Brewdog shares
Discussion
“I pushed people too far” in a podcast with Steven Bartlett. By the way is it really valued at £2billion ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
CoolHands said:
“I pushed people too far” in a podcast with Steven Bartlett. By the way is it really valued at £2billion ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
Yes, but not on the open market, so not really!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
Jambo85 said:
CoolHands said:
“I pushed people too far” in a podcast with Steven Bartlett. By the way is it really valued at £2billion ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
Yes, but not on the open market, so not really!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
Too late in this once in a generation cycle, Dot Com in 2000 and Nifty Fifty in early 70's.
Stayed too long at the table and gave it all back unless they can find one of the Drinks companies with that much cash and the Board are having a collective manic episode.
Consumer brands do tend to start consolidations and acquisitions during times such as these.
The problem for BrewDog is that an actual market valuation will be a million miles away from one fabricated on the back of inflated stock sales to retail punters. Those punters probably have a strong overlap with the customer base so forcing them to sell at a huge loss wouldn't be brilliant for the brand or its sales?
The problem for BrewDog is that an actual market valuation will be a million miles away from one fabricated on the back of inflated stock sales to retail punters. Those punters probably have a strong overlap with the customer base so forcing them to sell at a huge loss wouldn't be brilliant for the brand or its sales?
DaveA8 said:
Jambo85 said:
CoolHands said:
“I pushed people too far” in a podcast with Steven Bartlett. By the way is it really valued at £2billion ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
Yes, but not on the open market, so not really!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10980039/...
Too late in this once in a generation cycle, Dot Com in 2000 and Nifty Fifty in early 70's.
Stayed too long at the table and gave it all back unless they can find one of the Drinks companies with that much cash and the Board are having a collective manic episode.
A couple of years ago he tried to sell a stake to Heinken, but they laughed at his valuation and they laughed at the fact he wanted investment but without giving up much control or say in how the business was run.
Turns out selling the same bulls
t to another brewer was somewhat harder than selling it to retail punters. Also made a mockery of his stance on 'selling out' to larger breweries.
Turns out selling the same bulls
t to another brewer was somewhat harder than selling it to retail punters. Also made a mockery of his stance on 'selling out' to larger breweries. Condi said:
A couple of years ago he tried to sell a stake to Heinken, but they laughed at his valuation and they laughed at the fact he wanted investment but without giving up much control or say in how the business was run.
Turns out selling the same bullst to another brewer was somewhat harder than selling it to retail punters. Also made a mockery of his stance on 'selling out' to larger breweries.
Turns out selling the same bulls
t to another brewer was somewhat harder than selling it to retail punters. Also made a mockery of his stance on 'selling out' to larger breweries. - allegedly
NRS said:
Did I miss something, they don’t need to sell so they can continue at the table and just do their thing surely?
So long as they don't need to raise any capital?I don't know what their accounts look like but if they need to go to the market over the next few years they may find they can't tap their preferred retail route efficiently any more?
Jambo85 said:
Condi said:
A couple of years ago he tried to sell a stake to Heinken, but they laughed at his valuation and they laughed at the fact he wanted investment but without giving up much control or say in how the business was run.
Turns out selling the same bullst to another brewer was somewhat harder than selling it to retail punters. Also made a mockery of his stance on 'selling out' to larger breweries.
Turns out selling the same bulls
t to another brewer was somewhat harder than selling it to retail punters. Also made a mockery of his stance on 'selling out' to larger breweries. - allegedly
The BBC did the documentary about the "toxic culture" and the part most people picked up on was JW owning shares in Heineken. Months later the BBC reported JW trying to sell the company to Heineken many years ago. They haven't shown any proof.
The BBC have gone all Daily Mail over BD.
The Steven Bartlett interview is worth a listen. Try and watch without prejudice.
Edited by Driver101 on Monday 18th July 01:39
Driver101 said:
I shouldn't stoke this as there was no interest in the discussion.
The BBC did the documentary about the "toxic culture" and the part most people picked up on was JW owning shares in Heineken. Months later the BBC reported JW trying to sell the company to Heineken many years ago. They haven't shown any proof.
The BBC have gone all Daily Mail over BD.
The Steven Bartlett interview is worth a listen. Try and watch without prejudice.
And yet, according to the Scottish Sun in an article posted 6 months ahead of the BBC piece about a possible collaboration or sale to Heineken, James admitted on a forum post that he had owned £500k of Heineken shares and the reason for doing so was to aid the wheels of a prospective deal. The BBC did the documentary about the "toxic culture" and the part most people picked up on was JW owning shares in Heineken. Months later the BBC reported JW trying to sell the company to Heineken many years ago. They haven't shown any proof.
The BBC have gone all Daily Mail over BD.
The Steven Bartlett interview is worth a listen. Try and watch without prejudice.
Scottish Sun said:
In an online post for angry shareholders, James explained: “Whilst we do not want to be owned by big beer, we are open to working with big beer on distribution.
“At the time we were having discussions with Heineken about a distribution deal for certain territories. It was my show of good faith to them that we could work together.
“The deal did not work out and I subsequently sold the shares, which I only held briefly.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/fabulous/8332380/brewdog-boss-heineken-shares-bbc-documentary/“At the time we were having discussions with Heineken about a distribution deal for certain territories. It was my show of good faith to them that we could work together.
“The deal did not work out and I subsequently sold the shares, which I only held briefly.”
Make up your own mind...
Condi said:
Driver101 said:
I shouldn't stoke this as there was no interest in the discussion.
The BBC did the documentary about the "toxic culture" and the part most people picked up on was JW owning shares in Heineken. Months later the BBC reported JW trying to sell the company to Heineken many years ago. They haven't shown any proof.
The BBC have gone all Daily Mail over BD.
The Steven Bartlett interview is worth a listen. Try and watch without prejudice.
And yet, according to the Scottish Sun in an article posted 6 months ahead of the BBC piece about a possible collaboration or sale to Heineken, James admitted on a forum post that he had owned £500k of Heineken shares and the reason for doing so was to aid the wheels of a prospective deal. The BBC did the documentary about the "toxic culture" and the part most people picked up on was JW owning shares in Heineken. Months later the BBC reported JW trying to sell the company to Heineken many years ago. They haven't shown any proof.
The BBC have gone all Daily Mail over BD.
The Steven Bartlett interview is worth a listen. Try and watch without prejudice.
Scottish Sun said:
In an online post for angry shareholders, James explained: “Whilst we do not want to be owned by big beer, we are open to working with big beer on distribution.
“At the time we were having discussions with Heineken about a distribution deal for certain territories. It was my show of good faith to them that we could work together.
“The deal did not work out and I subsequently sold the shares, which I only held briefly.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/fabulous/8332380/brewdog-boss-heineken-shares-bbc-documentary/“At the time we were having discussions with Heineken about a distribution deal for certain territories. It was my show of good faith to them that we could work together.
“The deal did not work out and I subsequently sold the shares, which I only held briefly.”
Make up your own mind...
JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken, but said the reported £500k was wrong.
Edited by Driver101 on Monday 18th July 08:33
Driver101 said:
It was the BBC who broke the news about JW owning shares in Heineken. The Sun only reported what happened in the documentary. The article you've linked references the source.
JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken, but said the reported £500k was wrong.
There were 2 different articles, one in January which said JW had owned Heineken shares, and one more recently which reported on the alleged buy in/agreement with Heineken. JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken, but said the reported £500k was wrong.
Responding to the first article, (that he owned shares in Heineken), JW said the reason for doing so was a possible agreement with Heineken which fell through. This was reported by the BBC and others 6 months later.
You're saying there is no proof he tried to sell to Heineken;
Driver101 said:
Months later the BBC reported JW trying to sell the company to Heineken many years ago. They haven't shown any proof.
The proof is in the Scottish Sun article from 6 months earlier. The proof is that he went on the Brewdog forum and said the reason for owning the Heineken shares was a potential deal. Scottish Sun said:
“At the time we were having discussions with Heineken about a distribution deal for certain territories. It was my show of good faith to them that we could work together.
So clearly there is proof (from his own mouth!) that there was some potential deal with Heineken discussed at some point in the past. If he's now denying that then either what he's saying now is wrong or what he said in January on the Brewdog forum was wrong. EDIT - Also, JW threatened to take legal action against the BBC in response to the program and it's claims. So far (as far as I can tell) there is no evidence of any legal action being taken. If it was so easy to disprove the BBC's allegations then why has it taken 6 months to even start the process?
Edited by Condi on Monday 18th July 09:07
Driver101 said:
It was the BBC who broke the news about JW owning shares in Heineken. The Sun only reported what happened in the documentary. The article you've linked references the source.
JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken, but said the reported £500k was wrong.
Yeah, it was over a million I heard.JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken, but said the reported £500k was wrong.
Edited by Driver101 on Monday 18th July 08:33
Condi said:
Driver101 said:
It was the BBC who broke the news about JW owning shares in Heineken. The Sun only reported what happened in the documentary. The article you've linked references the source.
JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken, but said the reported £500k was wrong.
There were 2 different articles, one in January which said JW had owned Heineken shares, and one more recently which reported on the alleged buy in/agreement with Heineken. JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken, but said the reported £500k was wrong.
Responding to the first article, (that he owned shares in Heineken), JW said the reason for doing so was a possible agreement with Heineken which fell through. This was reported by the BBC and others 6 months later.
You're saying there is no proof he tried to sell to Heineken;
Driver101 said:
Months later the BBC reported JW trying to sell the company to Heineken many years ago. They haven't shown any proof.
The proof is in the Scottish Sun article from 6 months earlier. The proof is that he went on the Brewdog forum and said the reason for owning the Heineken shares was a potential deal. Scottish Sun said:
“At the time we were having discussions with Heineken about a distribution deal for certain territories. It was my show of good faith to them that we could work together.
So clearly there is proof (from his own mouth!) that there was some potential deal with Heineken discussed at some point in the past. If he's now denying that then either what he's saying now is wrong or what he said in January on the Brewdog forum was wrong. JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken to help push through a distribution deal.
Months later the BBC reported that they seen evidence that JW tried to sell BD to Heineken in 2018. JW has said many times that this is completely false.
Driver101 said:
JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken to help push through a distribution deal.
Months later the BBC reported that they seen evidence that JW tried to sell BD to Heineken in 2018. JW has said many times that this is completely false.
As ever I dare say the truth is somewhere down the middle. JW may correctly deny trying to sell the business in it's entirety, but equally Heineken are unlikely to agree a distribution deal without owning some equity in Brewdog, which means the BBC article could be true in that a partial sale, or buy in from Heineken was discussed. It's convenient for JW to deny all of it and claim he is correct that the business as a whole was never up for sale, rather than come clean about what that distribution deal would actually entail. Heineken are not DHL or Parcel force - they are brewers, not a shipping company. If all he wanted was someone to move beer abroad then he wouldn't be partnering with a brewer. Months later the BBC reported that they seen evidence that JW tried to sell BD to Heineken in 2018. JW has said many times that this is completely false.
Condi said:
As ever I dare say the truth is somewhere down the middle. JW may correctly deny trying to sell the business in it's entirety, but equally Heineken are unlikely to agree a distribution deal without owning some equity in Brewdog, which means the BBC article could be true in that a partial sale, or buy in from Heineken was discussed. It's convenient for JW to deny all of it and claim he is correct that the business as a whole was never up for sale, rather than come clean about what that distribution deal would actually entail. Heineken are not DHL or Parcel force - they are brewers, not a shipping company. If all he wanted was someone to move beer abroad then he wouldn't be partnering with a brewer.
This. I don't believe anything he says. I am sure there is a little truth in it somewhere but he seems like a born liar in my opinion.Condi said:
Driver101 said:
JW admitted to briefly owning shares in Heineken to help push through a distribution deal.
Months later the BBC reported that they seen evidence that JW tried to sell BD to Heineken in 2018. JW has said many times that this is completely false.
As ever I dare say the truth is somewhere down the middle. JW may correctly deny trying to sell the business in it's entirety, but equally Heineken are unlikely to agree a distribution deal without owning some equity in Brewdog, which means the BBC article could be true in that a partial sale, or buy in from Heineken was discussed. It's convenient for JW to deny all of it and claim he is correct that the business as a whole was never up for sale, rather than come clean about what that distribution deal would actually entail. Heineken are not DHL or Parcel force - they are brewers, not a shipping company. If all he wanted was someone to move beer abroad then he wouldn't be partnering with a brewer. Months later the BBC reported that they seen evidence that JW tried to sell BD to Heineken in 2018. JW has said many times that this is completely false.
Getting in partnership with big breweries is exactly how you get beer into pubs and shops.
You do realise that BD already have a distribution deal with another huge brewery that doesn't own any of BD?
Edited by Driver101 on Monday 18th July 09:48
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff