Wellin Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 7 minutes ago, Wellmental21 said: Pretty sure the papers have been leaking exclusives before fans knew things for years But this isn't someone from the press leaking anything. We've just had a vote on the prospect of un named prospective investors and the society potentially losing its majority share and now some investors are being named. I don't see the point in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, eliphas said: Yeah, I get that, but it's part and parcel with these types of things (i.e. Business sales/investment) a lot of the time. Very hard to keep things like that watertight. Especially essentially small business like ourselves. It should be. If people are professional and know what confidentiality means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gianfranco Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Wellindores imo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Wellmental21 said: Pretty sure the papers have been leaking exclusives before fans knew things for years haven’t shared anything that society board won’t be or will be made aware of soon. You don't think the well Society board should have known first? Just etiquette surely. Edited March 1 by Wellin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellmental21 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, Wellin said: You don't think the well Society board should have known first? Just etiquette surely. Who’s to say they don’t? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, Wellmental21 said: Who’s to say they don’t? Because you just posted saying nothing that the well society board won't be or will be aware of soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, Wellin said: It should be. If people are professional and know what confidentiality means. These names were shared by a new poser to the forum in their first ever post. I'd look to that motive rather than any other first. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 minute ago, Wellin said: It should be. If people are professional and know what confidentiality means. In principle you're completely right but you've no way of knowing who's happy with this, who's annoyed...if there are a couple of local boys (and Anderson is clearly a fan - he posts the sort of shite on twitter we all ramble on here) interested, it doesn't hurt their cause for it to leak a little, there will be a natural preference for their deal compared to a random. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 If an investor takes majority ownership do they ‘buy’ the 20+ % shares from the WS? Does that money go into the society funds? Do they need to buy my £200 of shares to take their holding up to the 50%, do I get that money? Is there any guarantee of money actually being invested in the club? The new guys now control things, they can spend money or not as they wish. Do the new investors use their own money or do they encourage the WS to transfer funds for the good of the club? Any investor is going to walk away after a period of time (five years, 10 years?), they will want an exit and will want their money back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellmental21 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, ropy said: If an investor takes majority ownership do they ‘buy’ the 20+ % shares from the WS? Does that money go into the society funds? Do they need to buy my £200 of shares to take their holding up to the 50%, do I get that money? Is there any guarantee of money actually being invested in the club? The new guys now control things, they can spend money or not as they wish. Do the new investors use their own money or do they encourage the WS to transfer funds for the good of the club? Any investor is going to walk away after a period of time (five years, 10 years?), they will want an exit and will want their money back. I’d have thought any shareholder would be treated like any other in any other form of business in relation to payment for shares. However a fan owned/investor model when not started that way from the start does muddy the waters a little and prob makes this process a bit more complex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellmental21 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Someone on steel men online saying one of the two original offers was for £2m over 6yrs and apparently that’s the better of the two we better not be accepting that or even opening dialogue for that 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 3 minutes ago, Wellmental21 said: Someone on steel men online saying one of the two original offers was for £2m over 6yrs and apparently that’s the better of the two we better not be accepting that or even opening dialogue for that What's your and Dave's offer like Greg? ...... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 2 minutes ago, Wellmental21 said: Someone on steel men online saying one of the two original offers was for £2m over 6yrs and apparently that’s the better of the two we better not be accepting that or even opening dialogue for that The club has annual turnover of more than 3x that amount. Maybe issue ~10% new shares for that kind of investment. That isn't even close to a game changing sum of money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 11 minutes ago, Wellmental21 said: Someone on steel men online saying one of the two original offers was for £2m over 6yrs and apparently that’s the better of the two we better not be accepting that or even opening dialogue for that There's no evidence of this. Someone on steelmen online saying something means nothing at this point in time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marinello Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Returning briefly to the football but I'm hearing Montgomery's return is nearer than we thought. Good news. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Just now, Marinello said: Returning briefly to the football but I'm hearing Montgomery's return is nearer than we thought. Good news. Indeed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 56 minutes ago, ropy said: If an investor takes majority ownership do they ‘buy’ the 20+ % shares from the WS? Does that money go into the society funds? Do they need to buy my £200 of shares to take their holding up to the 50%, do I get that money? Is there any guarantee of money actually being invested in the club? The new guys now control things, they can spend money or not as they wish. Do the new investors use their own money or do they encourage the WS to transfer funds for the good of the club? Any investor is going to walk away after a period of time (five years, 10 years?), they will want an exit and will want their money back. I believe the suggestion was it'd be newly issued shares with the money going into the club 'for investment'. Someone at the AGM could confirm? It's a fair question to ask whether the Society is better selling shares instead... it would mean less cash directly to spend but it would mean the fund is boosted for when it all goes wrong. Another question to ask eventually is what we're worth. Football clubs are incredibly hard to value but fortunately someone just agreed £6m for 25% for Hibs to give a first number for the back of an envelope - £24m. Very roughly, Hibs have turnover around twice ours and a net asset value roughly four and a bit times greater. Theirs is currently just over £23m...is that a fair value for the club? Yes and no... it's what you'd get in theory if you shut down tomorrow but selling those assets will be incredibly difficult and has no little reflection on potential future revenue. So within those various dubious parameters, we're worth at at an absolute minimum £6m (and I'd say that's unrealistic) with an absolutely top value around £12m (also dubious). If someone is offering a top offer of £2m over six years we shouldn't even be wasting time sending an email telling them to f**k off. That's so ridiculous I doubt it's true tbh. And the next consideration is again what's in it for them? If we're asking £3-4m for 51%, do we trust their business plan aiming for 10% ROI, or are we selling our future to a bunch of charlatans? Which would bring me back to to the everyone's a winner fantasy deal. If the local heroes stumped up a million for 15% of preferred shares with the commitment of soft low interest loans to bridge gaps, I have little doubt the Society would remain on the board and offer input, some red lines relating to bigger loans and the stadium, and fan engagement fund-raising but would happily leave the day to day to these guys. Who can then run the club and claim the dividends for having risked less of their own cash. Optimistic? Incredibly. But it's better holding out for that rare deal that we trust and we're happy with than taking a shit offer because Weir and McMahon don't recognise themselves in the new Society board. Edited March 1 by Handsome_Devil Typo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 17 minutes ago, Marinello said: Returning briefly to the football but I'm hearing Montgomery's return is nearer than we thought. Good news. Defintley good news 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 5 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: I believe the suggestion was it'd be newly issued shares with the money going into the club 'for investment'. Someone at the AGM could confirm? That's my understanding from what was said. Newly issues shares. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 15 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: I believe the suggestion was it'd be newly issued shares with the money going into the club 'for investment'. Someone at the AGM could confirm? It's a fair question to ask whether the Society is better selling shares instead... it would mean less cash directly to spend but it would mean the fund is boosted for when it all goes wrong. The money would be for investment in a club in which the investors had a controlling interest. How detailed can the guarantees be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.