- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,630
Yeah. I hate all this money stuff.
Playing at Withdean in front of 6,000, and sitting in my wonky, uncovered seat, having to don a plastic poncho each time it rained was so much more preferable.
Viva the People's Club!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Dick Knights shares
- Thread starter AmexRuislip
- Start date
Yeah. I hate all this money stuff.
Playing at Withdean in front of 6,000, and sitting in my wonky, uncovered seat, having to don a plastic poncho each time it rained was so much more preferable.
Viva the People's Club!
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Just as well otherwise you would not be watching football in the Amex Stadium
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I'm almost certain that they will ignore the 262 offering £1. Firstly, it's not an offer it's a statement of interest and can only be made once all existing shareholders obtain a valuation and then forego their right to buy, at that stage the rate will have been determined. Secondly, 'market rate' is an arm's length transaction with both parties having equal input. The £1 'offer' is DK's rate, not the 262 who have declared an interest. Thirdly, if you move into the fantasy realms of including those 262 when valuing the shares then it could be argued that you need to take into account the fact that the thousands of others who also bought DK's book have chosen not to buy the shares because presumably they think the £1 per share is not representative of good value.
Edit - just thought of a fourth. Those 262 are probably not going to buy all 100,000 shares. Probably more like 10 shares each, say 20 each for the sake of this argument. There simply isn't an alternative market for the remaining 95,000 shares. So how can you possibly value the shares at £1 each?
Last edited:
It's more of a people's club than it ever was. Nowadays, 27000 people get to watch the team in comfortable surroundings, and the board are no more or less accountable than they ever were.
And yes, those who saved the club ARE "consigned" to the club's history, because that all happened nearly 20 years ago FFS. And what's wrong with that? They're not forgotten by any means.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,630
Sorry, but as comparisons go, this one completely fails.
You're comparing clubs in administration- because of their own financial mismanagement- offering a minimal amount to creditors in order to pay off debts so that the club can survive, with some businessmen making an offer for someone else's shares at a price he feels appropriate? You can offer whatever you want for shares in a private company, that's the way it works. Paying off debts is completely different.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
I told you Dick Tight was only in it for himself, I said this in 1997 and wanted him gone then. I can chalk this up to another correct result for me
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
I can't believe anybody wanted to buy the shares as an investment. I presume most people who applied just wanted to own a piece of their club, however small.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? I was replying to this post, though...
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
While I do have a little sympathy for Dick Knight in disposing of his shares as he wants, this 1p in the pound dig is absolute over emotive nonsense.
When there is a fair independent valuation, followed by the response of the individual who wants to buy the shares, then we can make a proper analysis of the degree of insult.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
1p a share is over priced for something that has absolutely no value bar having a piece of paper saying you own a share, 1 of millions
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,952
I've been split on this issue since it arose.
As Ray Winston said about his latest film ‘A little controversy doesn’t hurt’ and I’m sure that was the case pushing the share issue at the same time as the book release. If there is one thing that DK is good at, its all the sales stuff.
Knight was great for BHA. He got rid of Archer, we came back to Brighton, Planning permission was achieved under him and we did well on the pitch. There were some terrifically committed players under his chairmanship (Cullip, Carpenter, Oatway etc) and I’m sure the club ethos at the time helped create that. I stand to be corrected without going back to look at the finances but he ploughed his own money into the club to keep it going and he is now left without power or a share in the club of any nominal value. Given that he paid off Archer to the tune of 800K for £60 worth of shares, I can see how it would stick in the throat if all I was left with, after all that, was a nice seat, some essentially worthless shares, 7 figures down and a Mickey mouse title.
That all said, I’d like to think if it was me, I’d take one look at the stadium, the players on the pitch now and realise that it was all worth it given the club is more important than one man (which is curiously his argument against Bloom) and like to think I played my part in achieving that rather than hold a grudge because it wasn’t me in the hot seat, which from where I am sat, is what it looks like.
Where I also disagree with Knight was his assertion that he wanted to see the Stadium Project through whilst Bloom waited in the wings. Its naïve in the extreme to believe that someone would front up 100m+ and let someone else take the glory and control the club. Similarly, he seemed to turn on Perry for protecting his job which again I find naïve for someone who has worked in Corporate for so long – Anyone that’s astute knows what happens in this situation. Lastly, I don’t hear Norman Cook moaning that he has spent loads of money on a worthless bit of paper – He and others accepted that they would probably never see that money again.
On balance then, give it up DK.
As Ray Winston said about his latest film ‘A little controversy doesn’t hurt’ and I’m sure that was the case pushing the share issue at the same time as the book release. If there is one thing that DK is good at, its all the sales stuff.
Knight was great for BHA. He got rid of Archer, we came back to Brighton, Planning permission was achieved under him and we did well on the pitch. There were some terrifically committed players under his chairmanship (Cullip, Carpenter, Oatway etc) and I’m sure the club ethos at the time helped create that. I stand to be corrected without going back to look at the finances but he ploughed his own money into the club to keep it going and he is now left without power or a share in the club of any nominal value. Given that he paid off Archer to the tune of 800K for £60 worth of shares, I can see how it would stick in the throat if all I was left with, after all that, was a nice seat, some essentially worthless shares, 7 figures down and a Mickey mouse title.
That all said, I’d like to think if it was me, I’d take one look at the stadium, the players on the pitch now and realise that it was all worth it given the club is more important than one man (which is curiously his argument against Bloom) and like to think I played my part in achieving that rather than hold a grudge because it wasn’t me in the hot seat, which from where I am sat, is what it looks like.
Where I also disagree with Knight was his assertion that he wanted to see the Stadium Project through whilst Bloom waited in the wings. Its naïve in the extreme to believe that someone would front up 100m+ and let someone else take the glory and control the club. Similarly, he seemed to turn on Perry for protecting his job which again I find naïve for someone who has worked in Corporate for so long – Anyone that’s astute knows what happens in this situation. Lastly, I don’t hear Norman Cook moaning that he has spent loads of money on a worthless bit of paper – He and others accepted that they would probably never see that money again.
On balance then, give it up DK.
I suspect he was referring to if anyone wanted to buy the whole club - i.e. buy TB out. In that case they would indeed need their head testing if they paid £1 a share !
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Does anyone have an accurate figure of exactly how much cash Dick Tight put into the club personally against begging off Fat Boy Silm and others and how much he received back from Tony Bloom and earnings when he was chairman ?
Brighton Breezy
New member
I cannot imagine the share issue actually sold any more copies of the book. Anyone buying a copy to get the voucher so they could own a share in the club would surely be the sort of person who would have already been buying it anyway.
Good publicity? Yes. But I bet it did not sell a single extra copy of the book JUST because people wanted to buy a share.
And it isn't like selling shares to 262 people would net Dick Knight a small fortune is it? Probably less than a £1,000. So it isn't a money-making exercise in that sense either.
I just don't see the harm in allowing a few fans to buy a share if they want to.
Good publicity? Yes. But I bet it did not sell a single extra copy of the book JUST because people wanted to buy a share.
And it isn't like selling shares to 262 people would net Dick Knight a small fortune is it? Probably less than a £1,000. So it isn't a money-making exercise in that sense either.
I just don't see the harm in allowing a few fans to buy a share if they want to.
And that's why in a previous post I accused the club of being petty. It just makes them look like they don't want normal non-rich fans owning even a little bit of the club ( an insignificant bit ). And yes I'm aware most the current shareholders are fans also.
Creaky
Well-known member
A share value of 1p a share makes TB's shareholding worth less than £1m - I wonder if he is happy with that valuation
Especially as his loans to the company have been reduced by equity purchases and FFP requires losses over £3m to be covered by further equity purchases at face value, not loans.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Agree with your first point. It was good copy but probably already to a captive audience. Second point - Did DK expect just 262 people to respond? I suspect not. If you had asked me before all this how many he would have sold, I reckon I'd have said maybe 1200 people asking for 25 shares each and a nice little £30k in his back pocket. 262 is a remarkably low figure.
Third point - does it do any harm? Not really but it's an administrative ballache. I don't blame the club fr blocking this.
Assuming the long post last night by the poster who said that s/he'd heard from DK contained the full text of DK's email, I'm not sure that it's going to get that far. DK, in that text, said he's got three choices:
1) sell at 1p/share to the un-named purchaser
2) request that the auditors place a fair value on the shares. He is then compelled to sell at that price to the unnamed purchaser. It isn't stated, but presumably the purchaser is also compelled to buy at that price.
3) tell the Board by 5 April that he no longer wants to sell the shares.
DK has stated, in that text, that he considers 1p/share "derisory", so presumably he won't choose option 1.
Option 2 is, for DK, fraught with risk in two ways:
A) If the auditors value the shares at materially less than £1/share, he'll look a bit of a dick (pun intended) to the fanbase, who know he's "valued" them at £1. He runs the risk of looking naive at best; trying to grab money for personal gain off fans at worst.
B) He's forced to sell them at that valuation. If he genuinely considers that the shares are now, or will be in the future, worth more than that (at least to him), he may rue the day that he had to sell them.
That leaves option 3.
I have three predictions:
1) DK will withdraw the offer, citing disappointment that the Board have stymied his plans.
2) DK will also give as one of the reasons his discomfort that the company's auditors, who are of course paid their audit fees, and the cost of the valuation exercise by BHA, are appointed by the club and are thus not "truly independent". He'll need to be careful with the latter point - the auditors could sue for libel (as individual partners) if he pushes any "they're in the club's pocket" line too far.
3) In the same way the BBC et al picked up on the "ex-chairman wants to sell shares to fans" stuff, they'll also get a story along the lines of "big, bad club prevents fans from buying shares".
Last edited:
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
A share value of 1p a share makes TB's shareholding worth less than £1m - I wonder if he is happy with that valuation
Happy? Probably not but he and the other shareholders are certainly well aware of the 'market rate' hence the offer of 1p or an independent valuation from Mazars. The 'investment' really needs to be put into inverted commas anyway because in reality it's just a tax-efficient way of writing off a loan. Derek Chapman alluded to this in his interview in the Argus last year and TB has also acknowledged this many times by stating that he's unlikely to re-coup all of the money he's poured into the club.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
I agree. Also it appears from the book that he picked the team, made all the signings and chose the tactics!
Was an interesting read though.