Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 In all reality in football terms Newcastle United is a prime business oppurtunity. It is just being run badly. If I had the money (say £130m ) it would be a no brainer. We are being run incredibly badly and we have had some bad luck. suspending the laughter for a minute, but.. don't you think, given the fact Fred is sitting there able to demand £100m for NUFC and you're sitting there wishing you had £100m, that reflects on your potential ability to run a football plc as compared to Fred? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 In all reality in football terms Newcastle United is a prime business oppurtunity. It is just being run badly. If I had the money (say £130m ) it would be a no brainer. We are being run incredibly badly and we have had some bad luck. suspending the laughter for a minute, but.. don't you think, given the fact Fred is sitting there able to demand £100m for NUFC and you're sitting there wishing you had £100m, that reflects on your potential ability to run a football plc as compared to Fred? Didn't say I would run it DID I? I said I would buy it...I would get professionals to RUN IT. Try again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly Macbeth - Vic's point was that if the NUFC plc shareholders (and I'm sure he'll clarify whether he meant all the shareholders or just Shepherd/Halls when he explains his point in more detail) sell their shares, it will affect in some way our ability to borrow/pay off our loans. I don't think he was talking about the effect of dividend policy on share price. My understanding is that stripping out cash whether by dividend or share buy back is the preserve of successful businesses that have no current need for the cash. Was NUFC plc making profits at the time the dividends were paid out? In view of the club's high gearing and its cash hungry nature, and the financial importance of success on the field every year to generate money to finance debt repayment, transfers and wages, with the benefit of hindsight it would have been more sensible to keep the cash in the bank at least over the medium term, but it's up the directors running the club to decide based on the position at the time. My guess is the perilous state of the Halls finances has by and large driven the dividend and the share buy back policy. Maybe that's the danger of the shareholders running the club rather than an independent board. Shepherd is a beneficiary of this policy but has reinvested his money in buying more of the club's shares (the money going to the shares' previous owner not into the club). Of course the shareholders are perfectly entitled to dividends, however much it rankles, if the club's earned the profits to pay them. However I think it's a very short termist attitude and do other football clubs exept Man Utd pay dividends to shareholders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 In all reality in football terms Newcastle United is a prime business oppurtunity. It is just being run badly. If I had the money (say £130m ) it would be a no brainer. We are being run incredibly badly and we have had some bad luck. suspending the laughter for a minute, but.. don't you think, given the fact Fred is sitting there able to demand £100m for NUFC and you're sitting there wishing you had £100m, that reflects on your potential ability to run a football plc as compared to Fred? Didn't say I would run it DID I? I said I would buy it...I would get professionals to RUN IT. Try again. aye, it's a pure boom industry 'Footbal plc chief executives for hire'. I think I might start a recruitment company that's such a great idea like you wouldn't stick your fat cat nose in the first second your investment started going south so even as an 'amateur' at this game, FF's still managed to be a plc director for over 15 years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 What I find shocking that a PL business like ours which in effect gets so much 'free' money (tv and season ticket sales). All of which we get just for staying in the top league and we don't even have to win anything or show entrepeneurship or develop 'new business' (maybe buy one or two good players a year) can find itself in such a fiasco. It's a fucking monopoly....There isn't Newcastle United 2 fighting for our revenue streams/players/tv money etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Enron Kitty Enron.....Or as I like to end my lectures with the phrase "Everything is everything". Analysts can be bought. blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Exactly, our financial results are shit. So combined with no dividends why would anynone keep their shares? It has fuck all to do with keeping money in the bank I ask you do you think a shareholder invests in a shit football club with a falling share price and a zero dividend, just because they have cash in the bank? You class keeping money in the bank the same as a predicting a good financial year? That money has to go somewhere, you think potential investors have any illusion that NUFC plc has a history of using cash wisely? Luque anyone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Enron Kitty Enron.....Or as I like to end my lectures with the phrase "Everything is everything". Analysts can be bought. blueyes.gif Enron was interesting in that the company was as I understand it making its own market in its shares. Vic is right in that for the larger plcs, market capitalisation impacts credit ratings etc but also just as importantly the institutional shareholders who fire the management. Plus share plans for senior executives. Might interest you that I met David Bermingham a couple of times, one of the NatWest 3 now deported to Houston. Nice bloke and not a criminal mastermind type. That case is another whole can of worms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Exactly, our financial results are s***. So combined with no dividends why would anynone keep their shares? It has f*** all to do with keeping money in the bank I ask you do you think a shareholder invests in a s*** football club with a falling share price and a zero dividend, just because they have cash in the bank? You class keeping money in the bank the same as a predicting a good financial year? That money has to go somewhere, you think potential investors have any illusion that NUFC plc has a history of using cash wisely? Luque anyone? I think we're getting somewhere here. It's up to the shareholders as to what their investment strategy is. If the Halls or the Shepherds sell their shares, it doesn't necessarily impact the share price adversely. You can see that even the prospect of them selling out in recent times has pushed the price up. The Board is supposed to evaluate the long term financing needs of the business before it pays dividends. Our Board isn't sufficiently independent and has been heavily criticised for its lack of corporate governance. It's good that you're concerned for the shareholders but it's not like a FTSE 100 company - the majority of shares are in private hands and they are not going to dump their stock on the market, the club does NOT need to pay them dividends to preserve its share price. I expect any analysts would heavily criticise the company for doing so. As to your last comment, I think you may have misunderstood my point. If you pay the money out by dividend, it's gone. The point is the Board is supposed to review whether it needs the money BEFORE it pays it out. If you think it's better that the Board pays out any surplus money before they get the chance to spend it, well, they should be sacked in that case and a competent Board put in its place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Exactly, our financial results are s***. So combined with no dividends why would anynone keep their shares? It has f*** all to do with keeping money in the bank I ask you do you think a shareholder invests in a s*** football club with a falling share price and a zero dividend, just because they have cash in the bank? You class keeping money in the bank the same as a predicting a good financial year? That money has to go somewhere, you think potential investors have any illusion that NUFC plc has a history of using cash wisely? Luque anyone? I think we're getting somewhere here. It's up to the shareholders as to what their investment strategy is. If the Halls or the Shepherds sell their shares, it doesn't necessarily impact the share price adversely. You can see that even the prospect of them selling out in recent times has pushed the price up. The Board is supposed to evaluate the long term financing needs of the business before it pays dividends. Our Board isn't sufficiently independent and has been heavily criticised for its lack of corporate governance. It's good that you're concerned for the shareholders but it's not like a FTSE 100 company - the majority of shares are in private hands and they are not going to dump their stock on the market I think the bottom line is that football clubs don't make good PLC's as they are not blue sky operations.. I mean a football club will never have the potential to grow the business indefinately as the market for revenues has a ceiling. Even with ManU oft quoted as one of the most tasty investment snacks current turnover is £177m (double ours), even in 10 years they don't have the ability to double that, which over a decade is the basic goal of most small/medium operations. Infact if it hadn't been for the SKY deals, I'm not sure that more than 4/5 PL clubs the businesses would have grown at all. There are market/diminishing returns risk to increasing ticket prices, there is a limit to sponsorship and prixe money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Exactly, our financial results are s***. So combined with no dividends why would anynone keep their shares? It has f*** all to do with keeping money in the bank I ask you do you think a shareholder invests in a s*** football club with a falling share price and a zero dividend, just because they have cash in the bank? You class keeping money in the bank the same as a predicting a good financial year? That money has to go somewhere, you think potential investors have any illusion that NUFC plc has a history of using cash wisely? Luque anyone? I think we're getting somewhere here. It's up to the shareholders as to what their investment strategy is. If the Halls or the Shepherds sell their shares, it doesn't necessarily impact the share price adversely. You can see that even the prospect of them selling out in recent times has pushed the price up. The Board is supposed to evaluate the long term financing needs of the business before it pays dividends. Our Board isn't sufficiently independent and has been heavily criticised for its lack of corporate governance. It's good that you're concerned for the shareholders but it's not like a FTSE 100 company - the majority of shares are in private hands and they are not going to dump their stock on the market, the club does NOT need to pay them dividends to preserve its share price. I expect any analysts would heavily criticise the company for doing so. As to your last comment, I think you may have misunderstood my point. If you pay the money out by dividend, it's gone. The point is the Board is supposed to review whether it needs the money BEFORE it pays it out. If you think it's better that the Board pays out any surplus money before they get the chance to spend it, well, they should be sacked in that case and a competent Board put in its place. Good post Kitty. This is what I mean about monopoly even the majority of our shareholders have emotional attachement to the club and are largely in private hands...That is why as you say correctly the prixe isn't as vulernable as other companies. I did sell my shares though when my percentage gain was achieved. But that's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? you do know what happens to our ability to borrow / pay off loans when shareholders start to sell up don't you? or is that not in the Excel help files? Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Exactly, our financial results are s***. So combined with no dividends why would anynone keep their shares? It has f*** all to do with keeping money in the bank I ask you do you think a shareholder invests in a s*** football club with a falling share price and a zero dividend, just because they have cash in the bank? You class keeping money in the bank the same as a predicting a good financial year? That money has to go somewhere, you think potential investors have any illusion that NUFC plc has a history of using cash wisely? Luque anyone? I think we're getting somewhere here. It's up to the shareholders as to what their investment strategy is. If the Halls or the Shepherds sell their shares, it doesn't necessarily impact the share price adversely. You can see that even the prospect of them selling out in recent times has pushed the price up. The Board is supposed to evaluate the long term financing needs of the business before it pays dividends. Our Board isn't sufficiently independent and has been heavily criticised for its lack of corporate governance. It's good that you're concerned for the shareholders but it's not like a FTSE 100 company - the majority of shares are in private hands and they are not going to dump their stock on the market I think the bottom line is that football clubs don't make good PLC's as they are not blue sky operations.. I mean a football club will never have the potential to grow the business indefinately as the market for revenues has a ceiling. Even with ManU oft quoted as one of the most tasty investment snacks current turnover is £177m (double ours), even in 10 years they don't have the ability to double that, which over a decade is the basic goal of most small/medium operations. Infact if it hadn't been for the SKY deals, I'm not sure that more than 4/5 PL clubs the businesses would have grown at all. There are market/diminishing returns risk to increasing ticket prices, there is a limit to sponsorship and prixe money. I guess as Vic pointed out, an attractive investment gives you certainty of return. The trouble with most clubs is their business model doesn't provide that, in fact Man Utd is just about the only one that does. Too much is dependent on results on the pitch, and your star can rise or fall depending on whether you have a fuckwit Scottish manager or your star striker does his knee in playing for England. Our club has a whole load of addtional problems and it's only the Sky money that keeps the whole damn party going imo. I suppose the one big hope is that football explodes worldwide but I wouldn't expect our Board to capture that opportunity if it came along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 One area where Spurs have identifyied making money is buying young players and selling them a bit later for profit. I think over the last 5 years no-one can tough them on this. But they invested in scouting and bought in top blokes to achieve this. For a football business identifying cheap assets (young players) with a view to selling a portion of these 'finds' later is a nailed on revenue stream. blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 One area where Spurs have identifyied making money is buying young players and selling them a bit later for profit. I think over the last 5 years no-one can tough them on this. But they invested in scouting and bought in top blokes to achieve this. For a football business identifying cheap assets (young players) with a view to selling a portion of these 'finds' later is a nailed on revenue stream. blueyes.gif I guess so but selling good players is never popular with the fans. I guess proper scouting/youth development might be the future for us anyway if there's no more money stuffed in the mattress..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheKingOfNewcastle Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Imagine how easy to read this thread would be if everyone stopped fucking quoting eachother? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Imagine how easy to read this thread would be if everyone stopped f****** quoting eachother? spot on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 My understanding is that stripping out cash whether by dividend or share buy back is the preserve of successful businesses that have no current need for the cash. Was NUFC plc making profits at the time the dividends were paid out? In view of the club's high gearing and its cash hungry nature, and the financial importance of success on the field every year to generate money to finance debt repayment, transfers and wages, with the benefit of hindsight it would have been more sensible to keep the cash in the bank at least over the medium term, but it's up the directors running the club to decide based on the position at the time. The loss over the last 9.5 years has been £36m. The board have then given dividends of ~£31m and have bougth shares back for a further £4.5m. So roughly £35m paid to shareholders while making a £36m loss. (Rough figures) Graphs don't included the 9m loss annsounced yesterday... Before divis: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profit2.gif After divis: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profit5.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 I honestly believe a vast part of the problem is that half the team are on CL wages withouth CL football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 So basically since 98 we have made a loss of £36m, with the most significant part being in the last six months. That sounds bad, but... In the last few months it has been announced that from next season, every team in the Premiership will receive at least an extra £30m every season. Assuming there is some prudency, we should next season be able to wipe out the majority of the loss attained over the past ten years. Short term, that may not be good, as little maybe spent on the club, but in the long-run we should be much better off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 So basically since 98 we have made a loss of £25m, with the most significant part being in the last six months. That sounds bad, but... In the last few months it has been announced that from next season, every team in the Premiership will receive at least an extra £30m every season. Assuming there is some prudency, we should next season be able to wipe out the majority of the loss attained over the past ten years. Short term, that may not be good, as little maybe spent on the club, but in the long-run we should be much better off. You keep saying that and we're luckt that is so....But it in no way should detract from the figures in front of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 So basically since 98 we have made a loss of £36m, with the most significant part being in the last six months. That sounds bad, but... In the last few months it has been announced that from next season, every team in the Premiership will receive at least an extra £30m every season. Assuming there is some prudency, we should next season be able to wipe out the majority of the loss attained over the past ten years. Short term, that may not be good, as little maybe spent on the club, but in the long-run we should be much better off. The top team next season will receive £50m, instead of £30.4m this season The bottom side will get minimum of £26.8m The exacts amounts depend on apperances. The total is calcualted from 50% standard, 25% from finishign posiiton, 25% from appearance money. 7th last year got us £26.5m, roughly £7m was from finishing 7th. This is on £500,000 per position above the bottom. If we finish 7th next season we would get roughly an extra £14m. This is on £1.5m per position. This season we are lookign at a loss of roughly £25m for the whole season. The new Sky money would reduce this to only a £11m loss. There are other TV monies coming on from overseas deals, but I cannot find the exact figures Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 so tell me btw, why would any shareholder keep their shares in a devaluing company if no dividend was issued for 10 years? As they've now gone 3 reporting periods without divis, do you expect that Shepherd to sell up ? Why on earth would he hold on ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 There are other TV monies coming on from overseas deals, but I cannot find the exact figures You were thinking I was talking about Sky, I was actually referring to the new overseas deal which is approximately £600,000,000 split evenly between all 20 teams, coming to £30m each. So 7th next season would secure £44,000,000 more than in previous seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#Finances 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