New Financial results

[James]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#Finances

 

Just checked BBC and Guardian, your original post is right, although the £625m from overseas is actually included in the figures you provided.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

 

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 ?

 

Why indeed? Why do you think? Has it anything to do with Fred's aim of buying all shares? Or is it because he doesn't need to sell for the prices offered so far?

 

Conversely, why do you think the Halls want out so badly?

 

You tell me what is in it for any shareholder to own shares that are falling in value and paying no dividend?

[macbeth]

 

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 ?

 

Why indeed? Why do you think? Has it anything to do with Fred's aim of buying all shares? Or is it because he doesn't need to sell for the prices offered so far?

 

Conversely, why do you think the Halls want out so badly?

 

Cos they have proven track record of demolishing companies? Cameron Hall collapsed once Sir John left it to Douglas and Alison to look after. Now thye have milked every available penny they can out of NUFC they also wish to get as much cash as possible while they can.

 

 

You tell me what is in it for any shareholder to own shares that are falling in value and paying no dividend?

 

The belief that the value of the business will be reflected int he share price. As the board improve the business the share proce will rise and then any shareholder can make their own decision on when to take their profit. Microsft first paid a dividend in 2003. Up till then they view shreholder return as being in the share price, and the retention of cash important to improve the business.

 

Taking your profit by sellign your shares also means that the shareholder can decide when is the best time for him to get his return. With a dividend the company board is deciding when it is best for the shareholder, regardless of the tax implications.

 

The share price is falling because the busines is not performing. The board (which is managing it so that it doesn't perform) also give away the cash in the business. This means that the business must be worse off. As the dividends continue the business will eventually reach the point where it is borrowing money to compensate for the cash it has given away. And that is where Hall & Shepherd have managed to get us to now.

 

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

 

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 ?

 

Why indeed? Why do you think? Has it anything to do with Fred's aim of buying all shares? Or is it because he doesn't need to sell for the prices offered so far?

 

Conversely, why do you think the Halls want out so badly?

 

Cos they have proven track record of demolishing companies? Cameron Hall collapsed once Sir John left it to Douglas and Alison to look after. Now thye have milked every available penny they can out of NUFC they also wish to get as much cash as possible while they can.

 

 

You tell me what is in it for any shareholder to own shares that are falling in value and paying no dividend?

 

The belief that the value of the business will be reflected int he share price. As the board improve the business the share proce will rise and then any shareholder can make their own decision on when to take their profit. Microsft first paid a dividend in 2003. Up till then they view shreholder return as being in the share price, and the retention of cash important to improve the business.

 

Taking your profit by sellign your shares also means that the shareholder can decide when is the best time for him to get his return. With a dividend the company board is deciding when it is best for the shareholder, regardless of the tax implications.

 

The share price is falling because the busines is not performing. The board (which is managing it so that it doesn't perform) also give away the cash in the business. This means that the business must be worse off. As the dividends continue the business will eventually reach the point where it is borrowing money to compensate for the cash it has given away. And that is where Hall & Shepherd have managed to get us to now.

 

 

 

tbh I don't even know what your point is any more

 

one last time. NOBODY buys shares in a company which has a crap board, a falling share price and pays no dividends, except FF who has something to gain

 

If you think NUFC plc is the type of investment for the people who buy shares and play the long game like Microsoft et al you're off your fucking tree, unless you count possible future Sky deals, in which case keeping cash in the company changes fuck all

 

so just what is your point? Why are you whinging on about dividends?

[macbeth]

 

tbh I don't even know what your point is any more

 

one last time. NOBODY buys shares in a company which has a crap board, a falling share price and pays no dividends, except FF who has something to gain

 

If you think NUFC plc is the type of investment for the people who buy shares and play the long game like Microsoft et al you're off your f****** tree, unless you count possible future Sky deals, in which case keeping cash in the company changes f*** all

 

so just what is your point? Why are you whinging on about dividends?

 

Because in 1998 a vast number of us collectively invested £52m in our football team.

 

In the 9 years since then that money has be has been either pissed away by incompetence in the board, or just plain given away by a board that sees their own pension funds as more important than the future of the club.

 

I hate to see the incompetent running of the club. That they can get to the point where the expectation is a £25m loss this financial year is unbelievable.

 

That they can give away £35m of the club's money, when clearly the club couldn't afford it, is just wrong.

 

Nobody has bought shares in NUFC even when the dividends had been so ridiculously high. If this is the case then why the hell give them? You justification seems to be that the share price would collapse if there were no dividends. Which of the buyers of shares has been tempted by the dividend. As you said - NOBODY. So why bother? Well its cos Sheperd, and Hall, are essentially thieving bastards who are incompetent at runnign a business, but brilliant at asset-stripping.

 

The asset-strippign may not be there on the surface, because there is a time delay. When somebody actually gets in and removes Hall and Shepherd, then they wil have to balance the books. They wil find the only way to get the £35m back is to sell off assets. New owner gets the blame, Shepherd looks liek a hero, he "always backed his managers" where as the new owners will have to try and cope with the debts that good old Shepherd racked up while giving away all the clubs money.

 

NE5's pals McKeag and Westwood were incompetent,  Shepherd and Hall have the same business acumen, but are evil, money-grabbers.