Ted Maul 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 PLC movement:Share trading continues From Daily Mail, Thursday: Struggling Premiership football club Newcastle United scored a late gain of 3p to 71p as a mystery buyer acquired 1.375m shares, or 1%, at 73p just before the close. However the price fell back after early trading this morning: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NCU.L Now 1% may not seem alot but when you think that they've bought 1,375,000 at around 78p at time then whoever it must have some cash. Belgravia perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Could just be speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Could be Fat Fred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Could be Fat Fred. Just what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Could be Fat Fred. Is that speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Could be Fat Fred. Is that speculation? Did you just call my pint a puff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22158 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Part of the master plan tbh. Make us shit and reduce shares accordingly, then buy them up at the lower price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Stander 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Could be Fat Fred. Cannot be him this time. No official announcement to Stock Exchange which he must make if involved in share dealings due to him being Chief Exec of the PLC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 22299 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 fat fred is holding all the cards. he doesn't need to sell unless we get a silly offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4014 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 fat fred is holding all the cards. he doesn't need to sell unless we get a silly offer. Surely if the halls sell then he isn't holding the cards. Belgravia can vote him off the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 22299 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 fat fred is holding all the cards. he doesn't need to sell unless we get a silly offer. Surely if the halls sell then he isn't holding the cards. Belgravia can vote him off the board. really? when his stake is close to 30%? i expect he will be the main stumbling block to any potential takeover. if he doesn't want it to happen he has a big enough stake to make it very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Stander 0 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 fat fred is holding all the cards. he doesn't need to sell unless we get a silly offer. Surely if the halls sell then he isn't holding the cards. Belgravia can vote him off the board. really? when his stake is close to 30%? i expect he will be the main stumbling block to any potential takeover. if he doesn't want it to happen he has a big enough stake to make it very difficult. That's my information too. The Halls are desperate for the cash and despite the public show of supporting fatty are furious that fatty will not sell or consider any offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Maul 0 Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 fat fred is holding all the cards. he doesn't need to sell unless we get a silly offer. Surely if the halls sell then he isn't holding the cards. Belgravia can vote him off the board. really? when his stake is close to 30%? i expect he will be the main stumbling block to any potential takeover. if he doesn't want it to happen he has a big enough stake to make it very difficult. But wouldn't buying both the Halls shares take them over 30% meaning they'd have to make an offer for the rest of the company? I know Fat Fred would tell them to fuck off but wouldn't it put any consortium in a stronger position that Fred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22158 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. I think you need that to make it cumpulsory for the remaing shares to be sold, and you can then take the company out of the public domain, or something. Where's an accountant when you need one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46554 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. I think you need that to make it cumpulsory for the remaing shares to be sold, and you can then take the company out of the public domain, or something. Where's an accountant when you need one? I'm pretty sure that the craic is that if you own 30% or more of the shares, then you are required to make an offer for the remainder. Which is why Shepherd is buying up to 29.9% but no further. If you want to take the club private (which Belgravia would) then you need to get to a point where you own 75% or more, at which point certain legal rights are transferred to allow you to buy up the remainder (I think). Which is why Shepherd owning >25% makes it impossible for Belgravia to take the club private as long as he refuses to sell up. They can take a controlling ownership of the club and oust him as chairman but that's still no use to them if he won't sell up. They want full ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. I think you need that to make it cumpulsory for the remaing shares to be sold, and you can then take the company out of the public domain, or something. Where's an accountant when you need one? I'm pretty sure that the craic is that if you own 30% or more of the shares, then you are required to make an offer for the remainder. Which is why Shepherd is buying up to 29.9% but no further. If you want to take the club private (which Belgravia would) then you need to get to a point where you own 75% or more, at which point certain legal rights are transferred to allow you to buy up the remainder (I think). Which is why Shepherd owning >25% makes it impossible for Belgravia to take the club private as long as he refuses to sell up. They can take a controlling ownership of the club and oust him as chairman but that's still no use to them if he won't sell up. They want full ownership. Ahhhh...I see. Just out of interest though, what was the craic with Quinn and the 90% then if you're saying he only needed 75%? Or am I being a mong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Maul 0 Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. I think you need that to make it cumpulsory for the remaing shares to be sold, and you can then take the company out of the public domain, or something. Where's an accountant when you need one? I'm pretty sure that the craic is that if you own 30% or more of the shares, then you are required to make an offer for the remainder. Which is why Shepherd is buying up to 29.9% but no further. If you want to take the club private (which Belgravia would) then you need to get to a point where you own 75% or more, at which point certain legal rights are transferred to allow you to buy up the remainder (I think). Which is why Shepherd owning >25% makes it impossible for Belgravia to take the club private as long as he refuses to sell up. They can take a controlling ownership of the club and oust him as chairman but that's still no use to them if he won't sell up. They want full ownership. Ahhhh...I see. Just out of interest though, what was the craic with Quinn and the 90% then if you're saying he only needed 75%? Or am I being a mong? I can remember Quinn harping on about 90% aswell but when the Glazers took over ManUre it was just 75%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22158 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. I think you need that to make it cumpulsory for the remaing shares to be sold, and you can then take the company out of the public domain, or something. Where's an accountant when you need one? I'm pretty sure that the craic is that if you own 30% or more of the shares, then you are required to make an offer for the remainder. Which is why Shepherd is buying up to 29.9% but no further. If you want to take the club private (which Belgravia would) then you need to get to a point where you own 75% or more, at which point certain legal rights are transferred to allow you to buy up the remainder (I think). Which is why Shepherd owning >25% makes it impossible for Belgravia to take the club private as long as he refuses to sell up. They can take a controlling ownership of the club and oust him as chairman but that's still no use to them if he won't sell up. They want full ownership. Ahhhh...I see. Just out of interest though, what was the craic with Quinn and the 90% then if you're saying he only needed 75%? Or am I being a mong? Could be that Gemmill's talking shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46554 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. I think you need that to make it cumpulsory for the remaing shares to be sold, and you can then take the company out of the public domain, or something. Where's an accountant when you need one? I'm pretty sure that the craic is that if you own 30% or more of the shares, then you are required to make an offer for the remainder. Which is why Shepherd is buying up to 29.9% but no further. If you want to take the club private (which Belgravia would) then you need to get to a point where you own 75% or more, at which point certain legal rights are transferred to allow you to buy up the remainder (I think). Which is why Shepherd owning >25% makes it impossible for Belgravia to take the club private as long as he refuses to sell up. They can take a controlling ownership of the club and oust him as chairman but that's still no use to them if he won't sell up. They want full ownership. Ahhhh...I see. Just out of interest though, what was the craic with Quinn and the 90% then if you're saying he only needed 75%? Or am I being a mong? I'm not sure of the story with Quinn. I know that once you reach 90% then you can force the remaining shareholders to sell up. I don't know the full story with the 75% threshold - I think you can set about having it de-listed at that stage, so that the shares can no longer be publically traded, even though you still don't have 25% of the shares. Your goal would then be to reach 90% and force the remainder to sell up so that you take complete ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46554 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Don't you need 90% to complete a takeover? I'm sure this was what Quinn was saying when he wanted to buy the mackems. I think you need that to make it cumpulsory for the remaing shares to be sold, and you can then take the company out of the public domain, or something. Where's an accountant when you need one? I'm pretty sure that the craic is that if you own 30% or more of the shares, then you are required to make an offer for the remainder. Which is why Shepherd is buying up to 29.9% but no further. If you want to take the club private (which Belgravia would) then you need to get to a point where you own 75% or more, at which point certain legal rights are transferred to allow you to buy up the remainder (I think). Which is why Shepherd owning >25% makes it impossible for Belgravia to take the club private as long as he refuses to sell up. They can take a controlling ownership of the club and oust him as chairman but that's still no use to them if he won't sell up. They want full ownership. Ahhhh...I see. Just out of interest though, what was the craic with Quinn and the 90% then if you're saying he only needed 75%? Or am I being a mong? Could be that Gemmill's talking shite. Your medical qualifications are no use to you in this thread, Renton. Defer to the man with the relevant qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now