• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

March to June 2020 - NEWCASTLE UTD fc

Status
Not open for further replies.
frot said:
You must be logged on to see media items

Buying under one percent of a US company's shares - buying a majority stake in a British football club: The same thing, obviously.

And they take the piss out of Mackem Logic...
Click to expand...

They’re a different breed these *****, on a different level. Toys out of the pram the lot.
 

sproates33 said:
They are thick as mince.

I keep seeing these comparisons to buying shares in Disney and how it isn't criticised.

The main issue appears to be the piracy streaming issue, which suprisingly, is completely different to other business acquisitions.
Click to expand...

Own 0.28% of DIS, 0.13% of FB and 0.1% of SBUX. They are thick as mince.
 
jlaws said:
Own 0.28% of DIS, 0.13% of FB and 0.1% of SBUX. They are thick as mince.
Click to expand...

This is an honest question, does morality come into it with a certain value or % stake ? If so what % is the cut off between acceptable and not acceptable?

I struggle to see how an investment of 500 million into Disney can be deemed fine but 300 million invested into NUFC isn’t ?
 
mad cyril said:
This is an honest question, does morality come into it with a certain value or % stake ? If so what % is the cut off between acceptable and not acceptable?

I struggle to see how an investment of 500 million into Disney can be deemed fine but 300 million invested into NUFC isn’t ?
Click to expand...
Can you not see a difference between owning a football club outright and a few shares in a USA based company?. Then there's the fact football is totally different to a movie/theme park company it's apples and oranges.
 
Mackemansj1 said:
Can you not see a difference between owning a football club outright and a few shares in a USA based company?. Then there's the fact football is totally different to a movie/theme park company it's apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

I see a difference between amount of % owned but I don’t see where one changes from morally wrong to right. Likewise I don’t see a relevance in what type of sector they buy into. Surely blood money is blood money, no ?
If it’s morally wrong to one it’s morally wrong to the next. You either agree with it or you don’t surely ?
 
mad cyril said:
I see a difference between amount of % owned but I don’t see where one changes from morally wrong to right. Likewise I don’t see a relevance in what type of sector they buy into. Surely blood money is blood money, no ?
If it’s morally wrong to one it’s morally wrong to the next. You either agree with it or you don’t surely ?
Click to expand...
What you don't see why football fans and people in the UK are speaking up more over them buying lock stock and barrel a football club in the UK over them buying stock in a company in America ?.
 
Mackemansj1 said:
What you don't see why football fans and people in the UK are speaking up more over them buying lock stock and barrel a football club in the UK over them buying stock in a company in America ?.
Click to expand...

I fully see why people are speaking up. That’s perfectly fine. What I don’t see is how one 500 million investment is ok but a 300 million one isn’t.
 
mad cyril said:
This is an honest question, does morality come into it with a certain value or % stake ? If so what % is the cut off between acceptable and not acceptable?

I struggle to see how an investment of 500 million into Disney can be deemed fine but 300 million invested into NUFC isn’t ?
Click to expand...
I suppose owning 0.xx% of a company can be seen as simply an investment in which you would have no control over that company. Owning 80% however is basically owning the company and having total control over everything it does.
 
Mr B said:
I suppose owning 0.xx% of a company can be seen as simply an investment in which you would have no control over that company. Owning 80% however is basically owning the company and having total control over everything it does.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in a moral standpoint it makes no difference!
 
mad cyril said:
I fully see why people are speaking up. That’s perfectly fine. What I don’t see is how one 500 million investment is ok but a 300 million one isn’t.
Click to expand...
When a company issues shares to the public then anyone with the money can buy the shares. Simple as that. But when you own such tiny proportions they have no controlling interest. This point seems lost on many of the mag disciples and I saw reference to controlling social media (they own 0.13% ffs even before you start talking about the various class of shares)!

They have a huge portfolio - see their holdings below:

You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links

But much bigger news today is PIF is planning on borrowing USD10bn to shore up liquidity!

Not sure link will work, but here it is -
DufraisFTM said:
It’s off.
Click to expand...

See my link below....came out 9am New York time so 1pm ours. Seems odd to borrow 10bn to shore up liquidity and pay out 350m of it immediately.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wolfhunter said:
No, most people just don't actually care. If you were really morally outraged there is no way that the following makes sense:

80% = Evil scum
1% = Who cares
Click to expand...

I think the point is that a takeover of a British PL club will receive more scrutiny from the British media (and others) than buying a very small percentage of an American company (basically stock trading)

And yeah, at the end of the day, nobody really does care in the grand scheme of things. I'm pretty intrigued and interested about the whole thing and I think that it'll be interesting to see who ends up taking over. As I've said before, this scrutiny could have been avoided had people close to the deal kept their mouths shut.
 
jlaws said:
When a company issues shares to the public then anyone with the money can buy the shares. Simple as that. But when you own such tiny proportions they have no controlling interest. This point seems lost on many of the mag disciples and I saw reference to controlling social media (they own 0.13% ffs even before you start talking about the various class of shares)!

They have a huge portfolio - see their holdings below:

You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links

But much bigger news today is PIF is planning on borrowing USD10bn to shore up liquidity!

Not sure link will work, but here it is -


See my link below....came out 9am New York time so 1pm ours. Seems odd to borrow 10bn to shore up liquidity and pay out 350m of it immediately.
Click to expand...
The a rumours doing the rounds about elapsed exclusivity period (from keys???)
Anyway somebody floating the premise of a 2nd bidder ( sounds like a fat mike ploy) or more keys wind up??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top