Topic: Hall to sell shares?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Taken from this morning's Sunday Times:

AMERICAN hedge fund Polygon is working on secret plans to snap up Sir John Hall’s shareholding in Newcastle United, the quoted Premiership football club.

Polygon, best-known for the aggressive positions it has taken during corporate restructurings at British Energy and Monsoon, the fashion retailer, has been working with UBS, the investment bank, for several months on a buyout proposal. This could see it take control of the listed Newcastle United plc, parent of the famous northeast club. It was not clear this weekend whether Polygon has already made an approach to Sir John. Through a Guernsey-based company called Wynyard he controls 28.5% of Newcastle United.

Douglas, Sir John’s son, is connected to further interests that account for about another 13% of the shares. Shepherd Offshore, the company connected to the Newcastle United chairman, Freddy Shepherd, owns another 26.7% of the club.

Talks between Sir John and another suitor broke down last November, although it has been clear for some time that the property developer would be open to selling his shareholding.

Sir John took control of Newcastle United for an estimated £3m in 1991 after a bitter battle with the former owner, Gordon McKeag, but stepped down as chairman in 1997. Polygon’s interest in Newcastle reflects growing interest in the football industry from hedge funds. Och-Ziff Capital Management, Perry Capital and Citadel were key investors in Malcolm Glazer’s Manchester United takeover last year.

The Glazers are examining plans for an autumn refinancing of their investment that will include taking out the more expensive payment-in-kind debt and replacing it with a cheaper form of borrowing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2230519.html

[smoggeordie]

Give us some dosh to spend squires

[Verlaine]

Taken from this morning's Sunday Times:

AMERICAN hedge fund Polygon is working on secret plans to snap up Sir John Hall’s shareholding in Newcastle United, the quoted Premiership football club.

I hope they're better at investing money into our club than keeping plans secret.

[Mick]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

[Martin Lol]

The two words that I picked up on were hedge fund.

I've seen discussions about them in the past, basically they seem to be instant moneymakers and asset strippers rather than investors for the future if I recall correctly.  There should be people her more qualified than me on economics/big business matters but the impression I gained was that ownership of the club by a company of that nature would not be necessarily beneficial if you're looking for progress.  Why have a Michael Owen when you can have a Shola Ameobi and £15m in the bank?

[NE5]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

[macbeth]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

rather than it just drifting along ? 

(and that does NOT mean I am suggetsing a US hedgefund should take us over !!)

[Mick]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

Nobody has ever said that we wanted just anybody so no it's not what I wanted.

It's more of a reflection on those who may sell claiming that they are fans of the club, it's an utter bollocks of a claim, they're in it for the money and power, nothing else.

[macbeth]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

The Halls sold 16m of their shares back to the club in 2003 for £4.5m

The Halls dividends since the club became a PLC total £13.7m

The Halls currently own 55.3m shares, worth roughly £25m at the current market price.

All figures taken from Newcastle United Accounts published 1998-2006.

[NE5]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

Nobody has ever said that we wanted just anybody so no it's not what I wanted.

It's more of a reflection on those who may sell claiming that they are fans of the club, it's an utter bollocks of a claim, they're in it for the money and power, nothing else.

well, if you realise it will be difficult to replace Shepherd and the Halls with better directors, that is what I have been trying to tell you, showing you the current examples of other clubs, and drawing from our own past.

On the other hand, you have gave the impression that you thought it would be a fairly straightforward matter.

[NE5]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

The Halls sold 16m of their shares back to the club in 2003 for £4.5m

The Halls dividends since the club became a PLC total £13.7m

The Halls currently own 55.3m shares, worth roughly £25m at the current market price.

All figures taken from Newcastle United Accounts published 1998-2006.

And ?

[Mick]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

Nobody has ever said that we wanted just anybody so no it's not what I wanted.

It's more of a reflection on those who may sell claiming that they are fans of the club, it's an utter bollocks of a claim, they're in it for the money and power, nothing else.

well, if you realise it will be difficult to replace Shepherd and the Halls with better directors, that is what I have been trying to tell you, showing you the current examples of other clubs, and drawing from our own past.

On the other hand, you have gave the impression that you thought it would be a fairly straightforward matter.

On the other hand you gave the impression that our directors were only running the club because they loved it.

[thompers]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

Nobody has ever said that we wanted just anybody so no it's not what I wanted.

It's more of a reflection on those who may sell claiming that they are fans of the club, it's an utter bollocks of a claim, they're in it for the money and power, nothing else.

well, if you realise it will be difficult to replace Shepherd and the Halls with better directors, that is what I have been trying to tell you, showing you the current examples of other clubs, and drawing from our own past.

On the other hand, you have gave the impression that you thought it would be a fairly straightforward matter.

Financially our board is good and it would be difficult to find a board that would do better for us financially.

Running of the club however, being able to appoint correct managers in accordance with our ambitions etc, just about anyone could run the club and do a better job than the current board.

[indi]

Seems a strange decision for a hedge fund, to me.

I'm not an expert in hedge fund, but one thing I do know is they always go after a profit. I'm not sure where they think they're going to get a profit from by investing in NUFC, unless they have some information which is not common knowledge, like someone else is interested in the club and they think they'll get a quick profit by selling the shares on. They could be investing on behalf of someone else, I suppose.

All in all, quite strange.

[NE5]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

Nobody has ever said that we wanted just anybody so no it's not what I wanted.

It's more of a reflection on those who may sell claiming that they are fans of the club, it's an utter bollocks of a claim, they're in it for the money and power, nothing else.

well, if you realise it will be difficult to replace Shepherd and the Halls with better directors, that is what I have been trying to tell you, showing you the current examples of other clubs, and drawing from our own past.

On the other hand, you have gave the impression that you thought it would be a fairly straightforward matter.

Financially our board is good and it would be difficult to find a board that would do better for us financially.

Running of the club however, being able to appoint correct managers in accordance with our ambitions etc, just about anyone could run the club and do a better job than the current board.

You are wrong. But hopefully events  won't prove you to be wrong.

MacBeth might disagree with your first statement mind, but I agree with you.

[NE5]

It's a pity the fans couldn't get together and stump up a grand each, if every person who attended on match day did that then the fans could own the club.

It's interesting that the figure given of £3 million is £10 million less than they've taken out, they could give the shares away and would have still made a massive profit.

Just what you want eh Mick. Anyone to take control of the club.

Nobody has ever said that we wanted just anybody so no it's not what I wanted.

It's more of a reflection on those who may sell claiming that they are fans of the club, it's an utter bollocks of a claim, they're in it for the money and power, nothing else.

well, if you realise it will be difficult to replace Shepherd and the Halls with better directors, that is what I have been trying to tell you, showing you the current examples of other clubs, and drawing from our own past.

On the other hand, you have gave the impression that you thought it would be a fairly straightforward matter.

On the other hand you gave the impression that our directors were only running the club because they loved it.

I have always said they are doing their best to make the club successful, by showing ambition and competing for the top footballers, appointing top trophy winning managers - something YOU know was not previously the case,  and off the field have built a new training complex etc and expanded the capacity of the stadium.

[macbeth]

A hedge fund, or any investor, would be interested in investing in a company if they felt they could make money by doing so.

So the Glazers vewied Man U as a good investment cos they thought they could use their skills to increase the amount of money coming into the club from global sales. This extra dosh would pay off their investment and and make them money. They knew they could do this with other sports, having done so with Tampa, and don't see soccer as any different a challenge.

Newcastle looks different. We aren't a Man U, we don't really have the potential to be a world-wide 'brand' within a short period of time. So the reasons to invest must be different.

The possible gains would be if we were playing in the CL. But that is the same for every side in the Premiership, so not sure why that would differentiate us from say Everton or Villa.

We have the 'guaranteed' 52,000 gates, but I'm not sure what extra a new owner could hope to get from that.

The marketing side of the business isn't very clever at the moment. The merchandising sales peaked in 1998 and have not reached that level since. But still we are talkign about small amounts anyway, with the last full year (2005) only showing sales of £8m. Even if a new owner believe they coudl double that it would hardly be a great return on their investment.

The only thing that looks to have some quick improvement is the PL telly deal, which gives each of the clubs about an extra £12m per season from 2007. But again this is the same for every side in the PL.

The last opportunity for making money would of course be the dividends. The club has run with dividends of roughly £4m per year. It would be easy for a new owner to keep this going, and even increase it when the TV money increases. With the new TV money the new owner could even look as though they were investing more than their predecessors while taking even more money out !

Of course the final option for an investor would be to come in and just asset strip. Sell off name players and just take the money and run.

[dr_football]

The two words that I picked up on were hedge fund.

I've seen discussions about them in the past, basically they seem to be instant moneymakers and asset strippers rather than investors for the future if I recall correctly.  There should be people her more qualified than me on economics/big business matters but the impression I gained was that ownership of the club by a company of that nature would not be necessarily beneficial if you're looking for progress.  Why have a Michael Owen when you can have a Shola Ameobi and £15m in the bank?

Do u think Ameobi is a worse player than the arrogant Egyptian or the polish s*** you had upfront?

People like you exists on our boards to enjoy taking cheap shots on our players, our management, even our future transfers or future money invested in our club..

[NE5]

A hedge fund, or any investor, would be interested in investing in a company if they felt they could make money by doing so.

So the Glazers vewied Man U as a good investment cos they thought they could use their skills to increase the amount of money coming into the club from global sales. This extra dosh would pay off their investment and and make them money. They knew they could do this with other sports, having done so with Tampa, and don't see soccer as any different a challenge.

Newcastle looks different. We aren't a Man U, we don't really have the potential to be a world-wide 'brand' within a short period of time. So the reasons to invest must be different.

The possible gains would be if we were playing in the CL. But that is the same for every side in the Premiership, so not sure why that would differentiate us from say Everton or Villa.

We have the 'guaranteed' 52,000 gates, but I'm not sure what extra a new owner could hope to get from that.

The marketing side of the business isn't very clever at the moment. The merchandising sales peaked in 1998 and have not reached that level since. But still we are talkign about small amounts anyway, with the last full year (2005) only showing sales of £8m. Even if a new owner believe they coudl double that it would hardly be a great return on their investment.

The only thing that looks to have some quick improvement is the PL telly deal, which gives each of the clubs about an extra £12m per season from 2007. But again this is the same for every side in the PL.

The last opportunity for making money would of course be the dividends. The club has run with dividends of roughly £4m per year. It would be easy for a new owner to keep this going, and even increase it when the TV money increases. With the new TV money the new owner could even look as though they were investing more than their predecessors while taking even more money out !

Of course the final option for an investor would be to come in and just asset strip. Sell off name players and just take the money and run.

And, do you think this final option is the one they are likely to take ?

[NE5]

The two words that I picked up on were hedge fund.

I've seen discussions about them in the past, basically they seem to be instant moneymakers and asset strippers rather than investors for the future if I recall correctly.  There should be people her more qualified than me on economics/big business matters but the impression I gained was that ownership of the club by a company of that nature would not be necessarily beneficial if you're looking for progress.  Why have a Michael Owen when you can have a Shola Ameobi and £15m in the bank?

Do u think Ameobi is a worse player than the arrogant Egyptian or the polish s*** you had upfront?

People like you exists on our boards to enjoy taking cheap shots on our players, our management, even our future transfers or future money invested in our club..

He talks more sense than a lot of people on here. Even if you don't think that, his detached view is worthwhile.

[Mick]

And, do you think this final option is the one they are likely to take ?

Why?

[HTT]

Not good news I'm afraid if true, although I think there is a bit of boardroom politics going on at the moment between the Halls and Shepherd's over the control of the club.

If the club ever ends up in the hands of American's for example, we as fans can forget about ever owning our own club which must surely be the long-term aim.

I may dislike the Halls and Shepherd's but for now, it's a case of better the devil you know where they are concerned and I couldn't stomach an Abramovic/Glazer style regime at United. If that ever did happen, I would withdraw my support and go and watch Gateshead or another local side.

It is about time we as fans started some initiatives to gain some sort of representation within the club other than being mere "punters". I firmly believe the only way in which a club likes ours can prosper is if the fans and club are united. Under KK and SJH we were but since then we've been kept at arms length and are held in contempt by the current management.

There is no reason why fans of any club, large or small, can't own what is effectively theirs. Barcelona, Real Madrid et al are supporter owned, some German teams too. Oxford and other lower league sides are now in the hands of supporter trusts in part funded by the government's supporters' trust scheme and other bodies.

I'd back 100% any supporter club or trust aimed towards onwership of the club. It needs to happen otherwise we're in danger of becoming the plaything for some Russian crook or hedge fund investors.

[Baggio]

It was not clear this weekend whether Polygon has already made an approach to Sir John.

If they had then wouldn't Sir John have to announce to the stock exchange that he's been approached about a possible takeover?

[Mick]

It was not clear this weekend whether Polygon has already made an approach to Sir John.

If they had then wouldn't Sir John have to announce to the stock exchange that he's been approached about a possible takeover?

I think he would, he did last season.

[indi]

Macbeth you missed one option off your list and it's the one I think is most likely:

They probably believe the club is undervalued by the market, which in a way it is - the share price is very low - so they're probably thinking they could buy the club, tart it up a bit and then sell it on at a profit.

There's two points to be made here:

The first is that one of the main reasons the club's market valuation is so low is because the city doesn't like the way the club is run, so they don't invest. If the club were to be run by someone else who the city liked then the share price would probably rise after a while.

The second is that it's pretty obvious that anyone looking to buy the club would have to pay well over the market price to do so. If the Halls and Shepherds ask for too high a price then this interest will simply go away because, as I said above, hedge funds are only interested in profits, either quick or big ones as well. I can't see them making a big profit, so I think they're after a quick one, here.

This is the only motivation that makes any sense to me, considering they're a hedge fund and not a private or organisational investor.

That is if they're investing on their own behalf, they might be investing on someone else's and just acting as agents.