Why we won't be signing any of our transfer targets!

[Guest devlin_adl]

He's paying with cash so it doesn't take long for the takeover to go through hence how he bought SJH shares.

 

This isn't true.

 

Following the announcement, which was on Wednesday, SJHL has to issue an offer document. This has to be issued within 28 days of the announcement.

 

The offer will be open for a minimum of 21 days following the date of the offer document, and a maximum of four months.

 

At the end of this, if SJHL hold 90%+ of the shares, it can squeeze out the remaining shareholders, which will take another six weeks.

 

So the earliest the takeover is likely to be completed is mid-August. Probably it won't complete until after the transfer window closes.

 

Also, the bid is most likely to be debt financed. It's the most efficient way of doing it.

[madras]

He's paying with cash so it doesn't take long for the takeover to go through hence how he bought SJH shares.

 

This isn't true.

 

Following the announcement, which was on Wednesday, SJHL has to issue an offer document. This has to be issued within 28 days of the announcement.

 

The offer will be open for a minimum of 21 days following the date of the offer document, and a maximum of four months.

 

At the end of this, if SJHL hold 90%+ of the shares, it can squeeze out the remaining shareholders, which will take another six weeks.

 

So the earliest the takeover is likely to be completed is mid-August. Probably it won't complete until after the transfer window closes.

 

Also, the bid is most likely to be debt financed. It's the most efficient way of doing it.

thats is for the total acquisition,you don't need 100% to takeover running of the club

 

also current reports are saying the deal will not be debt financed.

[madras]

Indeed. According to the Journal, Mark Ashley only needs 50% to take over the day to day running of the club. And according to the Journal, they don't expect that to be a problem.

please don't say "according to the journal",it fills me with dread.

[Guest devlin_adl]

He's paying with cash so it doesn't take long for the takeover to go through hence how he bought SJH shares.

 

This isn't true.

 

Following the announcement, which was on Wednesday, SJHL has to issue an offer document. This has to be issued within 28 days of the announcement.

 

The offer will be open for a minimum of 21 days following the date of the offer document, and a maximum of four months.

 

At the end of this, if SJHL hold 90%+ of the shares, it can squeeze out the remaining shareholders, which will take another six weeks.

 

So the earliest the takeover is likely to be completed is mid-August. Probably it won't complete until after the transfer window closes.

 

Also, the bid is most likely to be debt financed. It's the most efficient way of doing it.

thats is for the total acquisition,you don't need 100% to takeover running of the club

 

also current reports are saying the deal will not be debt financed.

 

It's very ususual to start running a business until you have 100% control, although I suppose anything is possible. If you look at the recent Liverpool takeover, the new owners were retiscent about even meeting Benitez until the squeeze out had been completed.

 

If the deal is not debt financed, fair enough. However, I wouldn't trust reporters on this. When it comes to finance, they generally don't have a clue what they're talking about (apart from the business reporters).

[Montey]

You only need to own 50.1% of a company to have 100% say over the operation of said company.

 

Companies are democracies at the shareholder level.  1 share = 1 vote.  If one person owns more shares, and hence more votes, than all other share holders combined that one person now operates that company 100%.

 

It is very usual to start running a company, 100%, as soon as you have achieved 50.1% ownership.  The decision to not run the company until you have 100% ownership is entirely by choice.  In Liverpool's case the new owners will have made the decision to do things that way, but they could easily have started hiring and firing, etc, as soon as they owned 50.1% of the shares.

[Guest gggg]

Doug Ellis ran Villa with just 38%.

[Montey]

Doug Ellis ran Villa with just 38%.

 

Sure, and Shepherd runs NUFC with far less than 50% as well.  That's because the shareholders collectively voted to make that the case.  But in both cases neither Shepherd nor Ellis could have made the decision to run their clubs themselves without other shareholders voting with them.  That's because they individually do not own 50.1% of the shares, they needed others to vote with them to achieve a 50.1% of the vote in favour of the motion for them to run their clubs.

[Guest devlin_adl]

You only need to own 50.1% of a company to have 100% say over the operation of said company.

 

Companies are democracies at the shareholder level.  1 share = 1 vote.  If one person owns more shares, and hence more votes, than all other share holders combined that one person now operates that company 100%.

 

It is very usual to start running a company, 100%, as soon as you have achieved 50.1% ownership.  The decision to not run the company until you have 100% ownership is entirely by choice.  In Liverpool's case the new owners will have made the decision to do things that way, but they could easily have started hiring and firing, etc, as soon as they owned 50.1% of the shares.

 

This isn't exactly true. 50.1% gives you control of ordinary general meetings. You need 75% to give you control of special general meetings. Moreover, companies don't run as democracies - there is a concept of prejudice against minority shareholders which means that even if you own 80%+ of a company, you can't just do what you like.

 

Share ownership in itself does nto give you the right to start hiring and firing the staff a company. At 50.1%, what you can do is call an ordinary general meeting of the members. That requires at least 21 days notice (if you own 100% of the shares, you can avoid giving notice, but otherwise you can't). At that meeting you can then replace the directors, and the new directors can start hiring and firing.

 

However, given that at this time, the club would still be listed (you can't take a company private unless you have at least 75% of the shares because you need to call a special general meeting), and such action could very likely be seen a prejudicial to the remaining minority shareholders.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

if we suspend trading, it means we can't buy any more tea-bags

 

am I right or am I wrong?

[Cronky]

Let's bear in mind that two of the members of the current Board are Hall family members. They can be expected to put forward Ashley's views and interests, and if any communication is needed between Ashley and Allardyce, there is that avenue.

[Rob W]

I think that once Ashley gets a majority and is obliged to make an offer for the rest of the shares, the company will have to suspend trading, meaning we won't be able to buy any players until the takeover is finalised.

 

With Ashley saying he wants to be in full control by the start of the season we may be in a position where we cannot buy any of our targets at all this summer, especially if FF tries to fight the takeover.

 

Am I right or am I wrong?

 

wrong - suspending the shares doesn't mean the company stops trading

 

he has to make an offer for ALL the shares once he gets 30% (ie now) - the shares continue to trade until the company removes them from the stock market (which they have the option to do once he reaches 75%).

 

teh company trades right through - you have to seperate the shraeholders from teh business