Who decides who buys our club?

There are loads of posts on here about various parties who might have , or might not have , expressed an interest in buying CCFC.

Haven`t got enough time now to comment in detail on who might be genuine and have the funds , who might be being used to attract bids from others or the possible politics of directors who would wish to have a different bid accepted for different reasons (e.g. personal financial gain or good of the club as a whole).

My own personal preference would be the Malaysian consortium as they would have the money not just to deal with the immediate crisis with new money (rather than just new loans replacing the existing ones) but also to ensure the longer term stability of the club and move it forward both on and off the field. Why have they taken so long to put in a firm bid? Well could it be that they have lost trust in the board member who "forgot"to tell them about both winding up petitions and who also may have "overlooked" to send them the information to do their due diligence and the information was only sent to them by someone else just before Christmas? (an EGM should reveal this if true).They might therefore prefer to conclude a deal only after he has left the club.

But , to try and make it clear for those who have asked who decides , the club`s own rules (the Articles of Association) filed at Companies House make it quite clear.

If 50 % or more (in value) decide to accept an offer to sell their shares , the all the other shareholders are obliged to sell as well at the same price. The top 10 shareholders hold more than that between them so control the outcome , but no single shareholder holds more than approx. 20% , so no individual involved in these negotiations can do a deal behind the backs of the others or without their agreement.


Keith (who is not the poster since64 by the way!!)

I honestly believe Steele will never out right Buy Our Club(might put a few bob in and join the board) and play with us for weeks, will keep the pressure off PR.
The Malaysians are the ones for me and they are flying in, in February ready to take over us if PR stands down.
Just My Opinions, nothing against Ben Steele, might prove me wrong.

well lets hope he proves you wrong, we need someone to step in and we need if quick.

Why wait until feb? With todays technology they are well capable of striking a deal to buy the club in the comfort of there own office in malaysia. [video conference,fax,email] If they want our club

The big problem for us is that we aren't a Premiership club. That's what all the big money people want as a toy/status symbol. The flip side to that, is most Premiership clubs have been bought in recent years at vastly inflated prices, and whereas before one could reasonably expect to sell in a few years time at an even more inflated price, nowadays the 'market value' of Premeirship clubs is going nowhere, and only loonies like Gold & Sullivan are going to spend silly sums [presumably 2012 has a big influence in their decision].

So if an investor can see a Championship side with Premiership potential, they may see an investment opportunity. Again, trouble is, there aren't that many people outside South Wales for whom CCFC holds any attraction.

There are loads of posts on here about various parties who might have , or might not have , expressed an interest in buying CCFC.

Haven`t got enough time now to comment in detail on who might be genuine and have the funds , who might be being used to attract bids from others or the possible politics of directors who would wish to have a different bid accepted for different reasons (e.g. personal financial gain or good of the club as a whole).

My own personal preference would be the Malaysian consortium as they would have the money not just to deal with the immediate crisis with new money (rather than just new loans replacing the existing ones) but also to ensure the longer term stability of the club and move it forward both on and off the field. Why have they taken so long to put in a firm bid? Well could it be that they have lost trust in the board member who "forgot"to tell them about both winding up petitions and who also may have "overlooked" to send them the information to do their due diligence and the information was only sent to them by someone else just before Christmas? (an EGM should reveal this if true).They might therefore prefer to conclude a deal only after he has left the club.

But , to try and make it clear for those who have asked who decides , the club`s own rules (the Articles of Association) filed at Companies House make it quite clear.

If 50 % or more (in value) decide to accept an offer to sell their shares , the all the other shareholders are obliged to sell as well at the same price. The top 10 shareholders hold more than that between them so control the outcome , but no single shareholder holds more than approx. 20% , so no individual involved in these negotiations can do a deal behind the backs of the others or without their agreement.


Keith (who is not the poster since64 by the way!!)

What if new shares are issued Keith ?

Why wait until feb? With todays technology they are well capable of striking a deal to buy the club in the comfort of there own office in malaysia. [video conference,fax,email] If they want our club

because come february 2nd wayne when he hasent paid the tax bill or brought any players in we can ask him why when he initally borrowed march's television money in advance (1.5 million) in november why hasent the tax bill been paid. People who were at the muni meeting will know he tried to palm this off as malaysian investment

On february the second having publicly stated that money from advance season tickets sales would go to strenghen the playing side he will have to explain that after selling over 10'000 season tickets not only has that not happened but still the tax bill remains unpaid.

On february the second in most people's opinions his position at the club becomes untenable and he should resign with immediate effect.

There are loads of posts on here about various parties who might have , or might not have , expressed an interest in buying CCFC.

Haven`t got enough time now to comment in detail on who might be genuine and have the funds , who might be being used to attract bids from others or the possible politics of directors who would wish to have a different bid accepted for different reasons (e.g. personal financial gain or good of the club as a whole).

My own personal preference would be the Malaysian consortium as they would have the money not just to deal with the immediate crisis with new money (rather than just new loans replacing the existing ones) but also to ensure the longer term stability of the club and move it forward both on and off the field. Why have they taken so long to put in a firm bid? Well could it be that they have lost trust in the board member who "forgot"to tell them about both winding up petitions and who also may have "overlooked" to send them the information to do their due diligence and the information was only sent to them by someone else just before Christmas? (an EGM should reveal this if true).They might therefore prefer to conclude a deal only after he has left the club.

But , to try and make it clear for those who have asked who decides , the club`s own rules (the Articles of Association) filed at Companies House make it quite clear.

If 50 % or more (in value) decide to accept an offer to sell their shares , the all the other shareholders are obliged to sell as well at the same price. The top 10 shareholders hold more than that between them so control the outcome , but no single shareholder holds more than approx. 20% , so no individual involved in these negotiations can do a deal behind the backs of the others or without their agreement.


Keith (who is not the poster since64 by the way!!)

What if new shares are issued Keith ?

If sufficient new shares are issued to give the new investor 50% or more of the total then in issue , then they would have the right to force the others to sell if and when there was a further sell-on under the existing club rules. Two points though

1) I am almost certain there is currently not enough capacity in the current authorised share capital to issue enough new shares to give a new investor 50% - so the existing shareholders would have to pass a resolution to increase the share issues allowed

2) the existing shareholders could change the existing 50% rule.


Keith

Cheers Keith.

I thought there was still quite a lot to issue, certainly enough to make a difference, but there have been a few handed out in the past few years, so I'm out of touch.

Probably a non-starter anyway, as a major part of either deal would need to involve some of the major shareholders cashing in anyway.

Its yet another concern that we could have a damaging tug-of-war developing.

Cheers Keith.

I thought there was still quite a lot to issue, certainly enough to make a difference, but there have been a few handed out in the past few years, so I'm out of touch.

Probably a non-starter anyway, as a major part of either deal would need to involve some of the major shareholders cashing in anyway.

Its yet another concern that we could have a damaging tug-of-war developing.

But for someone new to get 50% without buying out any of the existing shareholders would require at least a doubling of current shares issued. I am pretty sure there is not enough capacity to do that , but will check tomorrow.

If Ben Steele does come in and buys some shares at say 30p a share but doesn't take over the whole club surely that will stop the Malaysians taking over as he will want a profit or will not sell and the Malaysians aren't willing to pay anywhere near 30p if I understand it correctly.

If Ben Steele does come in and buys some shares at say 30p a share but doesn't take over the whole club surely that will stop the Malaysians taking over as he will want a profit or will not sell and the Malaysians aren't willing to pay anywhere near 30p if I understand it correctly.

maccy

i can assure you no one is going to pay 30p a share certainly not ben steele and certainly not the malaysians.
whoever comes in and say it was the middle of feb as an example they are faced with not having the sky television money due in march as the riddler has already borrowed that money off barclays and they hold a charge over that income.

they are faced with the fact that £10'000 worth of season ticket money for next season which would normally start to come in from april onwards has been received and spent already

they have to fund and build a house of sport which is going to cost in the region of 3 million to complete by the 31st of december.

they are faced with unpaid debts to coach companies, the vale and contractors who fitted out the stadium to name a few.
plus of course a huge unpaid tax bill by the look of things
people will be lucky to get 15p a share at most.
and the riddler really thinks that whoever comes in to the club will want to keep him at the helm with that track record

If Ben Steele does come in and buys some shares at say 30p a share but doesn't take over the whole club surely that will stop the Malaysians taking over as he will want a profit or will not sell and the Malaysians aren't willing to pay anywhere near 30p if I understand it correctly.

maccy

i can assure you no one is going to pay 30p a share certainly not ben steele and certainly not the malaysians.
whoever comes in and say it was the middle of feb as an example they are faced with not having the sky television money due in march as the riddler has already borrowed that money off barclays and they hold a charge over that income.

they are faced with the fact that £10'000 worth of season ticket money for next season which would normally start to come in from april onwards has been received and spent already

they have to fund and build a house of sport which is going to cost in the region of 3 million to complete by the 31st of december.

they are faced with unpaid debts to coach companies, the vale and contractors who fitted out the stadium to name a few.
plus of course a huge unpaid tax bill by the look of things
people will be lucky to get 15p a share at most.
and the riddler really thinks that whoever comes in to the club will want to keep him at the helm with that track record

Isn't that the problem though? Ridsdale thinks he can get 30p and is holding out for that.

Isn't that the problem though? Ridsdale thinks he can get 30p and is holding out for that.

Actually Maccy I agree with you I think Ridsdale believes he can 30p a share and probably more and there is a good argument why.

In 2007 the club was bought for 16p per share. The liabilites were £15m to Langston, a shortfall funding of £9m for the new stadium with the only real estate asset Ninian Park valued at £7m. At the time there was also only 7,500 season ticket holders and turnover was £10m per season.

Now the debts are £10m to Langston, £9m to PMG, £2.7m to Inland Revenue and £3m to various others. The real estate is a £50m stadium and 2 plots of land worth about £3m. There are 15,000 season ticket holders and around 1,000 Premier Club members. Turnover is £18m.

When you look at 2007 and now, you have to accept that the club does look a better proposition even if that is still in the shit but is definately worth 30p a share when compared to 2007.

Isn't that the problem though? Ridsdale thinks he can get 30p and is holding out for that.

Actually Maccy I agree with you I think Ridsdale believes he can 30p a share and probably more and there is a good argument why.

In 2007 the club was bought for 16p per share. The liabilites were £15m to Langston, a shortfall funding of £9m for the new stadium with the only real estate asset Ninian Park valued at £7m. At the time there was also only 7,500 season ticket holders and turnover was £10m per season.

Now the debts are £10m to Langston, £9m to PMG, £2.7m to Inland Revenue and £3m to various others. The real estate is a £50m stadium and 2 plots of land worth about £3m. There are 15,000 season ticket holders and around 1,000 Premier Club members. Turnover is £18m.

When you look at 2007 and now, you have to accept that the club does look a better proposition even if that is still in the shit but is definately worth 30p a share when compared to 2007.

yes i agree with some of your points tony but back in 2007 we hadent started eating into next seasons income in december.
whoever comes in now has all these bills to pay plus they have to make up the shortfalls on next seasons income.
with regards to the stadium its only an asset if you can sell it and the council have made sure that cant happen for at least the next 20 years and even then they have first option to buy it.

Guys thanks for your input very informative.