corky morris Posted 17 December, 2008 Share Posted 17 December, 2008 The attachments below are a little out of date, but it explains Sheffield Utds decision to exit the stock exchange because it believes there is little benefit from remaining listed. I am desperately trying to get to the AGM on December 23rd to ask Rupert why it is in our interests to remain listed even though Sheff Utds value is £8.9m & ours is £6.5m & they view it unnecessary. It makes it even more laughable when you total up the money wasted on dividends & share buy backs...............just over £4.5m. And we need to keep Rupert why?????????? Sheffield United PLC said it has applied for cancellation of its listing on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange as it believes that the current economic environment means there is little benefit to the club and its shareholders in remaining listed. The football, property, leisure and services company said the low liquidity of the shares in Sheffield United leads to a volatility in the share price which may not reflect the true worth of the group. Also, the susceptibility of the share price to current market conditions is not to the benefit of the business. Like most other listed football clubs, Sheffield United finds itself unable to raise capital from institutional investors as they remain uninterested in committing funds to companies in the football industry coupled with the present problems of the markets. The directors do not expect this situation to change in the foreseeable future. Chairman Kevin McCabe commented: "By delisting we will reduce costs and will make it easier to reposition the company to better achieve our aspirations, which include promotion back to the Premier Dec 4 (Reuters) - English soccer club Sheffield United Plc (SUT.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said on Thursday it applied for delisting its shares effective Jan. 7, citing low liquidity of its shares and a fall in their value caused by the economic turmoil. The South Yorkshire club said it was unable to raise capital from institutions following their lack of interest in committing funds to companies in the football industry. Sheffield also cited the costs associated with maintaining listing on the AIM, London Stock Exchange's junior market, as a reason for the delisting. The company said it would seek shareholder approval for delisting its shares at an extraordinary general meeting on Dec. 27. "By delisting we will reduce costs and will make it easier to reposition the company to better achieve our aspirations, which include promotion back to the Premier League for Sheffield United," Chairman Kevin McCabe said in a statement. Sheffield United shares closed at 8.5 pence on Wednesday. (Reporting by Srikanth Srinivasa in Bangalore; Editing by Gopakumar Warrier) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 17 December, 2008 Share Posted 17 December, 2008 It's a fair point - in the previous years that we've been either on the full LSE or on AIM, there have been tangible benefits in terms of exposure and also the supposedly increased ease with which people can buy shares. However, with the economic situation as it stands now, it would make sense to save the £250k or so it apparently costs to be listed on AIM each year. Whether it would get shareholder approval or not is another matter, although I suspect the major shareholders may actually be in favour of such a move because then there is no fluctuating share price that they can compare to, and as such can pretty much name their own asking price rather than say "well the public share price is Xp, so I think it's only fair you offer X+15p" or whatever. It should probably be added that you do lose a little bit of the finer details from the publicly-visible financial reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 17 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2008 We lost a lot more detail when we went to AIM from the main exchange! For what it is worth - that is why i thought Lowe did it for. To remove the detailed accounting procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 17 December, 2008 Share Posted 17 December, 2008 I think you'll find most of the arguments here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 17 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2008 Thanks BBB - Not seen that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 17 December, 2008 Share Posted 17 December, 2008 Should Saints De-List from AIM & follow Sheffield Utd? In a word....'Yes' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 December, 2008 Share Posted 17 December, 2008 Only if we become a privately-owned company. I hate the idea of Lowe no longer being held legally liable in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gudz Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Barclays would not allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Barclays would not allow it. I don't see why not. The company would still be a limited company, which means the directors are duty-bound to act in the best interests of the shareholders and to ensure the company is trading solvently, and the debt would still be owed in the same way as it is currently. The only difference in terms of anything that might affect them is a £250k or so annual cost has been removed from the cashflow. Unless I'm missing something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Based on what I have read above I would have to say yes. £250k saving is not to be sniffed at presently, add that to the Man U income and it would make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 So, what, or who, is preventing a de-listing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 I don't see why not. The company would still be a limited company, which means the directors are duty-bound to act in the best interests of the shareholders and to ensure the company is trading solvently, and the debt would still be owed in the same way as it is currently. The only difference in terms of anything that might affect them is a £250k or so annual cost has been removed from the cashflow. Unless I'm missing something... There are advantages to delisting as everyone has pointed out, it is just the practicalities of the exercise that stands in it's way. It's going to cost to delist (£0.5M? maybe £0.75M) and you have to get 75% of share holders to vote for it. I don't believe we have ever had that high a turn out vote since the plc was first formed. It's not that many share holders would be against the change. it's actually getting them to cast that vote in that direction. I could easily see money being spent with no end result because share holders can't be bothered to vote. It's not going to effect Lowe or other share holders as basically things will remain as they currently are. The big thing that will be given up is the openess of our accounts at regular intervals, or unless we intend to go to the market again to obtain funding (and yes snowballs and hell come to mind as that being viable again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Can't they have a 'default' value of 'Yes we want to delist' for a resolution to delist. So that the people who def don't want to delist HAVE to vote!! But if it's only going to save us money is 2/3 years time then is it worth doing it now?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Does anyone think it's more than a coincidence Sheff Utd decide to unlist just as it looks like they'll get £25m compensation from West Ham? Their fans have seen their shares halve in value once the delisting was announced (I'm sure many don't care, I'm sure lots of others do though). It would be worth hearing the club's views on how much it would cost and how much it might save - I suspect it would cost quite a bit to do. Another alternative is moving to PLUS which is again cheaper still (but gaining a lot more traction in the market and hardly any different to AIM). Following the Sheff Utd idea of matched trading, that also has a cost overhead. I imagine delisting would also affect SLH's credit rating - that could affect the stadium loan and/or Barclays overdraft. One reason I'm not so keen is that having the listing does enable the club to raise funds through placings or rights issues - that might seem pretty unlikely just now (though I've always maintained there's nothing to stop Wilde/Crouch stumping up the "£2m or so" they promised 2 years ago by doing this), but in a couple of years' time who knows? 2 years from now we will possibly have hyper-inflation and the value of the club could increase significantly relative to the debts... a great time to raise money. De-list now and that option is taken away - you end up with the same people holding shares but no viable way for anyone to acquire a stake or change control at the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Does anyone think it's more than a coincidence Sheff Utd decide to unlist just as it looks like they'll get £25m compensation from West Ham? Their fans have seen their shares halve in value once the delisting was announced (I'm sure many don't care, I'm sure lots of others do though). It would be worth hearing the club's views on how much it would cost and how much it might save - I suspect it would cost quite a bit to do. Another alternative is moving to PLUS which is again cheaper still (but gaining a lot more traction in the market and hardly any different to AIM). Following the Sheff Utd idea of matched trading, that also has a cost overhead. I imagine delisting would also affect SLH's credit rating - that could affect the stadium loan and/or Barclays overdraft. One reason I'm not so keen is that having the listing does enable the club to raise funds through placings or rights issues - that might seem pretty unlikely just now (though I've always maintained there's nothing to stop Wilde/Crouch stumping up the "£2m or so" they promised 2 years ago by doing this), but in a couple of years' time who knows? 2 years from now we will possibly have hyper-inflation and the value of the club could increase significantly relative to the debts... a great time to raise money. De-list now and that option is taken away - you end up with the same people holding shares but no viable way for anyone to acquire a stake or change control at the club. Surely Private Companies can have Rights Issues ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 There are advantages to delisting as everyone has pointed out, it is just the practicalities of the exercise that stands in it's way. It's going to cost to delist (£0.5M? maybe £0.75M) and you have to get 75% of share holders to vote for it. I don't believe we have ever had that high a turn out vote since the plc was first formed. It's not that many share holders would be against the change. it's actually getting them to cast that vote in that direction. I could easily see money being spent with no end result because share holders can't be bothered to vote. It's not going to effect Lowe or other share holders as basically things will remain as they currently are. The big thing that will be given up is the openess of our accounts at regular intervals, or unless we intend to go to the market again to obtain funding (and yes snowballs and hell come to mind as that being viable again). 75% refers to the proportion of votes cast. It doesn't matter if most shareholders don't bother voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Surely Private Companies can have Rights Issues ? They can increase their share capital and issue new shares but they can't offer them for general public sale (or trade them on a listing exchange). In other words, unless the directors are prepared to dip into their pockets or individuals are preapared to pump cash in and come on board... "no". However, given that there is presently no public appetite whatsoever for shares in Saints it wouldn't make much difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 Originally Posted by up and away There are advantages to delisting as everyone has pointed out, it is just the practicalities of the exercise that stands in it's way. It's going to cost to delist (£0.5M? maybe £0.75M) and you have to get 75% of share holders to vote for it. I don't believe we have ever had that high a turn out vote since the plc was first formed. It's not that many share holders would be against the change. it's actually getting them to cast that vote in that direction. I could easily see money being spent with no end result because share holders can't be bothered to vote. It's not going to effect Lowe or other share holders as basically things will remain as they currently are. The big thing that will be given up is the openness of our accounts at regular intervals, or unless we intend to go to the market again to obtain funding (and yes snowballs and hell come to mind as that being viable again). 75% refers to the proportion of votes cast. It doesn't matter if most shareholders don't bother voting. No, 75% refers to total voting rights eligible to vote. (5) A resolution passed on a poll taken at a meeting is passed by a majority of not less than 75% if it is passed by members representing not less than 75% of the total voting rights of the members who (being entitled to do so) vote in person or by proxy on the resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 18 December, 2008 Share Posted 18 December, 2008 No, 75% refers to total voting rights eligible to vote. (5) A resolution passed on a poll taken at a meeting is passed by a majority of not less than 75% if it is passed by members representing not less than 75% of the total voting rights of the members who (being entitled to do so) vote in person or by proxy on the resolution. Trust me mate, I'm right. In any case, your quoted passage even goes to show that. "the total voting rights of the members who vote" It's not complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 19 December, 2008 Share Posted 19 December, 2008 Originally Posted by up and away No, 75% refers to total voting rights eligible to vote. (5) A resolution passed on a poll taken at a meeting is passed by a majority of not less than 75% if it is passed by members representing not less than 75% of the total voting rights of the members who (being entitled to do so) vote in person or by proxy on the resolution. Trust me mate, I'm right. In any case, your quoted passage even goes to show that. "the total voting rights of the members who vote" It's not complicated. It must be far too complicated for yourself, otherwise I cannot see any way in which you construe that as only 75% of votes that attend a meeting. On your basis, events could easily conspire that only 4% of the total eligible vote attend, requiring only 3% to forward a special resolution. The sentence is categoric, it requires 75% of the eligible vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plumstead_Saint Posted 19 December, 2008 Share Posted 19 December, 2008 It must be far too complicated for yourself, otherwise I cannot see any way in which you construe that as only 75% of votes that attend a meeting. On your basis, events could easily conspire that only 4% of the total eligible vote attend, requiring only 3% to forward a special resolution. The sentence is categoric, it requires 75% of the eligible vote. :smt082 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 December, 2008 Share Posted 19 December, 2008 (edited) On your basis, events could easily conspire that only 4% of the total eligible vote attend, requiring only 3% to forward a special resolution. You've obviously never heard of proxy votes then (as mentioned in your own little cut and paste). Thanks for another laugh and chuckle at your expense over the last few days watching you thrash around, as once again you're taking about stuff you're really not that sure about. At least caveat things if you're not exactly sure, or say you're open to being persuaded, but please stop showng yourself up (methinks you're confusing (a) buy outs & then companies taking private with (b) shareholders voting to to delist!!!) How about the following notices outlining recent delistings from AIM: The De-Listing In accordance with Rule 41 of the AIM Rules, the Company has today notified the London Stock Exchange of the De-Listing, which is conditional upon the consent of not less than 75 per cent. of votes cast by Shareholders in a general meeting. The Resolution to cancel admission to trading on AIM requires the approval of 75 per cent. of those present and entitled to vote at the meeting or voting by proxy. If approved, it is anticipated that trading in the Ordinary Shares on AIM will cease at close of business on 22 May 2008, with cancellation on AIM taking effect at 8.00 a.m. on 23 May 2008. Delisting from AIM In accordance with AIM Rules, it is a requirement that any delisting from AIM must be approved by not less than 75 per cent. of Shareholders voting in General Meeting. Accordingly, the notice of General Meeting set out on page 7 of this document contains a Special Resolution to approve the application to the London Stock Exchange for cancellation of admission of the Company’s shares on AIM. If the Resolution is approved, it is expected that cancellation of dealings will take effect from 7.00 a.m. on 22 December 2008. HTH Edited 19 December, 2008 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 December, 2008 Share Posted 19 December, 2008 It must be far too complicated for yourself, otherwise I cannot see any way in which you construe that as only 75% of votes that attend a meeting. On your basis, events could easily conspire that only 4% of the total eligible vote attend, requiring only 3% to forward a special resolution. The sentence is categoric, it requires 75% of the eligible vote. You are an utter numpty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 December, 2008 Share Posted 19 December, 2008 To delist we need to pass a special resolution. To pass a special resolution 75% of votes cast must be in favour of it. Anyone reading this thread for info, please do ignore Up and Away, who is incapable of making sense of his own quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 19 December, 2008 Share Posted 19 December, 2008 Once again, up and away shows himself up as utterly utterly clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now