ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I see stuff is starting to filter through on Companies House now. New Memorandums and Articles of Association (although that isn't online yet), it will be interesting to see what the changes will be. It could obviously remove the requirement for 4,000 shares to be a director which has been referenced recently.
-
- Posts: 6652
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2006 times
- Has Liked: 3347 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I suppose it's only like say several clubs borrowing money from Barclays and thus raising the possibility of Barclays taking their assets should they default and the bank having ownership or part ownership of several different clubs. That situation must have been the case frequently over the years. I assume it's not a problem to the EFL because the people who call in the loan aren't interested in running a football club or they'd go out and buy one. They would just look to get as much of their money back as they could by flogging the club and its assets off. Bad news for the fans definitely if that happened, but not really a "conflict of interests" I wouldn't have thought.
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
"They have lended money...."
How does that get past anyone in the media industry?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
If you think that is bad, try reading the Lancashire telegraph online.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:23 am"They have lended money...."
How does that get past anyone in the media industry?
-
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
- Been Liked: 2340 times
- Has Liked: 1405 times
- Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Paul Waine wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:23 am"They have lended money...."
How does that get past anyone in the media industry?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Or the Burnley FC official website!
Some of the grammar and spelling in reports on that site leave a lot to be desired at times.
This user liked this post: randomclaret2
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Hmm, I think he either doesn't understand how the loans work or wanted to sensationalise it. Security over the club's assets is quite a bit different to taking control of the club. For Burnley at least there is no mechanism to seize equity if the loans aren't paid.
There is a story in there, just not the one they've gone with.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
that is how I read what Aggi was saying
I posted a similar view on the MMT thread about the story last night
This user liked this post: KateR
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
threads are crossing over, I just posted a reply to you on the same subject regarding the Lancs article.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:32 pmthat is how I read what Aggi was saying
I posted a similar view on the MMT thread about the story last night
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
yes it is and have experience of it but not in footballing terms, but the present new members of the board have vast amounts of experience and I am confident of them knowing what they are doing in the business arena, so while the potential exists I do not believe there is any need whatsoever to worry about it. It's normal business 101
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
- Been Liked: 70 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Perhaps we need to look at this from a slightly different angle.
Our new direcrors are senior members of the LDS faith.
They have 16 million members and I believe Mr. Checketts is ranked 39 in the order of people of influence.
From the Wall Street Journal the Church has a secret investment fund of $100BILLION administrated through Ensign Peak Advisors of Salt Lake City.
Very probably there is no linkage but just a thought we may have some powerful new friends.
Our new direcrors are senior members of the LDS faith.
They have 16 million members and I believe Mr. Checketts is ranked 39 in the order of people of influence.
From the Wall Street Journal the Church has a secret investment fund of $100BILLION administrated through Ensign Peak Advisors of Salt Lake City.
Very probably there is no linkage but just a thought we may have some powerful new friends.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
They have powerful friends, there is a a very powerful and wealthy network of Mormon's, who may or may not want to be involved - Michael Dell is reportedly one of this network, though I would not think that helped in any way with the loan given he has targeted English Football for lending prior to this takeover, CoLDS money would not be used in this way or form would be my take.9thMay1987 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:44 pmPerhaps we need to look at this from a slightly different angle.
Our new direcrors are senior members of the LDS faith.
They have 16 million members and I believe Mr. Checketts is ranked 39 in the order of people of influence.
From the Wall Street Journal the Church has a secret investment fund of $100BILLION administrated through Ensign Peak Advisors of Salt Lake City.
Very probably there is no linkage but just a thought we may have some powerful new friends.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Can't be that secret if they've just posted the amount.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:11 pmThey have powerful friends, there is a a very powerful and wealthy network of Mormon's, who may or may not want to be involved - Michael Dell is reportedly one of this network, though I would not think that helped in any way with the loan given he has targeted English Football for lending prior to this takeover, CoLDS money would not be used in this way or form would be my take.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
The new Articles of Association are now available to readaggi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:04 pmI see stuff is starting to filter through on Companies House now. New Memorandums and Articles of Association (although that isn't online yet), it will be interesting to see what the changes will be. It could obviously remove the requirement for 4,000 shares to be a director which has been referenced recently.
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
to be a Director must have ownership over £4000 nominal value of shares - I think this is where the 4000 shares comes from- Shares are still held at that nominal value of £1 I believe
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes, I was meaning equity specifically as shares and ownership of the legal entity.
However, thinking about it I'm not sure whether I was correct there.
The charge is over Burnley FC Holdings (the holding company) as well as the companies that own the club and the ground. The main assets in Burnley FC Holdings are those shareholdings in the club and the company that owns the grounds and investments are included in the security.
If the club defaulted on the loan there's a possibility that those shares could be taken.
This user liked this post: KateR
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes, the only difference is the last page which I suspect was required by MSD.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:47 pmThe new Articles of Association are now available to read
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
to be a Director must have ownership over £4000 nominal value of shares - I think this is where the 4000 shares comes from- Shares are still held at that nominal value of £1 I believe
- Attachments
-
- Screenshot 2021-01-22 142934.jpg (137.38 KiB) Viewed 3976 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I tend to agree, they are at risk legally if the said shareholders/Company can not find funds from elsewhere such as player sales, that is why I believe the lenders can have a dramatic effect but only when owners really screw things up, therefore I stand by my thought that there is nothing to worry about given the present board/ownership credentials.aggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:25 pmYes, I was meaning equity specifically as shares and ownership of the legal entity.
However, thinking about it I'm not sure whether I was correct there.
The charge is over Burnley FC Holdings (the holding company) as well as the companies that own the club and the ground. The main assets in Burnley FC Holdings are those shareholdings in the club and the company that owns the grounds and investments are included in the security.
If the club defaulted on the loan there's a possibility that those shares could be taken.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Certainly gives more support to the recent letter of complaint to the EFL. Though it also makes you wonder about failed remaining payments outstanding on the shares - Mike and John may regain control but still have to finance the debt. I still suspect that taking the share equity would be the final resort for MSDaggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:25 pmYes, I was meaning equity specifically as shares and ownership of the legal entity.
However, thinking about it I'm not sure whether I was correct there.
The charge is over Burnley FC Holdings (the holding company) as well as the companies that own the club and the ground. The main assets in Burnley FC Holdings are those shareholdings in the club and the company that owns the grounds and investments are included in the security.
If the club defaulted on the loan there's a possibility that those shares could be taken.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Also interesting to note that Pace is the only new director at Longside Properties - no Smith and Hunt
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 9/officers
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 9/officers
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
They've been added now.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:41 pmAlso interesting to note that Pace is the only new director at Longside Properties - no Smith and Hunt
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 9/officers
Will be interesting to see what the upshot is when all this is updated, in particular who/what is in control. I suspect we may end up with a dead-end with the club being owned by a Delaware company. (It stops at Kettering Capital at the moment).
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
that would be my fear, the were complaints (a number well justified) under Garlick about transparency but burying information in Delaware would be pretty awfulaggi wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:17 pmThey've been added now.
Will be interesting to see what the upshot is when all this is updated, in particular who/what is in control. I suspect we may end up with a dead-end with the club being owned by a Delaware company. (It stops at Kettering Capital at the moment).
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Delaware is very well know for setting up companies and there are numerous reasons for it, I have been involved in setting up a few with the lawyers where I need to set up a foreign partnership but wanted to limit risks to the parent company.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:25 pmthat would be my fear, the were complaints (a number well justified) under Garlick about transparency but burying information in Delaware would be pretty awful
I am not convinced it would be awful if that is where it went, my thoughts are it would protect some but not those of a UK company registered at Companies House. The owners of BFC would (IMO) be liable under UK law to the lenders, which are to the bets of my knowledge under the agreement a UK company, albeit a branch of the mother ship.
Just thoughts but we would need legal to make complete sense, yet I never like to see any long backwards trail from a company I am dealing with, what I also don't know is, are there any parent company guarantees involved and if so, what are they.
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I would be interested to see what you make of this I posted on the MMT thread yesterday - a long way from coming off - if ever - of courseKateR wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:40 pmDelaware is very well know for setting up companies and there are numerous reasons for it, I have been involved in setting up a few with the lawyers where I need to set up a foreign partnership but wanted to limit risks to the parent company.
I am not convinced it would be awful if that is where it went, my thoughts are it would protect some but not those of a UK company registered at Companies House. The owners of BFC would (IMO) be liable under UK law to the lenders, which are to the bets of my knowledge under the agreement a UK company, albeit a branch of the mother ship.
Just thoughts but we would need legal to make complete sense, yet I never like to see any long backwards trail from a company I am dealing with, what I also don't know is, are there any parent company guarantees involved and if so, what are they.
Chester Perry wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:40 pmThis could prove very interesting and damaging for US Private Equity if it ever comes to pass - from Pitchbook.com - obviously thee is a surging mood of wanting to change in American politics as the Democrats power increases across the government - how that will reflect itself in actual action and law is likely to take both time and an awful lot of political will, the counter-pressure while powerful is likely to be largely invisible to most observers
https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pri ... eth-warren
Private equity could face a reckoning as power shifts in Congress
By Adam Lewis
January 21, 2021
After years of operating with minimal government intervention, the US private equity industry could face new regulatory scrutiny in 2021 and beyond.
Democrats now control both chambers of Congress and the White House, giving progressive lawmakers who have long criticized the PE industry their best chance yet to enact significant change.
Chief among those lawmakers is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the primary force behind the Stop Wall Street Looting Act, a comprehensive bill first introduced in 2019. The proposed legislation never left committee in a Senate controlled by Republicans. But Warren is now set to reintroduce her effort to regulate an industry she has derided for debt-heavy deals that can lead to layoffs, bankruptcies and other woes while exposing firms to few risks.
If passed, the bill would tax capital gains as regular income, ban dividends in the first two years a private equity firm owns a portfolio company, and hold firms responsible for debt and legal obligations incurred at portfolio companies under their ownership, among other outcomes.
"Senator Warren will continue her push to rein in the private equity industry this year," a Warren spokesperson told PitchBook. "And that includes holding these predatory companies accountable for lining the pockets of wealthy firms at the expense of struggling workers during the COVID-19 crisis, and wreaking havoc on low-income Americans at risk of losing their homes."
In terms of the pandemic's effect on private equity, the industry's top lobbying group takes the opposite view of Warren.
"Our nation is experiencing a serious economic downturn," said a spokesperson for the American Investment Council. "And now would be the worst time to pass legislation that will discourage investment in businesses and destroy jobs."
Indeed, any efforts to seriously reassess the role of private equity may have to wait. The newly blue Congress has several other high priorities, including efforts to pass another economic stimulus package and an infrastructure plan as well as holding a second impeachment trial for former President Donald Trump.
"I think the Biden administration has many catastrophes to contend with to move on PE in year one," said Eileen Appelbaum, a frequent private equity critic who has testified before Congress in support of the Stop Wall Street Looting Act. "Hopefully, there will be Congressional hearings to tee up financial reform in year two."
Not every member of Warren's party will be on board with her latest push. When the House held hearings in late 2019 to look at private equity's role in a string of retail bankruptcies, including Toys R Us, several Democrats voiced support for the industry's role in creating jobs in their districts.
One newly empowered lawmaker who could set his sights on private equity is Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who was recently named chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Politico reported this week that Brown, a co-sponsor for Warren's bill, plans to hold public hearings to examine private equity's influence.
Appointees joining the Biden administration could also play a role in determining how private equity is regulated.
Last week, President Biden nominated Gary Gensler to lead the SEC. A former partner at Goldman Sachs and the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the Obama administration, Gensler has since become known for clashes with big banks over their role in the global financial crisis. The expectation is Gensler, if confirmed, would be an aggressive advocate for Wall Street regulation.
Biden also tapped Rohit Chopra, a Warren disciple and commissioner of the FTC, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last year, Chopra lobbied Congress to require private equity firms to notify the FTC of smaller add-on deals, describing such firms as "vulture investors" and expressing concern about potential monopolies in the healthcare industry.
One shift that could have more immediate impact would be increased congressional funding for the IRS, which was gutted under the Trump administration. A renewed push by the agency to investigate investment funds and monitor fees could increase transparency about whether those dividends were used to either enrich executives or actually pay their LPs.
"That would achieve one of the important ends of the Stop Wall Street Looting Act," Appelbaum said.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Well, we already had the ground owned by unknown people in the British Virgin Isles so it won't be entirely new.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:25 pmthat would be my fear, the were complaints (a number well justified) under Garlick about transparency but burying information in Delaware would be pretty awful
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Why do business people (including BFC directors) invent numerous ‘strangely named’ off shore sub-companies to try and hide profits?
Our NHS needs everyone to pay their fair share of income tax/corporation tax to survive.
Our NHS needs everyone to pay their fair share of income tax/corporation tax to survive.
This user liked this post: Peter Loo
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
you would be as well asking why Mike Garlick created "Clarets go Large" in 2016 - a strange turn for someone with his business persona (at least in football)
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
like many things it's which side of the dividing line you stand and how far back from it, whether in this case politics or financing in general and in this case private equity.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:46 pmI would be interested to see what you make of this I posted on the MMT thread yesterday - a long way from coming off - if ever - of course
I think I tend to be slight one side of the line or the other and often stradling it, in this case I think Biden and the democrats need to be careful, the Chinese have just for the first time topped the charts in foreign invest as the US have dropped significantly during the pandemic and China has actually increased 4% in 2020, the only country on the plus side in the world I believe.
When you couple that with the fact that Biden has/is slapping 8% on top of corporate tax and increasing tax all round, plus they want to increase the minimum wage, it points to a "do I really want to invest in the US" The actual economy (for every country obviously) is going to be the number one thing coming out of the pandemic, which is as we all hope and many expect in 2021 but I think more so for Americans than anywhere else.
Regulating the industry, is I feel required, however it is about how far will it go, far to often in many cases we see the pendulum swing to far and that is a worry. Clearly for me the vultures need to be sorted out similarly to the payday loans etc.
I think minimum wage should increase, that will also help with the areas like payday loans.
I don't think corp tax should have increased but it was there during Obama and people/companies lived with it, however that will not help foreign investment to come in, create jobs etc.
Warrens wishes are well known but will face hurdles and not sure all democrats will be jumping on the bandwagon so it will be a tough sell even though they control both houses.
Bottom line, we all want to improvements, more protection, higher penalties and improved quality of life across the board but people who invest funds want a return, if it affects any of us, other than giving to charity, then typically we are against it. The higher the risk the more return you want, business 101, MDS/ALK will be no different in that way, nor will companies that Warren is going after, usually there is always somewhere else you can take your business so make it to difficult and it's the majority of people who suffer while trying to protect a few.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
because without the investors there is no tax at all and the companies first duty is to the investors and the return on investment, all to often it is a way to improve investor return by reducing tax and other burdens, it is endemic in business and as long as legal we can have few complaints. It's trying to close the tax loopholes where endeavors should be concentrated plus obviously going after companies/individuals that avoid the tax illegally.
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
What makes you think the structure will be hiding profits?
All employees of Burnley Football Club will always pay full income tax and national insurance on their wages. That includes 13.8% of Employer's NIC.
International structure of companies will take into account the international ownership of the club. ALK Capital are owned by US citizens.
Exciting times.
UTC
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
From Companies House filings: Kettering Capital Limited issued 99,000 shares, fully paid amount (rounded) £98,000,000 (£98 million) on 30th December. Notified to Companies House 26-Jan-2021.
That's £88 million more than the various 3rd party media reporters were saying - and that our Chairman, Alan Pace, had got their "facts" wrong.
It's not just a new set of Memorandum and Articles of Association.
Exciting times.
UTC
That's £88 million more than the various 3rd party media reporters were saying - and that our Chairman, Alan Pace, had got their "facts" wrong.
It's not just a new set of Memorandum and Articles of Association.
Exciting times.
UTC
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
not seeing that yet PaulPaul Waine wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pmFrom Companies House filings: Kettering Capital Limited issued 99,000 shares, fully paid amount (rounded) £98,000,000 (£98 million) on 30th December. Notified to Companies House 26-Jan-2021.
That's £88 million more than the various 3rd party media reporters were saying - and that our Chairman, Alan Pace, had got their "facts" wrong.
It's not just a new set of Memorandum and Articles of Association.
Exciting times.
UTC
Kettering Capital
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
Calder Vale
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
though £98m is close to the £100m or so that Matt Slater had said was paid up front - and we do not know how much of that was money from the loans - or as yet what the real value of the loans was
-
- Posts: 19418
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Checketts and Parra confirmed as Directors of Burnley FC Holdings - given the articles of Association not being amended for Directors we have to assume that they have stumped up over £6m each for shares - they are not directors of ALK UK, Velocity Sports, Kettering Capital or Calder Vale
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Hi CP, did you take a look at the statement of capital following allotment of shares on 30-Dec-2020?Chester Perry wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:24 amnot seeing that yet Paul
Kettering Capital
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
Calder Vale
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
though £98m is close to the £100m or so that Matt Slater had said was paid up front - and we do not know how much of that was money from the loans - or as yet what the real value of the loans was
The details are:
50,000 shares at £200 each and 49,000 shares at £1,795.918. All fully paid.
Thus totals are: 50,000 x £200 = £10,000,000 and 49,000 x £1,795.918 = £87,999,982. Combined total £97,999,982.
Exciting times.
UTC
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Exciting times for the accountants who are contracted to provide financial services for the takeover.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I forgot about those.Chester Perry wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:36 pmyou would be as well asking why Mike Garlick created "Clarets go Large" in 2016 - a strange turn for someone with his business persona (at least in football)
Clarets go Large was a UK company but there were Braeburn Trading, Bideford Trading and Rothbury Trading (Mike Garlick) and Co. Utc Ltd (John B) which were all overseas companies holding shares in the club.
-
- Posts: 11120
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1573 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Would anyone be able to break the above down into simple terms?
I am assuming what it is saying is that they actually invested close to 100m in to buying the club and the reporters were incorrect when they said they only put 15m up front?
I am assuming what it is saying is that they actually invested close to 100m in to buying the club and the reporters were incorrect when they said they only put 15m up front?
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I think you're out by a factor of 100,000. Although the individual allotments do seem a bit confusing, the statement of captal (totals) shows that the shares have a nominal value of 1p each for a total share value of £1,000.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:53 amHi CP, did you take a look at the statement of capital following allotment of shares on 30-Dec-2020?
The details are:
50,000 shares at £200 each and 49,000 shares at £1,795.918. All fully paid.
Thus totals are: 50,000 x £200 = £10,000,000 and 49,000 x £1,795.918 = £87,999,982. Combined total £97,999,982.
Exciting times.
UTC
This user liked this post: Chester Perry
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I guess the underlying question is how those shares were paid for. On its own it doesn't prove or disprove the media reporting.Paul Waine wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:50 pmFrom Companies House filings: Kettering Capital Limited issued 99,000 shares, fully paid amount (rounded) £98,000,000 (£98 million) on 30th December. Notified to Companies House 26-Jan-2021.
That's £88 million more than the various 3rd party media reporters were saying - and that our Chairman, Alan Pace, had got their "facts" wrong.
It's not just a new set of Memorandum and Articles of Association.
Exciting times.
UTC
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Nominal values are pretty meaningless though. They often don't reflect what he payment for the shares actually was.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
I think Paul W is correct that the amount paid up for Kettering's share capital is £98m. For example, the £1,795.918 reported to Companies House as paid for the issue of 49,000 shares has to be an amount paid per share and not the total amount paid for all those shares as you cannot pay 8 tenths of a penny. So £87,999,982 was paid for those shares, which represents £1,795.918 per share. Add 50000 shares at £200 each and the initial 1000 shares at nominal £0.01 makes a total of £97,999,992.
But I think aggi is also right that it doesn't confirm that the individual investors stumped up £98m in cash. Velocity sports owns Kettering so we don't yet know the source of the £98m of cash that Velocity invested in Kettering.
This user liked this post: Paul Waine
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Yes, I stand corrected. That surprises me, I think it's unusual for a holding company to have that much equity. It'll be interesting to see the accounts when they're filed.android wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:49 amI think Paul W is correct that the amount paid up for Kettering's share capital is £98m. For example, the £1,795.918 reported to Companies House as paid for the issue of 49,000 shares has to be an amount paid per share and not the total amount paid for all those shares as you cannot pay 8 tenths of a penny. So £87,999,982 was paid for those shares, which represents £1,795.918 per share. Add 50000 shares at £200 each and the initial 1000 shares at nominal £0.01 makes a total of £97,999,992.
But I think aggi is also right that it doesn't confirm that the individual investors stumped up £98m in cash. Velocity sports owns Kettering so we don't yet know the source of the £98m of cash that Velocity invested in Kettering.
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Chelsea are the obvious one. They have a hefty share premium and capital contribution reserve in the holding company (and all the loans).
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
There's no real clarity on how these things are being funded so it may be that they invested £15m or it may be that they invested £100m of their own money.Newcastleclaret93 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:14 amWould anyone be able to break the above down into simple terms?
I am assuming what it is saying is that they actually invested close to 100m in to buying the club and the reporters were incorrect when they said they only put 15m up front?
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Hi TP, you ok, now, that is not the nominal value of the shares (1p) but the amount subscribed for the shares that determines the share capital?
It's not clear to me why 50,000 shares were subscribed at £200/share and a further 49,000 shares were subscribed at £1,795.918 per share. The shares themselves are all equal "ordinary shares." Maybe the difference is determined by who has acquired these shares, those paying £200 per share may have already contributed something else of value, possibly they've been more active in the acquisition of the club?
Exciting times.
UTC
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover
Hi aggi, I know anyone can buy shares with money that they've borrowed..... But, we know that the lender will always want to know how the money they lend will be repaid and, in the first instance, without the need for the lender to exercise any security that supports the borrowing. Anyone borrowing money to buy shares will always face a sizeable "haircut" against the value of the shares. I'd be surprised if it was possible to borrow money with only a 50% haircut if the borrowed money was to be spent on buying shares in a football club.
Agree, no clarity on the information in the public domain. I think we can conclude that Alan Pace is correct when he say's that The Athletic (and others) have not got their facts right.
Exciting times.
UTC