Jump to content

Share plunge


Snopper
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's the 33000 odd trade that seems to have depressed the price.

Not a great sign, Only 22p bid, could be a stormy week, certainly no takeover.

 

On the other hand, someone bought 33,000 shares this week....

 

Maybe they're waiting until we get a 'full house', and then they'll give one share to everyone who attended :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, someone bought 33,000 shares this week....

 

Maybe they're waiting until we get a 'full house', and then they'll give one share to everyone who attended :shock:

 

Nah, for someone to dump like that it's either because they're in trouble and need whatever they can put their hands on or there's some bad rumours circulating (which we haven't heard yet). Could be the former though. A lot of people are getting very very panicky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, for someone to dump like that it's either because they're in trouble and need whatever they can put their hands on or there's some bad rumours circulating (which we haven't heard yet). Could be the former though. A lot of people are getting very very panicky.

 

£7260 - less fees....

 

Must be in serious trouble if they can't get that from a bank...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£7260 - less fees....

 

Must be in serious trouble if they can't get that from a bank...

 

£8215.51 I think.

Banks??? They're too busy saving their pennies to buy sick banks to lend money to punters. The odd share number would suggest someone has cleaned out.Fortunes are being lost on the LSE, it's not the banks that are going to bail people out, not without substantial equity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear the events over the other side of the pond will dramatically affect the wellbeing of our club and other companies that are heavily geared with debt. Let's hope Fulthorpe can come to our rescue before the financial institutions decide our fate :(

 

It would appear to be a shame that part of Fulthorpe's funding comes from the States...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends what the definition of 'private' is I guess? Most of my 'private' funds are held by 'public' companies.....in bank accounts, ISAs, Shares, etc....

 

Private, as in, they're yours. Your personal wealth. They're not borrowed.... I think I probably meant to type "personal" rather than "private"! ;)

 

I suppose the current climate could have a bearing, but let's face it, anyone who was interested in any case is going to have to be willing to either waste a load of cash or borrow a load.

 

If it's the latter then hopefully the current situation does put them off as we don't want to go down that route IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends what the definition of 'private' is I guess? Most of my 'private' funds are held by 'public' companies.....in bank accounts, ISAs, Shares, etc....

 

BTF in 'how to attract Trousers' attention 'cos he's rich' planning mode :D

 

Seriously, if it's US money, the dollar / sterling exchange rate means a US investor COULD pick us up for next to nothing - if they buy us in dollars that is :smt102

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way back, in the dim and distant past, in the era formerly known as 'Paul Allen', didn't we speculate that Rupert would sell if the price dropped to around 20-25p?

 

Or is that my rose-tinted glasses at work again?

 

why would Lowe wait for the price to hit a low before selling, or do you mean if we hit that low he would be willing to sell at the 44p (or whatever it was) price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would Lowe wait for the price to hit a low before selling, or do you mean if we hit that low he would be willing to sell at the 44p (or whatever it was) price?

 

I think I meant to say that 20-25p was a realistic price (=£6m) rather than the hugely inflated price of 18 months ago.

 

You're right of course - he wouldn't WAIT for a low price but he might be more willing to consider a takeover if he saw that the share price was heading south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I meant to say that 20-25p was a realistic price (=£6m) rather than the hugely inflated price of 18 months ago.

 

You're right of course - he wouldn't WAIT for a low price but he might be more willing to consider a takeover if he saw that the share price was heading south.

 

Doubt it actually. To his "group" and Wilde it probably matters little whether they lose 28p a share or 50p a share. Their money is history anyway so might as well carry on with the plan. Biggest loser is Crouch which ever way you cut it, he paid too high a price and his "cash loss" is now equal to or greater than Wilde's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way back, in the dim and distant past, in the era formerly known as 'Paul Allen', didn't we speculate that Rupert would sell if the price dropped to around 20-25p?

 

 

If the Men in Black hadn't ordered the corruption of all TSF posts going back to April 2007 then we'd be able to look back and confirm it one way or t'other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubt it actually. To his "group" and Wilde it probably matters little whether they lose 28p a share or 50p a share. Their money is history anyway so might as well carry on with the plan. Biggest loser is Crouch which ever way you cut it, he paid too high a price and his "cash loss" is now equal to or greater than Wilde's.

 

Why the distinction between Wilde and Crouch here?

 

He may have paid slightly more than Wilde, but he also bought less, so actually Crouch's exposure is slightly less than Wildes.

 

Wilde's outlay was just over £2m, whilst Crouch's was just under tha figure. Additionally, and I'm guessing here, I reckon the exposure is far lower for Crouch than Wilde in terms of their net worth.

 

Lowe on the other hand has seen a big paper loss, but his outlay since the reverse takeover is about £350k, so his exposure is alot less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'll be handy, we'll be like Austin-Morris in the 70's. Clock on,p!ss off to the pub, have a few games of darts, come back to clock off.

 

 

I did this for 12 years at BR! Ah, the good old days. No wonder the country is going down the pan when we can't do this anymore:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the distinction between Wilde and Crouch here?

 

He may have paid slightly more than Wilde, but he also bought less, so actually Crouch's exposure is slightly less than Wildes.

 

Wilde's outlay was just over £2m, whilst Crouch's was just under tha figure. Additionally, and I'm guessing here, I reckon the exposure is far lower for Crouch than Wilde in terms of their net worth.

 

Lowe on the other hand has seen a big paper loss, but his outlay since the reverse takeover is about £350k, so his exposure is alot less.

yes but if LC paid £1 a share and Wilde 60p their ultimate losses are different.

Would LC be prepared to lose 75% of his money to sell the club or would he hold out for more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes but if LC paid £1 a share and Wilde 60p their ultimate losses are different.

Would LC be prepared to lose 75% of his money to sell the club or would he hold out for more?

 

Actually Leon Crouch paid 65p per share whereas most of Michael Wildes was at 50p if memory serves me right.

 

I believe LC would be prepared to suffer a great loss for the good of the club (even though it would be a major blow to his net worth and one he would prefer not to see happen). I am not sure Wilde could afford the same "hit" even in relative terms. I am unaware of how Rupert Lowe would view the situation (and nor do other posters before they start spouting their bile).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Leon Crouch paid 65p per share whereas most of Michael Wildes was at 50p if memory serves me right.

 

I believe LC would be prepared to suffer a great loss for the good of the club (even though it would be a major blow to his net worth and one he would prefer not to see happen). I am not sure Wilde could afford the same "hit" even in relative terms. I am unaware of how Rupert Lowe would view the situation (and nor do other posters before they start spouting their bile).

 

You finish up very strangely by saying people who might voicie an opinion about Lowe's view would be spouting bile, but you are able to voice opinions on how you think Wilde and Crouch would view things.

 

I don't think Lowe wants to dispose of his shares, full stop. My opinion, but is it bile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the theory that one of the existing major share holders is buying at the current low rate, so that any increase to around the 30p mark will offset the losses made on the 50p or 65p purchases ?? will completely blow it if the price continues to drop I know, but........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Leon Crouch paid 65p per share whereas most of Michael Wildes was at 50p if memory serves me right.

 

I believe LC would be prepared to suffer a great loss for the good of the club (even though it would be a major blow to his net worth and one he would prefer not to see happen). I am not sure Wilde could afford the same "hit" even in relative terms. I am unaware of how Rupert Lowe would view the situation (and nor do other posters before they start spouting their bile).

 

To be fair, he's already taken a hit on his 'net worth' when the shares he bought for 65p were devalued to about 22p each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...