Investment? £15m nominal value (2 Viewers)

Pitch87 · Thursday at 12:48 PM

Looks like an external investor has invested £15m and now owns 10% of the club.

The calculation is 11,000,000 original shares + 1,222,222 newly issued shares =12,222,222 total shares. 1,222,222 shares therefore equates to 10%.

The £15m looks like it has gone into the company (rather than out to a seller) as these are new shares. This therefore implies Doug valued the club at £135m before the money came in and £150m post money (hence £15m for 10% stake).

It will be very interesting to know who now owns that 10%. Unlikely to be Doug or related party as he could just continue to fund the business by way of the 0% unsecured loans he has used previously.

clint van damme · Thursday at 1:55 PM

Pitch87 said:
It will be very interesting to know who now owns that 10%.

edgy · Thursday at 2:19 PM

shmmeee · Thursday at 2:44 PM

Grendel · Thursday at 2:45 PM

Pitch87 said:
Looks like an external investor has invested £15m and now owns 10% of the club.

The calculation is 11,000,000 original shares + 1,222,222 newly issued shares =12,222,222 total shares. 1,222,222 shares therefore equates to 10%.

The £15m looks like it has gone into the company (rather than out to a seller) as these are new shares. This therefore implies Doug valued the club at £135m before the money came in and £150m post money (hence £15m for 10% stake).

It will be very interesting to know who now owns that 10%. Unlikely to be Doug or related party as he could just continue to fund the business by way of the 0% unsecured loans he has used previously.

It doesn’t imply he values the club at that at all. It’s worth nothing like that.

Pitch87 · Thursday at 2:46 PM

It more than implies, it's a factual calculation.

edgy · Thursday at 2:49 PM

Grendel · Thursday at 2:49 PM

Pitch87 said:
It more than implies, it's a factual calculation.

It isn’t. It’s an injection of cash through share capital and isn’t to do with any valuation. The club is worth nothing like that.

Pitch87 · Thursday at 2:52 PM

It's £15m for a 10% stake (calculation above).

fernandopartridge · Thursday at 2:55 PM

The money has not necessarily made its way to the club yet, it's an injection of capital into the club's parent.

JimmyHillsbeard · Thursday at 2:58 PM

clint van damme said:
View attachment 43483

Captain Dart · Thursday at 3:06 PM

shmmeee said:
View attachment 43485

Never forget text a sub man.

fernandopartridge · Thursday at 3:11 PM

Pitch87 said:
It's £15m for a 10% stake (calculation above).

The price to buy a share and the value of the company are not necessarily the same.

JimmyHillsbeard · Thursday at 3:11 PM

Captain Dart said:
View attachment 43488
Never forget text a sub man.

Years ahead of his time. Every match day thread contains dozens of substitute suggestions now.

WestEndAgro · Thursday at 3:13 PM

Pitch87 · Thursday at 3:15 PM

fernandopartridge said:
The price to buy a share and the value of the company are not necessarily the same.

That's the definition of the equity value. We may not agree that it is a rationale valuation by normal metrics but a willing buyer has paid that to a willing seller, hence fair market value. The number of shares multiplied by the price per share is the equity value.

slondonskyblue · Thursday at 3:16 PM

Heard it here first:

After saving his earnings as a mascot since 1969, Sky Blues Sam becomes minority owner of CCFC.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Thursday at 3:25 PM

I’m still convinced it coincides with Nicola Ibbotson coming in from PSG… she’s coming in to make sure QSI’s latest investment is going into the club

edgy · Thursday at 3:27 PM

Captain Dart said:
View attachment 43488
Never forget text a sub man.

He still owes a % doesn't he? Or did that all get swallowed up when King took over?

fernandopartridge · Thursday at 3:27 PM

edgy said:
He still owes a % doesn't he? Or did that all get swallowed up when King took over?

He doesn't anymore

Edit - unless he's just fronted £15m

Captain Dart · Thursday at 4:19 PM

edgy said:
He still owes a % doesn't he? Or did that all get swallowed up when King took over?

OMG, do you think he's a Klingon.

Deity · Thursday at 4:53 PM

Pitch87 said:
That's the definition of the equity value. We may not agree that it is a rationale valuation by normal metrics but a willing buyer has paid that to a willing seller, hence fair market value. The number of shares multiplied by the price per share is the equity value.

These are WUM accounts. They only come on to get a reaction. I wouldn’t try using logic or facts to persuade them.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Thursday at 5:42 PM

Pitch87 said:
That's the definition of the equity value. We may not agree that it is a rationale valuation by normal metrics but a willing buyer has paid that to a willing seller, hence fair market value. The number of shares multiplied by the price per share is the equity value.

Broadly agree, except that a minority share will be at a discount because of the lack of control.

So, (usually) the value of a 100% stake will be more than 10 times the value of a 10% stake.

oldfiver · Thursday at 6:07 PM

Pitch87 said:
Looks like an external investor has invested £15m and now owns 10% of the club.

The calculation is 11,000,000 original shares + 1,222,222 newly issued shares =12,222,222 total shares. 1,222,222 shares therefore equates to 10%.

The £15m looks like it has gone into the company (rather than out to a seller) as these are new shares. This therefore implies Doug valued the club at £135m before the money came in and £150m post money (hence £15m for 10% stake).

It will be very interesting to know who now owns that 10%. Unlikely to be Doug or related party as he could just continue to fund the business by way of the 0% unsecured loans he has used previously.

Why do you suggest a new investor ?

If you check the CCFC Companies House page you will see a similar issue which is where the funds finish up

SHUNT31 · Thursday at 6:08 PM

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
Broadly agree, except that a minority share will be at a discount because of the lack of control.

So, (usually) the value of a 100% stake will be more than 10 times the value of a 10% stake.

The shares issued are ‘A’ class shares. They are a separate share class which will most likely have different voting rights, entitlement to dividends etc.

It’s unlikely 1 ordinary share will be valued the same as 1 ‘A’ share as they will hold different rights.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Thursday at 6:12 PM

JimmyHillsbeard said:
Years ahead of his time. Every match day thread contains dozens of substitute suggestions now.

Pitch87 · Thursday at 6:16 PM

oldfiver said:
Why do you suggest a new investor ?

If you check the CCFC Companies House page you will see a similar issue which is where the funds finish up

Yes could be Doug, fully agree but why issue new shares when the previous new money (£30m+) that Doug has invested post acquisition has come from interest free loans? If you own 100% you don't need to issue new shares (unless for specific reasons like tax which isn't my area) as dilution isn't an issue. Also think the shareholder rights of the new issuance are filed at Companies House and seem the same as existing shares. Absolutely no reason for thinking this but can't help wondering if Ashley/Arena is involved as greater alignment of interests makes sense but that is complete speculation.

SHUNT31 · Thursday at 6:20 PM

Pitch87 said:
Yes could be Doug, fully agree but why issue new shares when the previous new money (£30m+) that Doug has invested post acquisition has come from interest free loans? If you own 100% you don't need to issue new shares (unless for specific reasons like tax which isn't my area) as dilution isn't an issue. Also think the shareholder rights of the new issuance are filed at Companies House and seem the same as existing shares. Absolutely no reason for thinking this but can't help wondering if Ashley/Arena is involved as greater alignment of interests makes sense but that is complete speculation.

I agree with this.

It’s not just a share issue, but a whole new class of shares too.

Loaning money would have been much easier, and cheaper (if interest free).

oldfiver · Thursday at 6:22 PM

Pitch87 said:
Yes could be Doug, fully agree but why issue new shares when the previous new money (£30m+) that Doug has invested post acquisition has come from interest free loans? If you own 100% you don't need to issue new shares (unless for specific reasons like tax which isn't my area) as dilution isn't an issue. Also think the shareholder rights of the new issuance are filed at Companies House and seem the same as existing shares. Absolutely no reason for thinking this but can't help wondering if Ashley/Arena is involved as greater alignment of interests makes sense but that is complete speculation.

I would think he is constrained by EFL rules regarding debt in CCFC. So he has to put funds in by way of capital

SHUNT31 · Thursday at 6:23 PM

oldfiver said:
I would think he is constrained by EFL rules regarding debt in CCFC. So he has to put funds in by way of capital

For PSR, which has already been established we are not even close to reaching.

oldfiver · Thursday at 6:24 PM

SHUNT31 said:
I agree with this.

It’s not just a share issue, but a whole new class of shares too.

Loaning money would have been much easier, and cheaper (if interest free).

Cheaper ?

Not difficult to do a share issue on line. Less hassle than a loan agreement

shmmeee · Thursday at 6:25 PM

This thread is nice. Like old times.

Pitch87 · Thursday at 6:26 PM

SHUNT31 said:
For PSR, which has already been established we are not even close to reaching.

Not an expert on PSR but think that restricts losses (not amount of debt). Interest free loans have no impact on P&L (losses).

Pitch87 · Thursday at 6:27 PM

oldfiver said:
Cheaper ?

Not difficult to do a share issue on line. Less hassle than a loan agreement

Very possible, could well be Doug but strange to change MO.

SHUNT31 · Thursday at 6:30 PM

oldfiver said:
Cheaper ?

Not difficult to do a share issue on line. Less hassle than a loan agreement

Let’s be honest, DK has not gone online to sort this. He would have paid his accountant. That’s why I meant cheaper.

Debt is cheaper than equity btw.

Investment? £15m nominal value (2 Viewers)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency