TB didn't buy 40 million of them for a pound each. He converted £40 million of debt into shares, which is not the same. In doing so he effectively wrote off £40 million that was owed to him. Why? Because he can, and he's a good guy.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK
- Thread starter Westdene Seagull
- Start date
TB didn't buy 40 million of them for a pound each. He converted £40 million of debt into shares, which is not the same. In doing so he effectively wrote off £40 million that was owed to him. Why? Because he can, and he's a good guy.
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Creaky, are you actually DK
Brighton Mod
Its All Too Beautiful
No I don't, Derek hasn't shouted, but it was in his gift at one stage to wind the club up and he didn't.
bhadebenhams
Active member
- Mar 14, 2009
- 353
Dean (SEVENTH!!!!!!) Wilkins (Simper, drool, moisten like an unplugged fridge....)
Creaky
Well-known member
The City Code apllies to public limited companies NOT private limited companies.
Creaky
Well-known member
I suppose it depends on what you consider "makes" a legend.
I don't for one minute belittle what TB has done for our club in financial terms in order to ensure its future and to provide us with the facilities to further our ambitions. As such he will always be remembered as one of the good guys - what makes the likes of DK a 'legend to my mind is that their work for the club is basically done and we can look back and see what they have achieved - TB's job is not yet complete and no doubt when it is complete he will be a legend until then he is someone who has done a lot for the club and continues to do so. I'm not sure that TB himself would appreciate being called a legend as that implies his work is done and he can do no more - how can you be more than a legend?
Creaky
Well-known member
Are you saying TB didn't increase his shareholding to the tune of 40 million shares and that in doing so it effectively cost him £40M and increased his percentage shareholding in the club?
Hungry Joe
SINNEN
That is indeed sad if true. If he's including comments on here then for my part I'd like to apologise if I've been overly harsh regarding some comments. Whether I agree with all of DK's recent actions or not, nothing has changed my opinion of him as a legend, or that he has acted in what he thinks are the interests of the wider club and fans as a community. I know how it feels when you believe you've done something for all the right reasons, but others don't see it that way. But no-one is beyond criticism, living legend or not, and only a few comments I've seen I would consider to be disrespectful (including my very first post on the subject; calling DK "unpleasant" was probably going too far). I certainly wouldn't say DC's comments are in any way disrespectful.
Perhaps it is time to move on, heaven knows we've had enough internal discord recently.
HAILSHAM SEAGULL
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2009
- 10,359
He's a legend in my eyes, and iv'e been supporting them for 50 years.
Biggest difference..........TB just doesn't blow his own trumpet.
TB wrote off a £40 million debt, that he had zero chance of recouping, via converting into 40 million shares. It increased his shareholding in the club, which was originally 90% to about 96%.
The shares are however commercially worthless, TB knows that, DK knows, DC knows that.
Creaky
Well-known member
However you word it and whatever the reason behind it, TB bought 40 million shares for £40M or £1 a share.
I have enough faith in TB's abilities to believe that he has the know-how and ability to make the club financially viable at some time in the future.
No he didn't. He wrote off a debt, the debt is valued at the fair value of the shares acquired, which is zero.
London Irish
Well-known member
If the purpose was to write off the debt, why didn't he just do that, as a donation? Why bother converting to shares if shares are worthless?
London Irish
Well-known member
Wealthy men rarely have to blow their own trumpet. There is usually an obliging queue of people ready to do it for them. See post 1 of this thread.
Creaky
Well-known member
And in return he incresed his holding by 40 million shares which as you have just pointed out cost him £40M - one side of the quation is a £40M debt TB is no longer owed, the other is 40 million shares he now owns. Doesn't matter what value is put on those shares the simple fact is he paid £1 each for them.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Because then the Albion would have a tax charge on the loan written off. A frigging big tax charge too. Are you really a financial journalist?
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
Sorry in advance if I'm showing my ignorance, but...
are you saying that the notional (not actual) value of 40 million £1 shares equates to only six per cent of the value of the club?
ROSM
Well-known member
I believe at one stage adenstar paid 500k for the option to build the amex. Of course they were never going to get the contract but it was a good tax efficientvqay of assisting the club when it needed it
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
But it does matter. Using your inaccurate way to describe what happened: The shares are worth nil pence and Tony paid the privilege of a pound a piece for each of them. But that is not what happened. TB paid £40M of Albion bills and then wrote off the debt in the most tax-efficient way to the Albion. It's a time-honoured way of doing things, standard practice in many football clubs and throughout the business world. DK himself did precisely this.
This is not just semantics, it's a fundamentally different principle to 'buying' shares although I suspect you will disagree.
It was to increase his shareholding in the club in percentage terms. However, as he already had over 90% of the club, it's merely an accounting adjustment. Whether he owns 90% or 97% it makes no difference in reality to the power he wields.