AndyBrew Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 you don't have to issue all shares when starting a company, it's quite common to hold some shares back for sale at a future date to either new investors or to existing shareholders.
Flynny Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 When Milan took over he didn't buy the shares. The old consortium still own their original shares until this summer I believe. The agreement Milan came to meant that he had to inject £9 Million into the club in return for new shares being issued to him. That diluted the Old Consortium's stake to 25% of the club. Let's assume the New Consortium has done the same and created new shares. In that case, Milan and the Old Consortium own 40% of the club between them. Before the takeover, the Old Consortium owned 25%, they'll now own 25% of 40% - or 10% overall. Milan's option to buy those shares at a price dependant on our success kicked in this year. Assuming he hasn't yet done so and/or the New Consortium are negotiating to buy them instead, that could be where the missing 10% is and why there'll be an announcement soon.
davieG Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 When Milan took over he didn't buy the shares. The old consortium still own their original shares until this summer I believe. The agreement Milan came to meant that he had to inject £9 Million into the club in return for new shares being issued to him. That diluted the Old Consortium's stake to 25% of the club. Let's assume the New Consortium has done the same and created new shares. In that case, Milan and the Old Consortium own 40% of the club between them. Before the takeover, the Old Consortium owned 25%, they'll now own 25% of 40% - or 10% overall. Milan's option to buy those shares at a price dependant on our success kicked in this year. Assuming he hasn't yet done so and/or the New Consortium are negotiating to buy them instead, that could be where the missing 10% is and why there'll be an announcement soon. I thought the old consortium, pre-Mandaric interests finished when we failed to get promotion last season, even then I believe there was only a commitment to pay them additional monies if we went up and then a further payment if we stayed up for 3 years (not too sure on the 3 part).
Flynny Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 I thought the old consortium, pre-Mandaric interests finished when we failed to get promotion last season, even then I believe there was only a commitment to pay them additional monies if we went up and then a further payment if we stayed up for 3 years (not too sure on the 3 part). I remember it being worded that Mandaric had an option to buy and the Old Consortium's shareholders had an option to force him to buy for the prices that were outlined. If a takeover was in the offing both parties might well have held their horses. In which case it'd make sense if that remaining 10% is being dealt with now.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 [/b] So Val, why did you do a post of multi-quotes contradicting what you are now saying?. If you didn't understand the question fine, no-one will think any less of you, but to start name calling and refering to me as supercilious and then write your response in the very same manner beggars belief. I'm sure you are a very amiable person really, don't let your lack of basic knowledge or inability to define the word takeover, cloud the true you! Have a good day. With regards to your response to my post, if I knew who you were, then I WOULD call you a numpty to your face. I don't have any other means to reply to you, other by posting. Your latter posts show a complete lack of intelligence, and are empty, puerile, rash, and unintelligent responses to other posts. A bag of wind, to be blunt. Very sad. :yawn: :yawn:
Webbo Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 With regards to your response to my post, if I knew who you were, then I WOULD call you a numpty to your face. I don't have any other means to reply to you, other by posting. Your latter posts show a complete lack of intelligence, and are empty, puerile, rash, and unintelligent responses to other posts. A bag of wind, to be blunt. Very sad. :yawn: :yawn: Any need? You do seem to go out of your way to offend people. It's possible to debate something with someone without resorting to insults.
Fox You Forest Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 Any need? You do seem to go out of your way to offend people. It's possible to debate something with someone without resorting to insults. I'm still can't make my mind up if it's someone on a wind up or if he's genuine, I fear for him if it's the latter.
THEBIGJOHNSTEADER; Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 My source told me an Indonesian investor had taken on the other half. He's still in Thailand on LCFC business this week
SilverFox Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 My source told me an Indonesian investor had taken on the other half. He's still in Thailand on LCFC business this week How can you take on half when one party owns 60% and the troll also has a stake?
THEBIGJOHNSTEADER; Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 Ok the other chunk. Edit- if I can get hold of him this week I will ask him. Originally he told me it would be 49 Thai, 49 Indonesian and 2 Milan or along those lines
Foxes_Trust Posted 15 August 2010 Posted 15 August 2010 When Milan took over he didn't buy the shares. The old consortium still own their original shares until this summer I believe. The agreement Milan came to meant that he had to inject £9 Million into the club in return for new shares being issued to him. That diluted the Old Consortium's stake to 25% of the club. Let's assume the New Consortium has done the same and created new shares. In that case, Milan and the Old Consortium own 40% of the club between them. Before the takeover, the Old Consortium owned 25%, they'll now own 25% of 40% - or 10% overall. Milan's option to buy those shares at a price dependant on our success kicked in this year. Assuming he hasn't yet done so and/or the New Consortium are negotiating to buy them instead, that could be where the missing 10% is and why there'll be an announcement soon. No it didn't work quite that way, although you are correct that new shares were issued duliting the original shareholding & that 2 lots of £4.5 million had to be invested bu Milan in the club by specified dates (which it did), otherwise the agreement could be challenged. Milan immediately bought all the diluted shares, over 90% of the previous shareholders voted in favour of the sale & the rest were therefore compulsory purchased. The value received for them was dependent on subsequent promotion & only the original 10% of the original value was paid to ex-shareholders. So the "old consortium" doesn't own any of the new shares.
samuel Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 With regards to your response to my post, if I knew who you were, then I WOULD call you a numpty to your face. I don't have any other means to reply to you, other by posting. Your latter posts show a complete lack of intelligence, and are empty, puerile, rash, and unintelligent responses to other posts. A bag of wind, to be blunt. Very sad. :yawn: :yawn: Wow, a truly remarkable example of a badly constructed sentence. You'll go far!. Have a good day you not-so Dangerous Tiger..
James. Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 One thing that's becoming more noticeable is that no one in this thread really knows what they're talking about, regardless of how intelligent/smug/well-informed they try to come across. Wanting to know the facts and understand the financial position of our club is all well and good, and should be encouraged. But coming out with misinformation, speculative posts and at times utter drivel, isn't really helping any of us achieve that aim. Can a request not be submitted to the club (possibly via the Foxes Trust) for a statement clarifying the situation? Obviously the problem is that there may be some details we are simply not allowed to know (and the club are not obliged to provide), and depending on how important they are we may never fully understand the precise situation.
samuel Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 One thing that's becoming more noticeable is that no one in this thread really knows what they're talking about, regardless of how intelligent/smug/well-informed they try to come across. Wanting to know the facts and understand the financial position of our club is all well and good, and should be encouraged. But coming out with misinformation, speculative posts and at times utter drivel, isn't really helping any of us achieve that aim. Can a request not be submitted to the club (possibly via the Foxes Trust) for a statement clarifying the situation? Obviously the problem is that there may be some details we are simply not allowed to know (and the club are not obliged to provide), and depending on how important they are we may never fully understand the precise situation. Ooh. What a barrel of laughs you are!....I hope your day gets better......
James. Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 No it didn't work quite that way, although you are correct that new shares were issued duliting the original shareholding & that 2 lots of £4.5 million had to be invested bu Milan in the club by specified dates (which it did), otherwise the agreement could be challenged. Milan immediately bought all the diluted shares, over 90% of the previous shareholders voted in favour of the sale & the rest were therefore compulsory purchased. The value received for them was dependent on subsequent promotion & only the original 10% of the original value was paid to ex-shareholders. So the "old consortium" doesn't own any of the new shares. Hello Foxes Trust. Any chance you could write up a summary of everything we know about the takeover so far that's public (including how it changes the existing structure) and then a set of questions to ask the club to clarify all the uncertainties alluded to in this thread? Imagine it'd be of interest to many on here (plus the wider fan base).
SilverFox Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 Ok the other chunk. Edit- if I can get hold of him this week I will ask him. Originally he told me it would be 49 Thai, 49 Indonesian and 2 Milan or along those lines I'm sure that Gary Lineker still owns his shares in the club. He was one of the few not to sell to Milan.
davieG Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 I'm sure that Gary Lineker still owns his shares in the club. He was one of the few not to sell to Milan. Everyone sold or had to because the majority voted for it, none of the original admin consortium has a stake in the club now.
unreachable Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 One thing that's becoming more noticeable is that no one in this thread really knows what they're talking about, regardless of how intelligent/smug/well-informed they try to come across. Wanting to know the facts and understand the financial position of our club is all well and good, and should be encouraged. But coming out with misinformation, speculative posts and at times utter drivel, isn't really helping any of us achieve that aim. Can a request not be submitted to the club (possibly via the Foxes Trust) for a statement clarifying the situation? Obviously the problem is that there may be some details we are simply not allowed to know (and the club are not obliged to provide), and depending on how important they are we may never fully understand the precise situation. I agree entirely with your post. The terms of the Buy Out are necessarily complicated and not easily the subject of discussion or speculation. Guesswork doesn't really assist and why some posters get hostile in a fact seeking thread is par for the course on this Forum but very sad.
unreachable Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 Does anyone know how the "additional financial reporting requirements" in the Rules agreed by the Football League on 4th August 2010 will result in a public disclosure of share ownership and other information relating to the consortium? http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20100804/clubs-approve-rule-changes_2246528_2110947
unreachable Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 I'm now answering my own questions! Having searched on the Internet it seems that the transparency rules whereby clubs having to declare who owns them will be implemented in time for next season (2011-12) according to Football League chairman Greg Clarke and, of course, previous director/chairman of Leicester City FC. Clarke says: "What I will say to supporters is the information you get may be more confusing than when we started. That is because when you are talking about overseas ownership and trusts, it can be a complicated area. "An average fan in the street may be none-the-wiser by what is revealed. They may look at them and be puzzled." Even now we talk about Mandaric owning this and that but I would expect that the beneficial ownership is hidden behind a myriad of overseas trusts and companies. Hopefully, an authoritative reply will follow at some stage, Long gone are the days when the club was owned by a set of local businessmen. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/Fans-deserve-to-know-who.6455681.jp
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 Any need? You do seem to go out of your way to offend people. It's possible to debate something with someone without resorting to insults. [/quote Oh dear! :yawn:
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 I'm still can't make my mind up if it's someone on a wind up or if he's genuine, I fear for him if it's the latter. :rolleyes: :crylaugh:
Houdini Logic Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 This relatively boring thread could be about to turn funny...
unreachable Posted 16 August 2010 Posted 16 August 2010 This relatively boring thread could be about to turn funny... Why? I like serious threads about things that matter as opposed to.....shirt colours, ugliest player etc. Seriousness has its place in life Dammit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.