them free to run the club without the hassle of stock market oversight rules, with the ability to move money, and hence profit, around as they please, without all and sundry knowing the goings on at the club and setting up daft websites about it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Ok - if they acquire more than 30% they will then have to make a formal offer for all the shares. This could be rejected so they wont buy more than 30% until they know that the final offer they will make on all shares has a chance of being accepted. So, if they did buy all the Halls shares then they would then need to ensure they got a controlling stake and that Fred was prepared to sell his. They wouldnt want 44% of a company they didnt really control as one of the shqareholders wont play ball. Quite how the Halls have more than this 30%, yet were not subject to this FSA rule, am not sure on. Maybe because it is split between Sir John and Douggie? The Halls owned all the shares at one point. When the club becmae a PLC it was from them releasing shores for other to buy. As they were reudcing to 60.%+ they weren't viewed as trying to buy the company. Subsequently they have done nothing but sell. This has taken them down to ~42% holding. Last year when there were shares given away rather than cash the club had to formally say that the potential increase in shareholding by the Halls was not an attempted takeover. The Hall's 42% is cleverly split. Sir John owns 29% which means he could sell all of those to someone without the new person having to say he wanted to buy them all. Good informative post. No need for the last two paragraphs. Overall I agree. It was the last 2 paragraphs that caused my earlier response. I doubt he's stupid, but his agenda is obvious and really does cause the blinkers to be on full time. Sad, tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 no potential investor would be interested in buying 40%. FF isn't the largest shareholder, but he is chairman of the club with the explicit permission of the other directors (the halls). Therefore, the buyer of the hall's shares would walk straight into a boardroom battle with FF over a new chairman, with FF able to veto any potential candidate. All important decisions in the plc would be majority decisions, meaning nothing would ever get decided if FF was against it. A new owner wants 75% so they can take the club off the stock exchange, leaving them free to run the club without the hassle of stock market oversight rules, with the ability to move money, and hence profit, around as they please, without all and sundry knowing the goings on at the club and setting up daft websites about it Precisely. None of these new fancy foreign owners are interested in having anything less than 100 percent of the club. They don't want to have to piss about with relics like Shepherd or Ellis or Brown or whoever. Our takeover went that way - first bought out Ellis' 29 percent, then bought out Petchey's 20 percent, then the shareholdings of Ellis' family and hangers on, then appealed to buy shares owned by fans since flotation, then hit 75 percent and delisting. Once at 75 percent (reached pretty quickly once people knew Ellis was f***ing off finally), he kept the offer open to go for 90 percent which means compulsory purchase of the remaining 10 percent and total ownership. A few points from our takeover which might be salient for yours: 1. It takes f***ing ages. Ages in football terms, that is, when you need the money for team investment and you need it NOW (ours went through after the transfer window closed). 2. Even after an offer is accepted, it means weeks of chewing your finger nails *praying* it goes through. you'll learn that a deal isn't actually a deal, and agreements can remain "non binding" for far too long for your nervous health. 3. When they delist, you actually find yourself in the strange position of having even less knowledge of what is going on at the club than you had before - they own it, they can do what the F*** they want with it. Fine so far, as our new owners have been nothing other than faultless thus far, but even in the Ellis years we had the annual chance to go and throw abuse at him at the AGM. Kind of ironic, that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Ok - if they acquire more than 30% they will then have to make a formal offer for all the shares. This could be rejected so they wont buy more than 30% until they know that the final offer they will make on all shares has a chance of being accepted. So, if they did buy all the Halls shares then they would then need to ensure they got a controlling stake and that Fred was prepared to sell his. They wouldnt want 44% of a company they didnt really control as one of the shqareholders wont play ball. Quite how the Halls have more than this 30%, yet were not subject to this FSA rule, am not sure on. Maybe because it is split between Sir John and Douggie? The Halls owned all the shares at one point. When the club becmae a PLC it was from them releasing shores for other to buy. As they were reudcing to 60.%+ they weren't viewed as trying to buy the company. Subsequently they have done nothing but sell. This has taken them down to ~42% holding. Just to clarify this they did the original share issue in 91. I think Jim Smith was in charge. Over 40% of the shares were not bought, so Hall decided that because of his initial investment (only a few mill) he would take up the remaining 40~%. He stepped in to protect his money basically. As Hall was left with that stake in the club, this was the factor that led to them getting Keegan and getting rid of Ardilles. Whichever way they financed that original deal (which ended up only selling 60%), it actually didnt give us any cash until Keegan threatened to walk out. Whether this stake has fluctuated much since the original sale i woudnt know. The cash that Keegan got was presumably part public money and Hall paying for the other 40%. Not sure what the Halls stake looked like after the 97 float on the stock exchange though as this was over subscribed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 no potential investor would be interested in buying 40%. FF isn't the largest shareholder, but he is chairman of the club with the explicit permission of the other directors (the halls). Therefore, the buyer of the hall's shares would walk straight into a boardroom battle with FF over a new chairman, with FF able to veto any potential candidate. All important decisions in the plc would be majority decisions, meaning nothing would ever get decided if FF was against it. A new owner wants 75% so they can take the club off the stock exchange, leaving them free to run the club without the hassle of stock market oversight rules, with the ability to move money, and hence profit, around as they please, without all and sundry knowing the goings on at the club and setting up daft websites about it Precisely. None of these new fancy foreign owners are interested in having anything less than 100 percent of the club. They don't want to have to piss about with relics like Shepherd or Ellis or Brown or whoever. Our takeover went that way - first bought out Ellis' 29 percent, then bought out Petchey's 20 percent, then the shareholdings of Ellis' family and hangers on, then appealed to buy shares owned by fans since flotation, then hit 75 percent and delisting. Once at 75 percent (reached pretty quickly once people knew Ellis was f***ing off finally), he kept the offer open to go for 90 percent which means compulsory purchase of the remaining 10 percent and total ownership. A few points from our takeover which might be salient for yours: 1. It takes f***ing ages. Ages in football terms, that is, when you need the money for team investment and you need it NOW (ours went through after the transfer window closed). 2. Even after an offer is accepted, it means weeks of chewing your finger nails *praying* it goes through. you'll learn that a deal isn't actually a deal, and agreements can remain "non binding" for far too long for your nervous health. 3. When they delist, you actually find yourself in the strange position of having even less knowledge of what is going on at the club than you had before - they own it, they can do what the F*** they want with it. Fine so far, as our new owners have been nothing other than faultless thus far, but even in the Ellis years we had the annual chance to go and throw abuse at him at the AGM. Kind of ironic, that. good post and correct in all counts - of course you can still abuse the Directors at every home game but if they are all in Dubai or New Yoik its a bit pointless 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