ToonToon Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eveready Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 (edited) 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 July 12 by Eveready Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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 !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 That's quite the post @Eveready. Nice work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLC Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BennyBlanco Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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🙄 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionOfGosforth Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawalls Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawalls Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 1 hour ago, PauloGeordio said: 10 mins, kin ‘ell! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 And he’ll have typed it on the way to the plane to Rwanda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishops Finger Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 7 hours ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said: You forgot "whilst hanging out the back of a seagull" That was a Geordie marra Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Sad to see but understandable. Thanks for everything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Can't forget the lack of statement before it was officially wrapped up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 PIF getting 85% and Reubens 15% https://www.newcastleunited.com/en/news/newcastle-united-announces-agreement-to-change-its-ownership-structure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GideonShandy Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Very cold terse statement. Worrying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danh1 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Mitchell and his merry men coming in to run the show. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GideonShandy Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 1 minute ago, Jack27 said: PIF getting 85% and Reubens 15% https://www.newcastleunited.com/en/news/newcastle-united-announces-agreement-to-change-its-ownership-structure OK, that one's better. Not worrying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Amanda Staveley, Chief Executive Officer of PCP Capital Partners, said: "Newcastle United is such a special, unique club and being a co-owner of Newcastle United has been an honour. "Mehrdad and I have loved being part of this club and community and are extremely proud of the progress Newcastle United has made in recent years. "Our ambition has always been aligned to the brilliant fans of this club - to create consistently successful teams that regularly compete for major trophies and generate pride across the globe. "We are grateful to have played our part in setting up the club for even more future success. We will remain fans for life." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Sounds cut and dry that they’ll have zero involvement going forwards in any capacity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danh1 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Just now, gbandit said: Sounds cut and dry that they’ll have zero involvement going forwards in any capacity Good to get that clarity. It is a shame that they won’t be involved but it definitely feels like things are going to be moving up a notch in terms of ambition. 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