TOPIC: Who is buying AJ's shares?

heard it was some guy who had connection with both Workington and Penrith who made millions selling his companys


MULLEN is it close to who you've been told then

Unbelievable.

united61 wrote:
Must be as there has been a lack of reply!

No

Unsure what has been said in the OP.

Mullen103 wrote:
Have you signed a confidentiality clause ha! Links to Workington DB?

Mullen think we might be close being correct mate seems you said no trying to put us off the scent me thinks.

united61 wrote:
Just so we are on the same lines and no mis communication.

What is the person/company called who you think it is?

Why aren't you putting names on here?
Same as the Custodians!

I was told not too by the people involved, for the time being.

The offer has nothing to do with any directors and is a straight offer for AJ's shares. Due diligence and investigations of the company involved has been started by someone as a payment of £500 has been made to view the financial details.

I mentioned Dale brotherson he said no but who ever it was had been involved with both workington and Penrith since then gone onto being very very successful business man

united61 wrote:

Tony Fyfe? Isnt he selling banana's now?

Danny Grainger.

A couple of comma's here and there would make your posts a hell of a lot easier to read united61!

point taken Frankie me boy.

A payment of £500 has been made to review the financials Mullen?That's hardly verification of ability to fund a football club!Its also highly unconventional to pay a vendor to see numbers-normally one might expect a break cost if a deal collapses but that's in a much higher atmosphere than a deal at this level.

£500 has been spent by the club/AJ to view the company/directors/person(s) finances involved in the offer for AJs shares.

I'VE no further details on whether it's a good deal or not. But I do know the person(s) involved.

Mullen103 wrote:
If the interested party are only buying AJ's shares surely it should be him fitting any bill to look at theit finances, not the club.

Also, isn't it normally the investor that does the due diligence not the selling party ?

DeckchairBlue wrote:
they need to check whether he has the resources to back up his offer

Happyblue wrote:
Fair point Happyblue, we wouldn't want some jumped up curry house waiter trying to buy the club would we ha ha........ Oh hang on?

Mullen, are you saying that the club (or Mr Jenkins personally) has paid somebody £500 for them to have a look at the financials of a person or company who wants to buy the shares of Jenkins only? That sort of payment is likely to only buy a couple of hours of a solicitor or accountants time, so it won't be much of a check I'd have thought.

The thing about this, interesting as it obviously is, is what will the outcome actually be? There could end up being another co-owner, but we'll be no further forward because there will still be the other three shareholders (Nixon, Pattison and the trust), any new shareholder will not have any control, unless there is going to be some way of diluting the holdings of at least one of those other parties. It would appear from what this looks like as though we'd be moving from over reliance on the back pocket of Mr Jenkins to that of some other individual, unless there are plans to buy shares from another owner. Or unless there are other ideas as well.

Moorlad wrote:
Also, what would happen to the £1.2m (or whatever) debt that is owed to AJ/Pioneer?

It was over £1.3m at the end of June 2014, there was a substantial 6 figure loss for the year to 30 June 2025 too, so that must be a very large number now (approaching £2m?)

That's correct Moorlad. £500 spent to view the finances of the people/companies involved.

The offer is roughly a million for AJs shares and debt. AJ won't see anywhere near that amount staying so is a good offer.

so basically we end up with some unknown character having to bankroll the club because Jenkins will have gone? Where else is the cash that Jenkins is currently putting in to keep us afloat going to come from? Sounds like another total balls up about to happen if it goes through .

Mullen103 wrote:
If there was any likelihood of Jenkins selling out, it would be interesting who aligned with the new investor. If with Nixon and Patty, same old same old.
If with the Trust, Nixon and Patty would be out on their arse..

Mullen103 wrote:
Let me get this right. The investor pays AJ £1m (roughly) for his shares in the club, and debt to AJ/Pioneer is transferred to the new investor?

chesterviabothel wrote: I read it as AJ gets £1m for shares in return for writing off the remainder of the debt. Mullen... can you clarify what you meant please?

I remain astonished by the level of info that Mullen has-true or untrue!

Anyway,the issue is the debt as you don't want that in the wrong hands-something I was at pains to point out a while ago as it could create significant levers over the equity.Hopefully,AJ and his advisors will take care on this

Mullen is about as credible as superblueabbott, but atleast the latter knows he's taking the p*ss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Northumbrian wrote:
That's correct, the debt would be gone in exchange for the shares. No transfer of debt.

Cancellation of the debt would be ideal Mullen-subject to tax advice of course

Laffy wrote:
Mullen does get hold of good stuff, that is true.

As you rightly say, in unscrupulous hands the debt would certainly be used that way and the club's stability would be massively undermined. Mr Jenkins is no fool in that way though, and I'm sure precautions will be taken. As I said last week, I had concerns about him extricating himself from the club anyway, with the amount owed to him being far more than the value of his shares. I don't think he has a hope in hell of getting nearly £2m (if my assumptions are correct) from anybody, and an offer of £1m to £1.25m is about all he could reasonably expect when your original offer valued 45% of the club at £1.26m. His holding is 37.315% currently which would be about £1.045m, so he might be able to press for a bit more than the million Mullen suggests, but I can't see there being many people who would go too much further than that.

Right..call me thick, but i dont understand shares and assets etc, two things i cant fathom...

Who actually owns the club and land?

Why did FS write such a huge debt off?

Thanks.

Arragorn wrote:
I dont know how you come to that conclusion. Providing the information is right a new investor coming in and ridding the club of £1.5 million plus worth of debt cant be a bad thing can it?. Id also hope whoever this individual is wouldnt just be paying Jenkins for is shares then not being proactive in doing anything else.

Laffy wrote:
I agree, that's the deal that's been offered.

The club owns the land but ignore it as its a red herring

The loan has value because it comes before equity/shares in any shake out and can be used to gain control by calling the loan in.

The correct course of action if Mullen is correct is to bundle the shares and loan up and write the latter off as part of the deal-simple

FS wrote his loan off to allow new money to be injected without it simply being used to pay him off

Fred wrote the debt off, I assume, to make way for Laffy's initial bid. There was little chance of any sort of investment at all (as Laffy says) with large debts hanging over the club.

The club is owned by the shareholders. However it is not quite as simple as that, there are two different companies, Carlisle United 1921 Ltd (the club) and Carlisle United Holdings Ltd (the holding company). The holding company owns 93.2% of the shares in the club, there are a number of smaller shareholders in the club (Piglet off the other board being one). The Holding company (all it does is own the controlling interest in the club, it doesn't trade) is owned by Jenkins (37.315%), the trust (25.37%), Nixon (18.6575%) and Pattison (18.6575%). So the reality of the matter is that anybody who owns any shares in the club is a part owner of the club and it's land.

Maybe this new person knows Jenkins wont be a kind as Fred Story was. Im just guessing, i have no clue as to whats going on.

Laffy wrote:
That's how it will work, yes.

How close is this Mullen? The reason I ask is that Mr Jenkins is obviously giving it some consideration if he is having the individual looked at.

Laffy wrote:
Always thought it was you feeding him the info!

Thanks, Laffy and Moorlad, like most on here, i'm sick of the whole shambles. After the last grim few years, at least the team has improved massively, just wish this mess was sorted....months of lies and us fans been treated like mugs, again thanks for the explaination.

Moorlad wrote:
I don't know Moorlad, at first AJ was against it but why do a check as you say.

Moorlad wrote:
Fred wrote the debt off, I assume, to make way for Laffy's initial bid. There was little chance of any sort of investment at all (as Laffy says) with large debts hanging over the club.

aye Moorlad...appalling ..sickening, a glimmer of hope, then stabbed in the back..just shows the level they will stoop to!!!

They have still never come out with any satisfactory explanation (to me anyway) for why they did away with the Lapping bid. Having looked at what was available in a fair bit of detail I actually came to the conclusion that it was actually a number of things. The sidelining of Pattison was one of those, but more tellingly I believe it was because he had been clever enough to flummox them about effective control in the boardroom with the voting rights of shareholders.

As soon as they realised he could effectively veto anything he didn't want them to do, that was it, he was out. That is definitely why the billionaire was made up, because there would have been a lynch mob down Warwick Road if they'd just come right out and said "he's out 'cos we want control".

I have no clue whether Laffy's plan would have worked, it depended on a number of things, I do remain convinced he'd have raised the money though (I know people who wanted to invest that even he didn't know about). Them saying that there was no money was an outrageous slur and I believe he has shown remarkable restraint under very difficult circumstances.

Might be naive Moorlad but dunno why they just cant come out and tell the truth and stop treating us all like eejits.

I think there was a bit of panic in this case, because it had gone too far and there was a lot of interest in the local media and I think they felt it had got away from them and had gained a lot of momentum, so they had to sort it quickly. I think they were extremely foolish with the billionaire thing, but from their point of view I don't think they thought they had much choice, they were in real danger of losing control of the situation as well as the club.

So how does Tony Fyfe fit into all this?

He's selling bananas on behalf of Laffy, so Laffy can buy himself a pot to piss in.