| £15.3m profit on 10:53 - Mar 13 with 1641 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 10:51 - Mar 13 by Dr_Winston |
It may be a case of people offering the club a deal because of who they are and that would be grand. If that is the case then a bit more transparency wouldn't hurt. |
Transparency? It'll never catch on.
Given the figures, it's more a PR issue in my eyes. |  |
|  |
| £15.3m profit on 10:53 - Mar 13 with 1640 views | Shaky |
| £15.3m profit on 10:44 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
It's not clear. As of 2012, the club owed that company £30k. That also has to be disclosed in the accounts. It's possible but my understanding is that that would have had to be explicitly stated, and it isn't. |
As you relate them, these items are costs that have been expensed during the financial year via the profit and loss account.
They may or may not have been actually paid, but in the event they haven't they remain owed. [Post edited 13 Mar 2014 10:55]
|  |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 10:55 - Mar 13 with 1635 views | Dr_Winston |
| £15.3m profit on 10:53 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
Transparency? It'll never catch on.
Given the figures, it's more a PR issue in my eyes. |
The amounts aren't much, but we shouldn't be blase about them. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 10:57 - Mar 13 with 1622 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 10:53 - Mar 13 by Shaky |
As you relate them, these items are costs that have been expensed during the financial year via the profit and loss account.
They may or may not have been actually paid, but in the event they haven't they remain owed. [Post edited 13 Mar 2014 10:55]
|
The second sentence is irrelevant, but the first sentence is quite correct. Well done.
There's nothing in the accounts that is easily identifiable as relating to this £3.2m. The only thing that immediately came to mind was MM's unit up in Cwmdu we're now using as the distribution and retail outlet but there's no mention of that in the accounts (plus I think that was afterwards anyway). It's a puzzler. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 10:58 - Mar 13 with 1615 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 10:55 - Mar 13 by Dr_Winston |
The amounts aren't much, but we shouldn't be blase about them. |
Agreed. All for appropriate governance of such things. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:02 - Mar 13 with 1590 views | Shaky |
| £15.3m profit on 10:57 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
The second sentence is irrelevant, but the first sentence is quite correct. Well done.
There's nothing in the accounts that is easily identifiable as relating to this £3.2m. The only thing that immediately came to mind was MM's unit up in Cwmdu we're now using as the distribution and retail outlet but there's no mention of that in the accounts (plus I think that was afterwards anyway). It's a puzzler. |
I couldn't care less about that payment -- it is highly unlikely to be dodgy.
What I find far more interesting is that you say the company has bought back 50,000 shares for £400,000 leaving 950,000 shares out. Are you sure about that?
That implies a valuation of around £8m for 100% of the club, which means that the selling shareholder has been screwed over. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:03 - Mar 13 with 1586 views | AnotherJohn |
Not sure whether to gaze at that large expanse of blue sky or worry about those few dark clouds. |  | | |
| £15.3m profit on 11:06 - Mar 13 with 1579 views | Shaky |
| £15.3m profit on 11:02 - Mar 13 by Shaky |
I couldn't care less about that payment -- it is highly unlikely to be dodgy.
What I find far more interesting is that you say the company has bought back 50,000 shares for £400,000 leaving 950,000 shares out. Are you sure about that?
That implies a valuation of around £8m for 100% of the club, which means that the selling shareholder has been screwed over. |
Just to be clear on this, that valuation of £8 million for the club can only be a result of a preemption clause detailed in a shareholders agreement.
However, clauses that seek to impose sale terms far below any reasonable market value are not enforceable, in case any potential selling shareholders are reading. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| £15.3m profit on 11:07 - Mar 13 with 1577 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 11:02 - Mar 13 by Shaky |
I couldn't care less about that payment -- it is highly unlikely to be dodgy.
What I find far more interesting is that you say the company has bought back 50,000 shares for £400,000 leaving 950,000 shares out. Are you sure about that?
That implies a valuation of around £8m for 100% of the club, which means that the selling shareholder has been screwed over. |
Well feel free to check Companies House for yourself.
It doesn't imply a value of £8m of the club at all. Either way, whether Mel's been screwed over or not is a matter of interpretation, both his and anyone else's. From a personal perspective as someone who hopes the Supporters Trust can increase their holding to 25% at some point in the near future, I thank Mel for helping get the Trust closer to that goal and especially for everything he's done for the club. Noone could ever accuse him of using the club for his financial gain. Hopefully there are one or two smaller investors who might want to act in a similar manner in the future. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:07 - Mar 13 with 1575 views | Darran |
| £15.3m profit on 11:03 - Mar 13 by AnotherJohn |
Not sure whether to gaze at that large expanse of blue sky or worry about those few dark clouds. |
I went past caring the minute Shaky turned up. |  |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:10 - Mar 13 with 1564 views | C_jack |
I'd thought I'd say that I'm looking forward to this time next year already, when we can all dissect the Laudrup payout. |  |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:10 - Mar 13 with 1563 views | mark555 |
Maybe there is a pre existing agreement between the shareholders on what value the shares can be sold at with the shares having to be offered to the existing shareholders/board first.
It would stop a hostile takeover at the club by a Tan sort for example. | | | |
| £15.3m profit on 11:10 - Mar 13 with 1561 views | Shaky |
| £15.3m profit on 11:07 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
Well feel free to check Companies House for yourself.
It doesn't imply a value of £8m of the club at all. Either way, whether Mel's been screwed over or not is a matter of interpretation, both his and anyone else's. From a personal perspective as someone who hopes the Supporters Trust can increase their holding to 25% at some point in the near future, I thank Mel for helping get the Trust closer to that goal and especially for everything he's done for the club. Noone could ever accuse him of using the club for his financial gain. Hopefully there are one or two smaller investors who might want to act in a similar manner in the future. |
What do you mean "It doesn't imply a value of £8m"?
You say 950k shares out. Seller had 50k or 5% sold at £0.4m.
£0.4m / 0.05= £8m
Get your chum from the aherm City to check the maths
 | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:13 - Mar 13 with 1553 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 11:10 - Mar 13 by Shaky |
What do you mean "It doesn't imply a value of £8m"?
You say 950k shares out. Seller had 50k or 5% sold at £0.4m.
£0.4m / 0.05= £8m
Get your chum from the aherm City to check the maths
|
Oh dear.
So we can extrapolate the value of the company from one small transaction of a minor shareholding?
Oh dear. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:15 - Mar 13 with 1548 views | Shaky |
| £15.3m profit on 11:13 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
Oh dear.
So we can extrapolate the value of the company from one small transaction of a minor shareholding?
Oh dear. |
It is what happens in the stock market a few times every nanosecond, dear boy. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:16 - Mar 13 with 1478 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 11:15 - Mar 13 by Shaky |
It is what happens in the stock market a few times every nanosecond, dear boy. |
So the cost to buy 100% of a company would be the same as 20 times the cost to buy 5%?
Oh dear. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:17 - Mar 13 with 1477 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 11:07 - Mar 13 by Darran |
I went past caring the minute Shaky turned up. |
I was hoping it'd at least get to Page 6 before going completely off track. Oh well. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:22 - Mar 13 with 1458 views | Shaky |
| £15.3m profit on 11:16 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
So the cost to buy 100% of a company would be the same as 20 times the cost to buy 5%?
Oh dear. |
If you insist of semantic detail, tt is normal to pay a control premium for 100% of a company in the range of maybe 10-35% depending on various factors
Taking the upper range gives you a value of £10.8m, which based on the profit of £15.3m gives you a PE Ratio: of 0.7x or around 1/30th of the US stock market's valuation. Pretty good. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:23 - Mar 13 with 1454 views | Darran |
| £15.3m profit on 11:17 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
I was hoping it'd at least get to Page 6 before going completely off track. Oh well. |
Well that's not really fair is it all this thread will become now is you and Shaky arguing over whos right.
Just for the record in with you because the other ones a complete and utter bore.
I'm off. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:27 - Mar 13 with 1436 views | Shaky |
| £15.3m profit on 11:23 - Mar 13 by Darran |
Well that's not really fair is it all this thread will become now is you and Shaky arguing over whos right.
Just for the record in with you because the other ones a complete and utter bore.
I'm off. |
Don't worry Darran -- it always takes 2 sides with even half sustainable positions for any proper argument. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:27 - Mar 13 with 1433 views | Dull1Thomas |
So we don't have debts of £100,000,000+!
How on earth can we survive in the Prem without? | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:27 - Mar 13 with 1433 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 11:22 - Mar 13 by Shaky |
If you insist of semantic detail, tt is normal to pay a control premium for 100% of a company in the range of maybe 10-35% depending on various factors
Taking the upper range gives you a value of £10.8m, which based on the profit of £15.3m gives you a PE Ratio: of 0.7x or around 1/30th of the US stock market's valuation. Pretty good. |
Fine googling. I of course should point out this is all very well and good but Swansea City Football Club is not floated on any stockmarket. Of much more relevance would be the willingness of the other parties to sell and the restrictions in the articles regarding who or how a party can sell their shareholding and how external parties could come to the table. As such, the rest is irrelevant.
I'm off out to lunch. Have fun. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:29 - Mar 13 with 1429 views | Uxbridge |
| £15.3m profit on 11:27 - Mar 13 by Shaky |
Don't worry Darran -- it always takes 2 sides with even half sustainable positions for any proper argument. |
Very true.
Darran's right. For once. | |
| |
| £15.3m profit on 11:31 - Mar 13 with 1412 views | WarwickHunt |
| £15.3m profit on 11:27 - Mar 13 by Uxbridge |
Fine googling. I of course should point out this is all very well and good but Swansea City Football Club is not floated on any stockmarket. Of much more relevance would be the willingness of the other parties to sell and the restrictions in the articles regarding who or how a party can sell their shareholding and how external parties could come to the table. As such, the rest is irrelevant.
I'm off out to lunch. Have fun. |
At 11.30? Slacker. |  | | |
| £15.3m profit on 11:32 - Mar 13 with 1407 views | Darran |
| £15.3m profit on 11:31 - Mar 13 by WarwickHunt |
At 11.30? Slacker. |
Happy Meal. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
