JimmyHillsbeard
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure it’s necessarily the owner but …
Investment? £15m nominal value (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter JimmyHillsbeard
- Start date
Sky Blue Wozza
Well-Known Member
He’s taken out 3 season tickets in the Mahou Lounge
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
So nice to have an owner putting in money that isn’t a loan with interest.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Wonder if it might be adding some funds so we can press go on some transfers before we lose out.
More likely wishful thinking, but I can hope.
More likely wishful thinking, but I can hope.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The club has already got a revolving credit facility so I'd be surprised
SHUNT31
Well-Known Member
That credit facility is just between CCFC and CovCityCo (Parent). The new shares have been issued to CovCityCo so at the moment are completely separate from the credit facility you mention.
That being said, I do think it’s unlikely a sole shareholder would issue new shares to inject capital, particularly when we are not close to breaching PSR.
This could be external investment. I am sure some ITK’s claimed that DK was looking for external investors this time last year, but could be wrong.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Perhaps its related to whatever stadium agreement is in the pipeline?
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
Cash back from his Monzo account!?
stay_up_skyblues
Well-Known Member
It’s probably just to cover the gas and electric for the last quarter. Not far off my most recent bill tbf.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
It's at times like this, that i miss OSB58
Last edited:
Andy123456
Well-Known Member
Haha and yet they'll still be so called fans saying he's broke, like they are his bank managers 
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
He was a proper Gent on here
Aside from his financial knowledge, never seen him use any bad language or resort to childish name calling like most of us on here have done at some point
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
This is the way to inject into a club. Not Blues' mad 12% interest loans.
Winny the Bish
Well-Known Member
£15m has been injected into the club that doesn’t have to be repaid.
Could be King wiping out some debts, providing cash for transfers, paying player and staff wages over the non-football months, or the less likely option of an investor purchasing 10% of the club.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
It just means that the £15m isn't repayable to owners. It will appear as an injection of liquid cash into the club and it's very good for our PSR submission as it is essentially calculated as free money so can offset any losses.
The other method of injecting money that most owners, including Blues', do is to loan the club the money. This is better for the owner as it is obviously repayable but also leverages control over the organisation. For the club it is worse as it accrues interest and puts them at PSR risk. This is the route that Derby and Reading went down.
It either means Doug is putting more of his own cash in or he has moved a % of the club on to an external investor. Either way it's great for us.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I do wonder how many Championship clubs are owned by a local businessman these days? Especially one that has so far made almost all the right decisions? Most are owned by faceless wonders
Our ownership model feels almost too good at times, just because the cynic in me expects him to try and rip off the club!
baldy
Well-Known Member
Oh stop being a stupid smelly poo poo head
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Flip off Kojak
PUSB-We_are_going_up
Well-Known Member
Does that mean our club is valued at £150m without a ground if it was indeed someone purchasing 10% or is it just a boosted price slightly based on less being brought.
(it’s almost definitely to do with operating costs, stadium deal, wages, bonuses, training ground and other expenses like that but still)
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
For a share issue the club can be valued at whatever the owner decides.
It’s not the same as market value
CovValleyBoy
Well-Known Member
Ashley investing ?
speedie87
Well-Known Member
It think it means whoever filed those forms might have cocked up!
So this company is the holding company of the football club company. That basically rams this company owns all the shares in the football club company.
Previously this holding company had issued 11000000 Ordinary £0.01 shares. Some had been issued for £3.14 per share, some at £3.06 and some at £2.06. The par value of issued shares was £110000
we knew that Doug owns at least 75% if not all of those shares.
The company has now issued 1222222 A Ordinary shares. So a different class of shares for £15m - so £12.27 per share.
We don’t know who those shares have been issued to or what is the difference between the Ordinary share and A ordinary shares as yet. I would expect a resolution should have been filed at this point which might give more detail but there hasn’t been.
I expect these new A shares have been issued to someone other than Doug. I think someone has bought 10% stake in this holding company for £15m. .
notes.
1) when I say someone has paid £x for shares it doesn’t necessarily mean that’s new money coming in to pay for the shares. An existing loan due to someone for the same value could been used as the consideration for the shares.
The (form) has been filled in as if the nominal value of the new shares is £12.27 however that was the amount Paid per share - the nominal value of the shares is likely only£0.01 per share.
So this company is the holding company of the football club company. That basically rams this company owns all the shares in the football club company.
Previously this holding company had issued 11000000 Ordinary £0.01 shares. Some had been issued for £3.14 per share, some at £3.06 and some at £2.06. The par value of issued shares was £110000
we knew that Doug owns at least 75% if not all of those shares.
The company has now issued 1222222 A Ordinary shares. So a different class of shares for £15m - so £12.27 per share.
We don’t know who those shares have been issued to or what is the difference between the Ordinary share and A ordinary shares as yet. I would expect a resolution should have been filed at this point which might give more detail but there hasn’t been.
I expect these new A shares have been issued to someone other than Doug. I think someone has bought 10% stake in this holding company for £15m. .
notes.
1) when I say someone has paid £x for shares it doesn’t necessarily mean that’s new money coming in to pay for the shares. An existing loan due to someone for the same value could been used as the consideration for the shares.
The (form) has been filled in as if the nominal value of the new shares is £12.27 however that was the amount Paid per share - the nominal value of the shares is likely only£0.01 per share.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Why would he need to inform the fanbase?
I think it’s only over 15% owners that need to be disclosed to the EFL
That was my question, if it needs to be disclosed or not. So they only would if it's 15% or over, that's interesting.
edgy
Well-Known Member
Don't think he has "sold 10%" of the club (existing shares), more like he has introduced new shares for fresh investment. I think this essentially is like a funding raise whereby the new shares dilute the overall individual share value.
So, say the club's value or market cap is £100m, with 1m shares in issue. That is £100 per share. Now DK introduces 500000 new shares at a certain price (£15m in this case) and sells them to someone. The value or MC of the club doesnt change, but this now means there is 1.5m shares in issue at £66.66 per share.
So, say the club's value or market cap is £100m, with 1m shares in issue. That is £100 per share. Now DK introduces 500000 new shares at a certain price (£15m in this case) and sells them to someone. The value or MC of the club doesnt change, but this now means there is 1.5m shares in issue at £66.66 per share.
Calista
Well-Known Member
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
It’s around that. It’s the reason given as to why SISU didn’t have to name their investors, no one entity owned 15% of the club. They were investment fund 1, 2 etc
You are not required to tell the fan base anything. That would be like Marks and Spencer’s selling shares then having to notify all their customers what they are doing.
So he could sell let's say 40% of the club, 10% to four different investors and not have to name them? Or is it 15% in total of the club and then he'd have to name them?
speedie87
Well-Known Member
It has to note on companies house any people who have significant control
at moment Doug is only person listed and he’s in the 75-100% share ownership category. So it will only be if more than 25% of the company is owned by someone else he’d drop to the 51-75% category.
If someone else owned 25% they would have to be listed but if say 2 parties both had 15% they wouldn’t
Sky Blue Goblin
Well-Known Member
Good article in the Telegraph on what it could be. Mostly stuff on here but also mentioned it could be Doug converting some of the director loans into shares in order for them to not have to be repaid