'Cash' losses wouldn't necessarily change the price, what would and does change the price though is the mark down on the asset value of the club due to depreciation. So the 'value' today is less than it was 2 years ago.
Deathly silence
- Thread starter Am on mobile
- Start date
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 15,625
- Player
- Jason Koumas / John Morrissey
- Manager
- John King
All losses reduce the asset value of the club, by definition.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2021
- Messages
- 1,839
He said price, not assert value. Forecasts are obviously an integral part of share valuations, and the valuation is the basis of negotiating the price. There’s no inherent reason why a forecasted loss subsequently materialising should change the price at all.
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 15,625
- Player
- Jason Koumas / John Morrissey
- Manager
- John King
I know what he said. The starting point for the valuation of the club, and hence the purchase price, is always the net assets value. If the net assets value reduces, the purchase price reduces.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2021
- Messages
- 1,839
Regardless of whether it’s a starting point, it’s never anything more than that. You can’t prepare a meaningful valuation by disregarding future forecasts, or then agree a price without examining future forecasts. They’re integral to share valuations.
Further, with a sale agreed as at March 2026, nobody would argue that the price would have then been undermined by the financial results for the y/e June 2025. Those results would obviously have been known about by all parties before any deal had been agreed (even if before the auditor signed them off). As would 2026 figures to date, and forecasts thereafter.
In any case, what evidence is there to suggest price is a factor in the hold up? Or, consequently, that Palios is being unreasonable over price? I imagine he drives a hard bargain but ultimately he’ll know how far to reasonably push it. And he’ll also know better than anyone that a business is ultimately only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Last edited:
Ok, so I should have said fixed assets, but 'operational' losses would usually be considered just that, the cost of operating the concern, rather than altering the fixed asset value.
Exactly, operating losses would be considered as part of the ongoing operating costs, fixed asset value is something different, though in this case the fixed asset value has reduced since the tacopina bid. Whenever the terms of sale were agreed and pre-contract signed, the price would have been set, but there would almost certainly have been clauses included that could alter that price should certain things have happened. What is unlikely is that the buyers would try to renegotiate outside of any such terms, due to the new regulator rules, and it's also unlikely that the current owners would likewise try to go against any terms in the sale agreement. We have been told why there is a delay, the regulator, anything else at this point is purely rumour and speculation and unlikely to be from anyone directly involved in the process, and there have been claims from some who know a mate of a mate who's on the board (etc.) which have proven to be totally false.
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 9,255
- Player
- Ian Muir
I've seen this posted elsewhere and fully agree with it, there should be two questions to answer of the proposed takeover
1. Is the offer enough to clear debts to Smurthwaite, Nixon and to pay back what Mark and Nicola have put in.
2. Do Mark and Nicola think think the consortium are the right people to take the club forward.
If the answer to both is yes, then accept the offer and get it done.
Subject to regulator approval, there is no reason for anything else to delay it.
1. Is the offer enough to clear debts to Smurthwaite, Nixon and to pay back what Mark and Nicola have put in.
2. Do Mark and Nicola think think the consortium are the right people to take the club forward.
If the answer to both is yes, then accept the offer and get it done.
Subject to regulator approval, there is no reason for anything else to delay it.
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 15,625
- Player
- Jason Koumas / John Morrissey
- Manager
- John King
In reality, the offers they are receiving now may not be sufficient to repay all of the debt owed to Palios, and he may have to accept that.
Over £5 million was owed to Palios per the 2025 accounts, with £2.6 million owed to Smurthwaite and Nixon. We are another year down the line, with significant further losses almost certainly incurred, and presumably all of those debts have grown further.
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 9,255
- Player
- Ian Muir
Also take into account now that season ticket sales will be down, attendances will be down as well
The offer was accepted at the start of March, all the delays since then have been initially the EFL clearance, then the practicality of drawing together funds from multiple investors (where 6-8 weeks is not at all unusual) then pushing things into the remit of the new regulator which is where things sit. That's what has been stated, anything else is pure speculation and probably not reasoned speculation either. It is reasonable to assume that the agreed offer would be in the ball park of the offer agreed with Tacopina so £15 Million for 80% (the Santini Group retaining their shareholding) though that would no doubt be somewhat reduced to acknowledge the reduced asset value in the latest accounts. The Palios' will get the share value of their shares, around £6 Million. It is almost certain that outstanding debts would be covered within the purchase price, though if not through the purchase price, the regulator requires proof of funds for 3 years operation, which would include repayment of any debts that fall due within that period so they would be covered either way. So that would also leave a cash injection available to boost the share capital, which under the rules boosts the available budget, certainly for the first season after the purchase (and potentially further depending how the share allocation is structured) The Palios' have also clearly stated that any of the 3 prospective purchasers are suitable and have plans to take the club forward in the 'right' way. And to re-iterate, the only delay is down to waiting on the regulators approval which is legally required over and above the EFL approval.
dollar'sbloke
Member
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 2,714
- Player
- morrissey
- Manager
- king
NAV is the sort of thing asset strippers may target, in normal industries. Our main asset is the ground which is unsaleable as it has one purpose and no conceivable alternative. It is booked at far higher than the realistic value which is circa £10m after demolition for housing.
Historically an asking price for a club in our position would be nominal, little more than new equity to gain control. Then you gain the benefit of funding daily losses with no realistic chance if a return anytime soon
The current bubble where many millions of profit are being made, leads to deca million sales with no prospect of a return even in the medium term.
Frankly we are worth what someone is willing to pay, fortunately we seem to have found someone willing to pay hugely more than my valuation.
Mark like others has played a blinder but when the music stops?
Historically an asking price for a club in our position would be nominal, little more than new equity to gain control. Then you gain the benefit of funding daily losses with no realistic chance if a return anytime soon
The current bubble where many millions of profit are being made, leads to deca million sales with no prospect of a return even in the medium term.
Frankly we are worth what someone is willing to pay, fortunately we seem to have found someone willing to pay hugely more than my valuation.
Mark like others has played a blinder but when the music stops?
I think we have to view things with a fresh set of eyes because the game, and how it is played, is changing. a 'traditional' valuation would not be much more than the share value (currently around £7m) plus the fixed asset value less debts. The valuation for the ground is a piece of string, where someone to demolish it, develop housing themselves, they might return £20, even £25 Million, sold to a developer without planning permission and yeah, £10 Million looks generous. BUT, the perceived value in the club is not in the assets, Ascent and DAV are both clear in where they see the value, it's in the 'brand', in the history, in the fan base and capture area and they believe that they can dramatically increase the value in each of those, whilst providing a new match day experience and 365 day a year income streams (read a new stadium) - Rather than a single owner or one or two acting in partnership, they will be operating a 'boutique' investment opportunity to their fund members, which might prove interesting given the regulatory hurdles, that may be what is causing the current delays. They have access to a vast amount of money through the funds they run, offering investment opportunity as something that both offers a stable long term return but is also 'sold' on the 'lifestyle' element and they target celebs and sports people so who knows who we may end up with owning a chunk of the club. They see the value, and the returns in building the name and 'audience' of the club, world wide, much like Wrexham but who knows what their actual approach would be, they have their own media company and I would imagine they will offer a subscription 'TV' service world wide, possibly with some sort of 'documentary' but certainly behind the scenes access, then offering a stadium with a 365 day per year earning capability, be that leisure, conference or hotel facilities, boosted commercial deals and sponsorship and you can begin to see it's not going to be just about league performance, and that's why where we finished last season wasn't actually so much of an issue and why the club confirmed that even relegation wouldn't have upset the deal. The new Kings Development in Liverpool will be 10 minutes away from Bidston Dock, literally the other end of the tunnel, with thousands of somewhat wealthy people buying flats, studios, houses, a New Tranmere stadium at Bidston Dock would be, in terms of door to door travel time, their nearest club/stadium. Though the (potential) new owners have not yet much of a track record in sports clubs, they are saying some very interesting things and have a genuinely new approach, we'll have to wait and see how successful it is.
Sounds like a pyramid scheme with all the right key flash words to make me feel worried if this deal does go ahead. No issues with DAV as they're the ones selling the dream but anyone buying in gives less of a toss about us and only really has pound signs in their eyes. Not awe-inspiring to me.
Ain't growing that catchment area either, the people of the peninsula generally don't care for anything not red or blue.
Ain't growing that catchment area either, the people of the peninsula generally don't care for anything not red or blue.
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2019
- Messages
- 648
- Player
- Eddie Dagger Roberts
Thank you, for all the work you put into your posts, Stuart, for someone like me just an ordinary supporter and without the knowledge of high finance, I find your posts interesting and understandable.
I hope this is a portent for a positive end to the ownership saga!
I fear, that, at this point, it's a sign that the take-over is no closer, I guess they had been waiting to announce a new sponsor in the hope that the deal would be completed, with new owners then able to bring in a new sponsor they might already have lined up, but need to put something in place now so the new shirts can go to manufacture, as such this is, as when it was announced back in March, an 'interim' measure
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 9,255
- Player
- Ian Muir
It was announced by MP in March on the radio, the club never officially announced it which they did yesterday