Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

[neil999]

if they make us successful again, they can make as much profit as they like..

 

[neil999]

VIP Yanks at FF now, apparently.

sourcey mcsauceington?

 

[The Esk]

I wouldn't be getting rid of your shares just yet, in 4 years time give or take the club will be for sale again, this time with a new stadium done or in the pipeline. Chinese/Arab investors will guarantee you a profit of much more than £8500.

I think the yanks come in, clean house and sell to the highest bidder.

I agree, it was meant as a joke. Apart from more recent acquisitions the shares have been held for 3 generations, would love to pass them to my children.

 

[Pabbers]

sourcey mcsauceington?

Rumour flying around some other forum/fan pages.

 

[SerenityNigh]

1. Allow the details of the preferred bidder to be shared with all minority shareholders and fan base before the deal is signed.
2. Examine all the potential bidder options on the table and report back to the minority shareholders/fanbase the risks and rewards of there blueprints plans.

It,s very clear that since the exclusivity period has ended the club has no intention of sharing the blueprints of the preferred bidder until the deal is locked up. What we have seen is the club putting out controlled press releases via the echo to let everyone know we have forgotten you but "we know what,s best for you". Tell that to the Swansea FC , it,s fans forum and shareholders who walked away from these current bidders, at least they understood transparency and that football is a community not a financial VEHICLE.

It stinks to high heaven !

Tail wagging the dog here

 

[Ashtonian]

I agree, it was meant as a joke. Apart from more recent acquisitions the shares have been held for 3 generations, would love to pass them to my children.

that is a good thought, how will this affect yourself for example if you hold shares? Will you be bought out by the new owners or would they let you keep your minority holding in the club?

 

[SerenityNigh]

No mate, how about an EGM in the Philoharmonic Hall? Maybe the club could answer the 41 unanswered questions whilst they're there.

Little need to answer most of them after a takeover, eh?

 

[Blue_Berry]

I'm with you on the equity funding - could still be done to fund a stadium by the issue of B shares as previously mooted.
I use JG cos I'm idle and can't be bothered looking up their new name, but have never seen anything outside the public record so would have thought it was a term loan with penalties equivalent to interest for the whole term but am wrong.
Even without equity funding, surprised you didn't tell me the negative cash flow is a bit of a red herring - if you assume that the extra money is about 30mil per season, about 25 mil has to be either accumulated, expensed excluding player wages or used for capital/infrastructure.

One consistent theme throughout this thread is the urge to clear the club of debt - couple that with the desire to fund everything by equity, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of a deal getting done without a Man City style money-don't-matter owner. We shouldn't be afraid of debt. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that all businesses have debt - they thrive on it. We talk about how much debt capacity a business has - it is a vital component of a business model and it diversifies investment risk if structured properly. Which brings me to the situation we have - our current debt is horribly structured.

We should hope that a new owner will come in and introduce equity to repay the existing debt (amongst other things), but also fully expect them to take out more debt, properly structured on a look-forward basis - and expectations of future Sky / TV revenues can play a material part in that if not over-used, as can debenture-style receipts from commercial boxes, for example. It will be essential for any new stadium scenario - don't expect that to be fully funded by equity. As @TheEsk has pointed out it is a balancing act of progression on both financial and team performance fronts - the one feeds the other. I'm confident that the proposed new owners understand that. Of course they want to maximise the financial potential we have, but their track records suggests that they get that this also requires sustained performance and as much success on the pitch as possible.

 

[The Esk]

that is a good thought, how will this affect yourself for example if you hold shares? Will you be bought out by the new owners or would they let you keep your minority holding in the club?

That depends mate on what the new owners (assuming it happens) actually buy - they may buy just the Board's holdings and leave the other 32% or so in current hands, or they have agreement to acquire enough shares to force minority holders to sell. Until they publish their intentions there's no way of telling.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

No mate, how about an EGM in the Philoharmonic Hall? Maybe the club could answer the 41 unanswered questions whilst they're there.

Can the Phil take about 35,000 mate?

As he seemed to think the fanbase should have their 2 penneth as well like. It stinks otherwise apparently.

As has already been said, the 3 major stakeholders selling their shares, has precisely nothing to do with the small shareholders. Same as them choosing to move on their own has nothing to do with the 3 major stakeholders.

Anyone who thinks that there should be some form of fan debate on the suitability of any equity bid is living in a parallel dimension.

 

[Ashtonian]

That depends mate on what the new owners (assuming it happens) actually buy - they may buy just the Board's holdings and leave the other 32% or so in current hands, or they have agreement to acquire enough shares to force minority holders to sell. Until they publish their intentions there's no way of telling.

I hope they don't go down that path then mate, owning part of the club for generations must be amazing!

 

[BigBlueConk]

My slight concern is that most Americans interested in the sacred game are only interested in the potential profit.
This might easily go one of two ways, greatness or Villa. Either way, things will not stay the same.

Fingers crossed lads.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

That depends mate on what the new owners (assuming it happens) actually buy - they may buy just the Board's holdings and leave the other 32% or so in current hands, or they have agreement to acquire enough shares to force minority holders to sell. Until they publish their intentions there's no way of telling.

This is where I'm torn.
Hard headed money side says that the 100% takeover option is probably the best thing for the club if there is to be any possibility of equity rather than borrowings, but you and presumably hundreds of others have an emotional attachment to their shares.
Suppose if they acquired over 90% initially it doesn't really matter as a disparate group of individuals with under 10% can't cause too much trouble unless acted against in a prejudicial way, could still do an underwritten rights issue which may dilute the minority holding further which would be an ideal compromise.

 

[Ruairi77]

My slight concern is that most Americans interested in the sacred game are only interested in the potential profit.
This might easily go one of two ways, greatness or Villa. Either way, things will not stay the same.

Fingers crossed lads.

not most Americans, every American, in fact anyone from anywhere looking to invest that kind of money is primarily interested in the potential profit.

 

[anton66]

Can the Phil take about 35,000 mate?

As he seemed to think the fanbase should have their 2 penneth as well like. It stinks otherwise apparently.

As has already been said, the 3 major stakeholders selling their shares, has precisely nothing to do with the small shareholders. Same as them choosing to move on their own has nothing to do with the 3 major stakeholders.

Anyone who thinks that there should be some form of fan debate on the suitability of any equity bid is living in a parallel dimension.

Just the ones who voted for the move to Kirkby.