PIF and RB Sports & Media

[McDog]

I agree, very very strange that there has been nothing , no public statement by the club or Amanda. If it were planned well in advance there would have been a press conference since she was the face of the club since the takeover.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:20 by McDog

[duo]

It's like she's gone out the back door- no thank you nothing. Even Dan got a thank you.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:19 by duo

[gdm]

3 minutes ago, duo said:

It's like she's gone out the back door- no thank you nothing. Even Dan got a thank you.

 

 

 

It’s not happened yet. I’m sure we’ll hear from both her & the club when she leaves 

[The Prophet]

Perhaps it's because they haven't left the club yet? They won't until their shares are purchased.

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:23 by The Prophet

[McDog]

I thought it was reported that they have been sold to PIF. If that isn't true then that could explain it.

[PauloGeordio]

3 minutes ago, gdm said:

It’s not happened yet. I’m sure we’ll hear from both her & the club when she leaves 

 Baldwards incoming Friday night Saturday A.M negatively spun click bait headline post. 

[ToonToon]

5 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

 Baldwards incoming Friday night Saturday A.M negatively spun click bait headline post. 

Blocked him a long time ago although people on here still quote him ( I have no idea why)

[timeEd32]

38 minutes ago, duo said:

100% this wasn't planned to happen now. Strange nothing from the club.

 

That means nothing (if it's even true). Most of the players probably don't even know the specifics of the ownership structure and Amanda / Merhdad were cleary the most visible to them, so it would be surprising in that regard.

[Eveready]

I'm going to attempt to explain why it was never viable for PCP to keep their stake with significant infrastructure investment.

 

PCP owned their 6% (after dilutions), however they borrowed the money from RB to purchase this at 7% annual interest, which has not been repaid.

 

Staveley had to borrow money from the club to pay for legal fees unrelated to NUFC, strongly indicating that that she has liquidity issues.

 

Below I have set out 2 scenario's, neither are entirely realistic as they don't include any additional investment transfers/wages.  However, they are illustrative enough.

 

PCP has probably just about managed to keep up with interest to RB with the increased valuation of the club based on organic growth (excluding the addition investment in the playing squad).  However, if a large infrastructure investment is made, their share will reduce significantly but the valuation of the club based on organic growth will likely continue as an absolute £ value.

 

This would mean that if the clubs value organically grew £50m in a year, PCP would recognise £2.85m profit at their 5.7% share.  However, if a £1bn infrastructure investment was made, they would only recognise £1.1m profit at an equity share of 2.2%.  However, the interest would continue to accrue at the same 7% per annum.

 

Assumptions:

• Current NUFC valuation: £636m (source: Forbes)
• PCP equity pre-disposal: 5.7% (source: widely reported)
• Current value of loan from RB: £36m (this is understated, but it's more about direction of travel so it's sufficient for illustration)
• Loan at 7% interest (source: PCP/Cantervale's Companies House filings)
• £1bn infrastructure investment in Scenario B (roughly the cost of Spurs new stadium)
• The club's value increases organically by £50m/year (current valuation of £636m, less £305m initial purchase value, less £206m additional cash injections = £125m increase in valuation before cash injections.  £125m/3 years of ownership = c.£42m/year.  Rounded up to £50m/year)
• The valuation of the additional infrastructure remains constant at £1bn

Scenario A - No further investment.  Organic growth only

 

Scenario B - £1bn infrastructure investment.  Organic growth of footballing operations

 

The longer they stay, the more precarious their position would become.

 

I've put this together in about 10 minutes and I'm currently too lazy on a Friday afternoon to check so apologies for any errors, but directionally should be sound.

 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 15:36 by Eveready

[Ben]

4 minutes ago, Eveready said:

I'm going to attempt to explain why it was never viable for PCP to keep their stake with significant infrastructure investment.

 

PCP owned their 6% (after dilutions), however they borrowed the money from RB to purchase this at 7% annual interest, which has not been repaid.

 

Staveley had to borrow money from the club to pay for legal fees unrelated to NUFC, strongly indicating that that she has liquidity issues.

 

Below I have set out 2 scenario's, neither are entirely realistic as they don't include any additional investment transfers/wages.  However, they are illustrative enough.

 

PCP has probably just about managed to keep up with interest to RB with the increased valuation of the club based on organic growth (excluding the addition investment in the playing squad).  However, if a large infrastructure investment is made, their share will reduce significantly but the valuation of the club based on organic growth will likely continue as an absolute £ value.

 

This would mean that if the clubs value organically grew £50m in a year, PCP would recognise £2.85m profit at their 5.7% share.  However, if a £1bn infrastructure investment was made, they would only recognise £1.1m profit at an equity share of 2.2%.  However, the interest would continue to accrue at the same 7% per annum.

 

Assumptions:

• Current NUFC valuation: £636m (source: Forbes)
• PCP equity pre-disposal: 5.7% (source: widely reported)
• Current value of loan from RB: £36m (this is understated, but it's more about direction of travel so it's sufficient for illustration)
• Loan at 7% interest (source: PCP/Cantervale's Companies House filings)
• £1bn infrastructure investment in Scenario B (roughly the cost of Spurs new stadium)
• The club's value increases organically by £50m/year (current valuation of £636m, less £305m initial purchase value, less £206m additional cash injections = £125m increase in valuation before cash injections.  £125m/3 years of ownership = c.£42m/year.  Rounded up to £50m/year)
• The valuation of the additional infrastructure remains constant at £1bn

Scenario A - No further investment.  Organic growth only

 

Scenario B - £1bn infrastructure investment.  Organic growth of footballing operations

 

The longer they stay, the more precarious their position would become.

 

I've put this together in about 10 minutes and I'm currently too lazy on a Friday afternoon to check so apologies for any errors, but directionally should be sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I knew it !!

[McDog]

That's quite the post @Eveready. Nice work.

[JLC]

6 minutes ago, Eveready said:

I'm going to attempt to explain why it was never viable for PCP to keep their stake with significant infrastructure investment.

 

PCP owned their 6% (after dilutions), however they borrowed the money from RB to purchase this at 7% annual interest, which has not been repaid.

 

Staveley had to borrow money from the club to pay for legal fees unrelated to NUFC, strongly indicating that that she has liquidity issues.

 

Below I have set out 2 scenario's, neither are entirely realistic as they don't include any additional investment transfers/wages.  However, they are illustrative enough.

 

PCP has probably just about managed to keep up with interest to RB with the increased valuation of the club based on organic growth (excluding the addition investment in the playing squad).  However, if a large infrastructure investment is made, their share will reduce significantly but the valuation of the club based on organic growth will likely continue as an absolute £ value.

 

This would mean that if the clubs value organically grew £50m in a year, PCP would recognise £2.85m profit at their 5.7% share.  However, if a £1bn infrastructure investment was made, they would only recognise £1.1m profit at an equity share of 2.2%.  However, the interest would continue to accrue at the same 7% per annum.

 

Assumptions:

• Current NUFC valuation: £636m (source: Forbes)
• PCP equity pre-disposal: 5.7% (source: widely reported)
• Current value of loan from RB: £36m (this is understated, but it's more about direction of travel so it's sufficient for illustration)
• Loan at 7% interest (source: PCP/Cantervale's Companies House filings)
• £1bn infrastructure investment in Scenario B (roughly the cost of Spurs new stadium)
• The club's value increases organically by £50m/year (current valuation of £636m, less £305m initial purchase value, less £206m additional cash injections = £125m increase in valuation before cash injections.  £125m/3 years of ownership = c.£42m/year.  Rounded up to £50m/year)
• The valuation of the additional infrastructure remains constant at £1bn

Scenario A - No further investment.  Organic growth only

 

Scenario B - £1bn infrastructure investment.  Organic growth of footballing operations

 

The longer they stay, the more precarious their position would become.

 

I've put this together in about 10 minutes and I'm currently too lazy on a Friday afternoon to check so apologies for any errors, but directionally should be sound.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent summary thanks

[PauloGeordio]

8 minutes ago, Eveready said:

I'm going to attempt to explain why it was never viable for PCP to keep their stake with significant infrastructure investment.

 

PCP owned their 6% (after dilutions), however they borrowed the money from RB to purchase this at 7% annual interest, which has not been repaid.

 

Staveley had to borrow money from the club to pay for legal fees unrelated to NUFC, strongly indicating that that she has liquidity issues.

 

Below I have set out 2 scenario's, neither are entirely realistic as they don't include any additional investment transfers/wages.  However, they are illustrative enough.

 

PCP has probably just about managed to keep up with interest to RB with the increased valuation of the club based on organic growth (excluding the addition investment in the playing squad).  However, if a large infrastructure investment is made, their share will reduce significantly but the valuation of the club based on organic growth will likely continue as an absolute £ value.

 

This would mean that if the clubs value organically grew £50m in a year, PCP would recognise £2.85m profit at their 5.7% share.  However, if a £1bn infrastructure investment was made, they would only recognise £1.1m profit at an equity share of 2.2%.  However, the interest would continue to accrue at the same 7% per annum.

 

Assumptions:

• Current NUFC valuation: £636m (source: Forbes)
• PCP equity pre-disposal: 5.7% (source: widely reported)
• Current value of loan from RB: £36m (this is understated, but it's more about direction of travel so it's sufficient for illustration)
• Loan at 7% interest (source: PCP/Cantervale's Companies House filings)
• £1bn infrastructure investment in Scenario B (roughly the cost of Spurs new stadium)
• The club's value increases organically by £50m/year (current valuation of £636m, less £305m initial purchase value, less £206m additional cash injections = £125m increase in valuation before cash injections.  £125m/3 years of ownership = c.£42m/year.  Rounded up to £50m/year)
• The valuation of the additional infrastructure remains constant at £1bn

Scenario A - No further investment.  Organic growth only

 

Scenario B - £1bn infrastructure investment.  Organic growth of footballing operations

 

The longer they stay, the more precarious their position would become.

 

I've put this together in about 10 minutes and I'm currently too lazy on a Friday afternoon to check so apologies for any errors, but directionally should be sound.

 

 

 

 

 

10 mins, kin ‘ell! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[Whitley mag]

I really don’t think there’s anything mysterious or underhand gone on here, her relationship with PIF will be strong as ever, by all accounts she helped them strike a deal with US PGA tour and has already helped them double their investment with us.

 

The announcement will come and it’ll acknowledge everything she has done for the club. It’s already established she can’t keep up with the investment required and though she had a rolling management contract, they’ll all be aware that to employ the level of people they have their role now becomes diminished.

 

The loss here is the connection they’ve established with community and the fact they’ve been the face of new ownership. The club undoubtedly felt in safe hands with them involved, however maybe they just think their work is now done, they’re London/Dubai based and they want to pursue over business opportunities possibly even working with PIF again.

 

 

[BennyBlanco]

5 hours ago, Bondedcrown said:

With no provenance whatsoever! 

Just my opinion mate. Didn’t realise I had to bring some evidence to every post🙄

[Dokko]

Hopefully it means a huge infrastructure investment incoming and like @Eveready has stated, thry simply couldn't keep up. 

 

She'll be canny put of this deal, and I hope she sticks around in some capacity. 

[LionOfGosforth]

55 minutes ago, Eveready said:

I'm going to attempt to explain why it was never viable for PCP to keep their stake with significant infrastructure investment.

 

PCP owned their 6% (after dilutions), however they borrowed the money from RB to purchase this at 7% annual interest, which has not been repaid.

 

Staveley had to borrow money from the club to pay for legal fees unrelated to NUFC, strongly indicating that that she has liquidity issues.

 

Below I have set out 2 scenario's, neither are entirely realistic as they don't include any additional investment transfers/wages.  However, they are illustrative enough.

 

PCP has probably just about managed to keep up with interest to RB with the increased valuation of the club based on organic growth (excluding the addition investment in the playing squad).  However, if a large infrastructure investment is made, their share will reduce significantly but the valuation of the club based on organic growth will likely continue as an absolute £ value.

 

This would mean that if the clubs value organically grew £50m in a year, PCP would recognise £2.85m profit at their 5.7% share.  However, if a £1bn infrastructure investment was made, they would only recognise £1.1m profit at an equity share of 2.2%.  However, the interest would continue to accrue at the same 7% per annum.

 

Assumptions:

• Current NUFC valuation: £636m (source: Forbes)
• PCP equity pre-disposal: 5.7% (source: widely reported)
• Current value of loan from RB: £36m (this is understated, but it's more about direction of travel so it's sufficient for illustration)
• Loan at 7% interest (source: PCP/Cantervale's Companies House filings)
• £1bn infrastructure investment in Scenario B (roughly the cost of Spurs new stadium)
• The club's value increases organically by £50m/year (current valuation of £636m, less £305m initial purchase value, less £206m additional cash injections = £125m increase in valuation before cash injections.  £125m/3 years of ownership = c.£42m/year.  Rounded up to £50m/year)
• The valuation of the additional infrastructure remains constant at £1bn

Scenario A - No further investment.  Organic growth only

 

Scenario B - £1bn infrastructure investment.  Organic growth of footballing operations

 

The longer they stay, the more precarious their position would become.

 

I've put this together in about 10 minutes and I'm currently too lazy on a Friday afternoon to check so apologies for any errors, but directionally should be sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's all well and good but rutland said things were suspicious so I don't know what to believe now

[Gawalls]

1 hour ago, McDog said:

That's quite the post @Eveready. Nice work.

I’m also gonna say nice work even though I have no fucking clue if it’s right or how to check it’s figures lol

[Gawalls]

1 hour ago, PauloGeordio said:

10 mins, kin ‘ell! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

And he’ll have typed it on the way to the plane to Rwanda.

[Bishops Finger]

7 hours ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 

You forgot "whilst hanging out the back of a seagull"

That was a Geordie marra

[HaydnNUFC]

2 hours ago, Eveready said:

I'm going to attempt to explain why it was never viable for PCP to keep their stake with significant infrastructure investment.

 

PCP owned their 6% (after dilutions), however they borrowed the money from RB to purchase this at 7% annual interest, which has not been repaid.

 

Staveley had to borrow money from the club to pay for legal fees unrelated to NUFC, strongly indicating that that she has liquidity issues.

 

Below I have set out 2 scenario's, neither are entirely realistic as they don't include any additional investment transfers/wages.  However, they are illustrative enough.

 

PCP has probably just about managed to keep up with interest to RB with the increased valuation of the club based on organic growth (excluding the addition investment in the playing squad).  However, if a large infrastructure investment is made, their share will reduce significantly but the valuation of the club based on organic growth will likely continue as an absolute £ value.

 

This would mean that if the clubs value organically grew £50m in a year, PCP would recognise £2.85m profit at their 5.7% share.  However, if a £1bn infrastructure investment was made, they would only recognise £1.1m profit at an equity share of 2.2%.  However, the interest would continue to accrue at the same 7% per annum.

 

Assumptions:

• Current NUFC valuation: £636m (source: Forbes)
• PCP equity pre-disposal: 5.7% (source: widely reported)
• Current value of loan from RB: £36m (this is understated, but it's more about direction of travel so it's sufficient for illustration)
• Loan at 7% interest (source: PCP/Cantervale's Companies House filings)
• £1bn infrastructure investment in Scenario B (roughly the cost of Spurs new stadium)
• The club's value increases organically by £50m/year (current valuation of £636m, less £305m initial purchase value, less £206m additional cash injections = £125m increase in valuation before cash injections.  £125m/3 years of ownership = c.£42m/year.  Rounded up to £50m/year)
• The valuation of the additional infrastructure remains constant at £1bn

Scenario A - No further investment.  Organic growth only

 

Scenario B - £1bn infrastructure investment.  Organic growth of footballing operations

 

The longer they stay, the more precarious their position would become.

 

I've put this together in about 10 minutes and I'm currently too lazy on a Friday afternoon to check so apologies for any errors, but directionally should be sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should be on the plane to Rwanda!!!11!1

[gdm]

 

[Jack27]

 

Sad to see but understandable. Thanks for everything 

[TBG]

Can't forget the lack of statement before it was officially wrapped up.

[Jack27]

PIF getting 85% and Reubens 15%

 

https://www.newcastleunited.com/en/news/newcastle-united-announces-agreement-to-change-its-ownership-structure