Floating back onto the stock market

[Guest]

Would there be any benefits for club and/or owner or would it be counter productive

[ewerk 33963]

NUST would immediately buy up all the shares and we'd be laughing.

 

Or to put it another way, no. Would you invest in a loss making company that is technically insolvent?

Edited February 3, 2011 by ewerk

[Guest alex]

Admittedly it's not something I know a lot about but it appears to be, generally speaking, an experiment that has failed. Didn't most clubs end up with the share price being a fraction of what the clubs were floated at?

[ChezGiven 0]

The market would not pay £138m for the club so it wont happen. Private buyers were offering or talking about £80m and thats with the premium of outright ownership.

[ChezGiven 0]

Admittedly it's not something I know a lot about but it appears to be, generally speaking, an experiment that has failed. Didn't most clubs end up with the share price being a fraction of what the clubs were floated at?

Not all but yes. However, thats great for the club, loads of money in at the float and then fuck all out in dividends as the price of the share is so low.

[Guest alex]

Admittedly it's not something I know a lot about but it appears to be, generally speaking, an experiment that has failed. Didn't most clubs end up with the share price being a fraction of what the clubs were floated at?

Not all but yes. However, thats great for the club, loads of money in at the float and then fuck all out in dividends as the price of the share is so low.

Aye but surely that was the case when the clubs first started doing that, whereas now there'd be very few people willing to invest?

[ChezGiven 0]

Admittedly it's not something I know a lot about but it appears to be, generally speaking, an experiment that has failed. Didn't most clubs end up with the share price being a fraction of what the clubs were floated at?

Not all but yes. However, thats great for the club, loads of money in at the float and then fuck all out in dividends as the price of the share is so low.

Aye but surely that was the case when the clubs first started doing that, whereas now there'd be very few people willing to invest?

The stock market was burnt by the floats in the 90's, i doubt there would be any interest, especially if Ashley was organising the sale.

[Guest alex]

Admittedly it's not something I know a lot about but it appears to be, generally speaking, an experiment that has failed. Didn't most clubs end up with the share price being a fraction of what the clubs were floated at?

Not all but yes. However, thats great for the club, loads of money in at the float and then fuck all out in dividends as the price of the share is so low.

Aye but surely that was the case when the clubs first started doing that, whereas now there'd be very few people willing to invest?

The stock market was burnt by the floats in the 90's, i doubt there would be any interest, especially if Ashley was organising the sale.

I'd forgotten about the added factor of his popularity in the City.

[Phil 6]

Public floatation wouldn't work for anyone, if it could even be achieved. An IPO would struggle to generate enough interest, certainly not at the level Ashley would want.

 

However, I said in the NUST meltdown thread that Ashley is massively missing a trick here. He could easily fix the lack of communication and cash in on the spectacular failed NUST hype by setting up a sort of members club with voting rights on minor things like ticket prices, seating changes, work in the community etc... and running a system similar to the 10 downing street petition system, where anyone can post questions/statements that if enough members sign up too would get an official response.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Phil

[KeithJ 0]

Unfortunately, Floating Newcastle United on the stock market would come at another cost for the club with listing fees and new regulations for the club to follow. Mike Ashley could in theory, float the club and raise capital by selling shares in the club (Reducing his control) and then reinvest it back in to Newcastle United in the hope of the reinvestment would make Newcastle more successful and therefore raising the price of the shares.

 

When football clubs first done this, in theory, it would work however investors quickly realised how much of a gamble this is. Share prices mostly dropped when they were first issued. Its not like in the real world where you do research on products such as machines or technology which will help you. The gamble you are investing on is players which are essentially human beings. Everyone knows that buying any player is a massive gamble gamble. Will they fit in? Will the family fit in? Whats the morale? Whats the motivation? Essentailly if the performances go down, you lose fans and products go down which results in lower share price and the chance of a loss.

 

The other advantage of the stock market is being able to acquire other companies with your share capital as well however this wouldnt work for Newcastle United as we cant exactly merge with another company in our industry such as Arsenal as its against the rules.

 

Its very rare that football clubs run at a profit. Only a certain few can pull it off. It would be a poor and very high risk investment. This also leaves Mike Ashley very exposed of losing the club with a takeover and he could make an extraordinary loss on it.