I must say, I'm surprised you haven't waited until tomorrow to release this. I know life goes on, but very few people are going to pay this proper attention today.
I must say, I'm surprised you haven't waited until tomorrow to release this. I know life goes on, but very few people are going to pay this proper attention today.
It clearly states that it will be sent this morning.I must say, I'm surprised you haven't waited until tomorrow to release this. I know life goes on, but very few people are going to pay this proper attention today.
Standard practice is for PRs to be issued the day before so they can be included in the following day's morning editions. It's why you often see 'embagro'd until 6am etc on them'. As the club has employed a 3rd party to handle the publicity I suspect they've followed accepted professional procedure and the PR is 'out there' anyway and the club would have no option but to issue it. I think it's reasonable to assume the PR was issued well in advance of the events which unfolded last night.
It's gone out on social media and everything. As if it couldn't have been delayed a little bit.We've been complaining about the delay. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I must say, I'm surprised you haven't waited until tomorrow to release this. I know life goes on, but very few people are going to pay this proper attention today.
It clearly states that it will be sent this morning.I must say, I'm surprised you haven't waited until tomorrow to release this. I know life goes on, but very few people are going to pay this proper attention today.
Standard practice is for PRs to be issued the day before so they can be included in the following day's morning editions. It's why you often see 'embagro'd until 6am etc on them'. As the club has employed a 3rd party to handle the publicity I suspect they've followed accepted professional procedure and the PR is 'out there' anyway and the club would have no option but to issue it. I think it's reasonable to assume the PR was issued well in advance of the events which unfolded last night.
More questions than answers really but I guess more info will come out when it's done through correct process at the EGM.
This looks to me like it opens the door officially for new people to come in, get something for their investment in terms of shares.
Hopefully the first steps to a change at the top and getting everyone back together for the common goal of getting promoted.
All this talk of "x has tried to put money in" etc is about to be seen if it's bluster or real.
As for voting against a temporary transfer of shares, that's people's individual choice, but remember, those that met with the chairman at the end of the season aren't stupid.Fair point Pete, but as a PR exercise this should be reconsidered. It's going to cause unnecessary grief, and this should have been anticipated.
I thought long and hard about whether to delay the announcement this morning - you all would expect no less of me. I was hamstrung by some extent by action that were already in progress, and some of the obligations it places on us as part of this process. The intent was to ensure that information was made available to as many as possible this morning, driven by the fact that the EGM letters had already been posted to shareholders.
That said, I was still contemplating a delay this morning until I heard Andy Burnham's speech. The words that he said that increased my resolve to go ahead as planned were (verbatim) "We are grieving today, but we are strong. Today it will be business as usual as far as possible in our great city."
I accept that this may be an error of judgement on my part, but it was not a casual act.
The tragic events of yesterday evening would rightly overshadow our announcement whenever we made it this week. But what this means is that we will have an obligation to repeatedly publicise the investment opportunity at every appropriate moment over the coming weeks. And that is what I commit to do.
This whole thing is one complete farce
Firstly I think the timing of this announcement is in bad taste, an absolute disgrace.
After that, what the f**k is this what we been waiting for, these 117,000 shares being signed over to Rowley and the current board. f**k that
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
I am pretty stunned at some responses here in relation to the timing of the press release
Children have died and been mamed mentally and physically for life
Evil people want to spread fear and hatred
The timing is simply irrelevant
My thoughts are with those poor people who didn't get home last night or who were caught up in the atrocities committed against people who have barley had a life yet
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
You do realise that voting 'No' makes it more likely Rowley will stay? Without the new shares he and his mates own a controlling stake in the club and no one can get rid of them unless they choose to sell their shares.
With the new share issue a new buyer can come in and get rid of him.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
You do realise that voting 'No' makes it more likely Rowley will stay? Without the new shares he and his mates own a controlling stake in the club and no one can get rid of them unless they choose to sell their shares.
With the new share issue a new buyer can come in and get rid of him.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
You do realise that voting 'No' makes it more likely Rowley will stay? Without the new shares he and his mates own a controlling stake in the club and no one can get rid of them unless they choose to sell their shares.
With the new share issue a new buyer can come in and get rid of him.
It also now gives him, his family and his associates the opportunity to purchase a fully controlling majority stake in the club and what he likes with it. Thats probably a concern. Its been said already, I dont believe he has the wrong intentions for the club and wants to take the club down or sell us down the river, I just dont think he's that good at being chairman of a football club. And this is a the biggest thing thats happened to the club since we were hours from collapsing into the abyss. Is he the man to lead this process? Thats where i'm nervous.
And yes Wayne, you're 100% correct. No parent should ever have the need to imagine this sort of suffering let alone live through it.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
You do realise that voting 'No' makes it more likely Rowley will stay? Without the new shares he and his mates own a controlling stake in the club and no one can get rid of them unless they choose to sell their shares.
With the new share issue a new buyer can come in and get rid of him.
Is there a legal requirement for these to go into his name, as opposed into some form of solicitors account, similar to the process of escrow?
I am no legal eagle but I can't see PLCs putting the shares into the CEOs name when they are buying back shares.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
You do realise that voting 'No' makes it more likely Rowley will stay? Without the new shares he and his mates own a controlling stake in the club and no one can get rid of them unless they choose to sell their shares.
With the new share issue a new buyer can come in and get rid of him.
Is there a legal requirement for these to go into his name, as opposed into some form of solicitors account, similar to the process of escrow?
I am no legal eagle but I can't see PLCs putting the shares into the CEOs name when they are buying back shares.
I don't know either.
However, don't you think it would have been sensible to find out the answer to this question before sending your vote in?
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
You do realise that voting 'No' makes it more likely Rowley will stay? Without the new shares he and his mates own a controlling stake in the club and no one can get rid of them unless they choose to sell their shares.
With the new share issue a new buyer can come in and get rid of him.
Is there a legal requirement for these to go into his name, as opposed into some form of solicitors account, similar to the process of escrow?
I am no legal eagle but I can't see PLCs putting the shares into the CEOs name when they are buying back shares.
I don't know either.
However, don't you think it would have been sensible to find out the answer to this question before sending your vote in?
No, as that could take a lot of legal brain power. Gut feel is that the answer is no.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
You do realise that voting 'No' makes it more likely Rowley will stay? Without the new shares he and his mates own a controlling stake in the club and no one can get rid of them unless they choose to sell their shares.
With the new share issue a new buyer can come in and get rid of him.
Is there a legal requirement for these to go into his name, as opposed into some form of solicitors account, similar to the process of escrow?
I am no legal eagle but I can't see PLCs putting the shares into the CEOs name when they are buying back shares.
I don't know either.
However, don't you think it would have been sensible to find out the answer to this question before sending your vote in?
No, as that could take a lot of legal brain power. Gut feel is that the answer is no.
If you truly want someone other than GR in the hot seat, you've really dropped a clanger with that 'NO' vote. I just hope others don't do the same or we are right back where we started.
Anyone who criticises the club for the timing of this is beyond help, the letters would have been landing on the shareholders doormats this morning (and then leaking out on here by lunchtime), today had clearly been planned as the big reveal for weeks. It's just a horrible awful coincidence but this is one thing you can't blame the club for.
Not the day to discuss this emotive topic in too much detail but my view...
Anyone who criticises the club for the timing of this is beyond help, the letters would have been landing on the shareholders doormats this morning (and then leaking out on here by lunchtime), today had clearly been planned as the big reveal for weeks. It's just a horrible awful coincidence but this is one thing you can't blame the club for.
On the second point, I don't own any shares but everyone who does must absolutely vote yes. This is the only way to make us a viable prospect for a serious outside investor. I do think GR wants to leave but in a way that allows him to say he's passing it on to a custodian who can be entrusted fully with the future of the club. The yes vote opens this possibility up and we must thank John King to seeking to do what he now thinks is right and giving us this potential opportunity. Don't let short term dislike for Rowley cloud your eyes to what will be in the best long term interests of the club.
First of all anyone that criticises Bill for the timing of todays statement is misguided. As the Bishop of Manchester and many others have said although the events last night were horrific, we mustn't let the b******s win.
I haven't yet received my Shareholder letter and I am all for Rowley leaving the club, but a few things are niggling me.
Why now? a share issue has been raised a few times over the years and has always been rejected. This despite the need for investment.
Why do the shares go in Rowley's name?
Are there investors in the pipeline?
What if investors are not found, does Rowley keep the shares forever?
Why is our aim only the Conference National, surely we want to progress as far as we can? Investors love ambition and there is no reason we couldn't get to the Football League with the right amount of investment aligned with a sound business plan.
Its time that he moved on, but I do find it difficult to trust Rowley after recent events.
He is probably as despondent as the supporters as to where the club finds itself.I don't think Kingy does despondent. Angry is more likely.
Why on earth would you vote no?Some people on here are blinded by hate.
Actually, that's a global problem.Why on earth would you vote no?Some people on here are blinded by hate.
Indeed Sir, sad, but true.Actually, that's a global problem.Why on earth would you vote no?Some people on here are blinded by hate.
Why on earth would you vote no?
And i dont understand why GR has to stay as chairman for this to go ahead???
While these are non voting shares they are essentially worthless.
But when converted they should be held in trust...what if grahame died and whoever the shares were passed to held a grudge against the club??
So this is the BIG announcement that we have all been waiting for and why the ROWLEY OUT campaign was stopped when it was just gaining momentum?I find this hard to believe, they must have been told something else? Would be good to hear from the ROWLEY OUT group now
Well played rowley 1-0 to you.
I think I might be missing something here .. or am I?You've missed nothing as far as I can discern (albeit I'm another potty pensioner) and your summing up nails it perfectly for me.
What the current position seems to be is that rather than, as we were led to believe, there was some substantial investment looming in the background, shareholders are being asked to sell/transfer their shares to GR's name so that the club will be a great investment for someone?
Then we are being asked to 'spread the word' to try and FIND an investor?
I know I might be a potty old pensioner but that seems a bit rum to me! There must be more to it than that. What have I missed? ???
I think I might be missing something here .. or am I? What the current position seems to be is that rather than, as we were led to believe, there was some substantial investment looming in the background, shareholders are being asked to sell/transfer their shares to GR's name so that the club will be a great investment for someone? Then we are being asked to 'spread the word' to try and FIND an investor? I know I might be a potty old pensioner but that seems a bit rum to me! There must be more to it than that. What have I missed? ???You've missed nothing as far as I can discern (albeit I'm another potty pensioner) and your summing up nails it perfectly for me.
I hope I can add something to the debate which might alleviate som of the concerns which have been expressed in this thread. Before I do, I will declare my interest. I am a long time supporter who regularly attends home and away matches and who owns 10 ordinary voting shares in the club. I am not related to, affiliated to or a personal friend of any board member or any other club representative. I have some experience with company law but am not a qualified expert so stand to be corrected on any of the following. The purpose of this initiative is to create the opportunity for significant investment into the club by making a large number of shares available. Furthermore, the intention seems to be to make a controlling interest available to a single individual or corporate investor. There are currently 232,000 shares in the club. 117,000 of those shares are owned by John King. This would be a controlling share but for the fact that they are designated as non-voting shares. Ownership and control of the club therefore rests with the owners of the remaining 115,000 voting shares. There are some 250+ of these shareholders including board members (past &present), sponsors, fans like me, former Australian international cricketers etc. The spread of ownership of the voting shares is such that no individual can exercise control of the club. If the proposed course of action is to go ahead,the first thing which will happen is that the 117,000 non voting shares will be transferred from John King to Graham Rowley. This will be a private transaction between individuals, so is not something which can be voted on or affected by other shareholders. This does not put control of the club in Graham Rowley's hands because they remain non-voting shares at this time. Graham Rowley is then willing to sell the 117,000 shares back to the club for £1.00. A buy-back of share capital like this requires the support of the voting shareholders, so we are asked to pass a resolution to make this happen. If the buy back happens, the shares will no longer belong to Graham Rowley. We the shareholders are then asked to pass a resolution to convert the 117,000 non-voting shares into voting shares. A crucial point to understand is that if the buy-back takes place, the 117,000 shares will be held by the club "in treasury". In simple terms, the club as a company cannot own shares in itself. Even if we accept to convert the 117,000 shares to voting shares, neither the board or the existing shareholders can utilise them as voting shares to exercise any control of the club. In effect these shares will be dormant until they are allocated to a new shareholder(s). The next step will be pass a resolution to change the Articles of Association, basically the rules that govern how the club is run. The rules currently say that any issue of share capital by the club must first be offered proportionately to the existing shareholders. This would defeat the object which is to attract a new investor with the potential controlling stake of 117,000 voting shares. Finally, we are asked to allow the directors to allocate the 117,000 shares as and when they see fit, to the benefit of the club. The goal appears to be to attract an investor to buy the controlling share. Whether a prospective buyer has been lined up, I know not. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. An investor with a controlling share would have the power determine the make up of the board including the chairman. Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.
Without seeming to be rude, that just seems like a very long-winded version of my summation of the situation a few comments ago.
It certainly doesn't address the "misunderstanding" about whether the investment was already there waiting for this share movement or is still being sought. The latter seems now to be most likely.
I would have thought if there was someone willing to invest, he should be named so shareholders can have an informed opinion before they decide what to do; consequently the position seems, sadly, to be as I have outlined above!
I hope I can add something to the debate which might alleviate som of the concerns which have been expressed in this thread. Before I do, I will declare my interest. I am a long time supporter who regularly attends home and away matches and who owns 10 ordinary voting shares in the club. I am not related to, affiliated to or a personal friend of any board member or any other club representative. I have some experience with company law but am not a qualified expert so stand to be corrected on any of the following. The purpose of this initiative is to create the opportunity for significant investment into the club by making a large number of shares available. Furthermore, the intention seems to be to make a controlling interest available to a single individual or corporate investor. There are currently 232,000 shares in the club. 117,000 of those shares are owned by John King. This would be a controlling share but for the fact that they are designated as non-voting shares. Ownership and control of the club therefore rests with the owners of the remaining 115,000 voting shares. There are some 250+ of these shareholders including board members (past &present), sponsors, fans like me, former Australian international cricketers etc. The spread of ownership of the voting shares is such that no individual can exercise control of the club. If the proposed course of action is to go ahead,the first thing which will happen is that the 117,000 non voting shares will be transferred from John King to Graham Rowley. This will be a private transaction between individuals, so is not something which can be voted on or affected by other shareholders. This does not put control of the club in Graham Rowley's hands because they remain non-voting shares at this time. Graham Rowley is then willing to sell the 117,000 shares back to the club for £1.00. A buy-back of share capital like this requires the support of the voting shareholders, so we are asked to pass a resolution to make this happen. If the buy back happens, the shares will no longer belong to Graham Rowley. We the shareholders are then asked to pass a resolution to convert the 117,000 non-voting shares into voting shares. A crucial point to understand is that if the buy-back takes place, the 117,000 shares will be held by the club "in treasury". In simple terms, the club as a company cannot own shares in itself. Even if we accept to convert the 117,000 shares to voting shares, neither the board or the existing shareholders can utilise them as voting shares to exercise any control of the club. In effect these shares will be dormant until they are allocated to a new shareholder(s). The next step will be pass a resolution to change the Articles of Association, basically the rules that govern how the club is run. The rules currently say that any issue of share capital by the club must first be offered proportionately to the existing shareholders. This would defeat the object which is to attract a new investor with the potential controlling stake of 117,000 voting shares. Finally, we are asked to allow the directors to allocate the 117,000 shares as and when they see fit, to the benefit of the club. The goal appears to be to attract an investor to buy the controlling share. Whether a prospective buyer has been lined up, I know not. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. An investor with a controlling share would have the power determine the make up of the board including the chairman. Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.
Without seeming to be rude, that just seems like a very long-winded version of my summation of the situation a few comments ago.
It certainly doesn't address the "misunderstanding" about whether the investment was already there waiting for this share movement or is still being sought. The latter seems now to be most likely.
I would have thought if there was someone willing to invest, he should be named so shareholders can have an informed opinion before they decide what to do; consequently the position seems, sadly, to be as I have outlined above!
I hope I can add something to the debate which might alleviate som of the concerns which have been expressed in this thread.
Before I do, I will declare my interest. I am a long time supporter who regularly attends home and away matches and who owns 10 ordinary voting shares in the club. I am not related to, affiliated to or a personal friend of any board member or any other club representative.
I have some experience with company law but am not a qualified expert so stand to be corrected on any of the following.
The purpose of this initiative is to create the opportunity for significant investment into the club by making a large number of shares available. Furthermore, the intention seems to be to make a controlling interest available to a single individual or corporate investor.
There are currently 232,000 shares in the club. 117,000 of those shares are owned by John King. This would be a controlling share but for the fact that they are designated as non-voting shares. Ownership and control of the club therefore rests with the owners of the remaining 115,000 voting shares. There are some 250+ of these shareholders including board members (past &present), sponsors, fans like me, former Australian international cricketers etc. The spread of ownership of the voting shares is such that no individual can exercise control of the club.
If the proposed course of action is to go ahead,the first thing which will happen is that the 117,000 non voting shares will be transferred from John King to Graham Rowley. This will be a private transaction between individuals, so is not something which can be voted on or affected by other shareholders. This does not put control of the club in Graham Rowley's hands because they remain non-voting shares at this time. Graham Rowley is then willing to sell the 117,000 shares back to the club for £1.00. A buy-back of share capital like this requires the support of the voting shareholders, so we are asked to pass a resolution to make this happen. If the buy back happens, the shares will no longer belong to Graham Rowley.
We the shareholders are then asked to pass a resolution to convert the 117,000 non-voting shares into voting shares. A crucial point to understand is that if the buy-back takes place, the 117,000 shares will be held by the club "in treasury". In simple terms, the club as a company cannot own shares in itself. Even if we accept to convert the 117,000 shares to voting shares, neither the board or the existing shareholders can utilise them as voting shares to exercise any control of the club. In effect these shares will be dormant until they are allocated to a new shareholder(s).
The next step will be pass a resolution to change the Articles of Association, basically the rules that govern how the club is run. The rules currently say that any issue of share capital by the club must first be offered proportionately to the existing shareholders. This would defeat the object which is to attract a new investor with the potential controlling stake of 117,000 voting shares.
Finally, we are asked to allow the directors to allocate the 117,000 shares as and when they see fit, to the benefit of the club. The goal appears to be to attract an investor to buy the controlling share. Whether a prospective buyer has been lined up, I know not. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. An investor with a controlling share would have the power determine the make up of the board including the chairman.
Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.
DittoI hope I can add something to the debate which might alleviate som of the concerns which have been expressed in this thread.
Before I do, I will declare my interest. I am a long time supporter who regularly attends home and away matches and who owns 10 ordinary voting shares in the club. I am not related to, affiliated to or a personal friend of any board member or any other club representative.
I have some experience with company law but am not a qualified expert so stand to be corrected on any of the following.
The purpose of this initiative is to create the opportunity for significant investment into the club by making a large number of shares available. Furthermore, the intention seems to be to make a controlling interest available to a single individual or corporate investor.
There are currently 232,000 shares in the club. 117,000 of those shares are owned by John King. This would be a controlling share but for the fact that they are designated as non-voting shares. Ownership and control of the club therefore rests with the owners of the remaining 115,000 voting shares. There are some 250+ of these shareholders including board members (past &present), sponsors, fans like me, former Australian international cricketers etc. The spread of ownership of the voting shares is such that no individual can exercise control of the club.
If the proposed course of action is to go ahead,the first thing which will happen is that the 117,000 non voting shares will be transferred from John King to Graham Rowley. This will be a private transaction between individuals, so is not something which can be voted on or affected by other shareholders. This does not put control of the club in Graham Rowley's hands because they remain non-voting shares at this time. Graham Rowley is then willing to sell the 117,000 shares back to the club for £1.00. A buy-back of share capital like this requires the support of the voting shareholders, so we are asked to pass a resolution to make this happen. If the buy back happens, the shares will no longer belong to Graham Rowley.
We the shareholders are then asked to pass a resolution to convert the 117,000 non-voting shares into voting shares. A crucial point to understand is that if the buy-back takes place, the 117,000 shares will be held by the club "in treasury". In simple terms, the club as a company cannot own shares in itself. Even if we accept to convert the 117,000 shares to voting shares, neither the board or the existing shareholders can utilise them as voting shares to exercise any control of the club. In effect these shares will be dormant until they are allocated to a new shareholder(s).
The next step will be pass a resolution to change the Articles of Association, basically the rules that govern how the club is run. The rules currently say that any issue of share capital by the club must first be offered proportionately to the existing shareholders. This would defeat the object which is to attract a new investor with the potential controlling stake of 117,000 voting shares.
Finally, we are asked to allow the directors to allocate the 117,000 shares as and when they see fit, to the benefit of the club. The goal appears to be to attract an investor to buy the controlling share. Whether a prospective buyer has been lined up, I know not. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. An investor with a controlling share would have the power determine the make up of the board including the chairman.
Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.
That's a very clear, detailed & helpful explanation....thank you.
I hope I can add something to the debate which might alleviate som of the concerns which have been expressed in this thread.
Before I do, I will declare my interest. I am a long time supporter who regularly attends home and away matches and who owns 10 ordinary voting shares in the club. I am not related to, affiliated to or a personal friend of any board member or any other club representative.
I have some experience with company law but am not a qualified expert so stand to be corrected on any of the following.
The purpose of this initiative is to create the opportunity for significant investment into the club by making a large number of shares available. Furthermore, the intention seems to be to make a controlling interest available to a single individual or corporate investor.
There are currently 232,000 shares in the club. 117,000 of those shares are owned by John King. This would be a controlling share but for the fact that they are designated as non-voting shares. Ownership and control of the club therefore rests with the owners of the remaining 115,000 voting shares. There are some 250+ of these shareholders including board members (past &present), sponsors, fans like me, former Australian international cricketers etc. The spread of ownership of the voting shares is such that no individual can exercise control of the club.
If the proposed course of action is to go ahead,the first thing which will happen is that the 117,000 non voting shares will be transferred from John King to Graham Rowley. This will be a private transaction between individuals, so is not something which can be voted on or affected by other shareholders. This does not put control of the club in Graham Rowley's hands because they remain non-voting shares at this time. Graham Rowley is then willing to sell the 117,000 shares back to the club for £1.00. A buy-back of share capital like this requires the support of the voting shareholders, so we are asked to pass a resolution to make this happen. If the buy back happens, the shares will no longer belong to Graham Rowley.
We the shareholders are then asked to pass a resolution to convert the 117,000 non-voting shares into voting shares. A crucial point to understand is that if the buy-back takes place, the 117,000 shares will be held by the club "in treasury". In simple terms, the club as a company cannot own shares in itself. Even if we accept to convert the 117,000 shares to voting shares, neither the board or the existing shareholders can utilise them as voting shares to exercise any control of the club. In effect these shares will be dormant until they are allocated to a new shareholder(s).
The next step will be pass a resolution to change the Articles of Association, basically the rules that govern how the club is run. The rules currently say that any issue of share capital by the club must first be offered proportionately to the existing shareholders. This would defeat the object which is to attract a new investor with the potential controlling stake of 117,000 voting shares.
Finally, we are asked to allow the directors to allocate the 117,000 shares as and when they see fit, to the benefit of the club. The goal appears to be to attract an investor to buy the controlling share. Whether a prospective buyer has been lined up, I know not. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. An investor with a controlling share would have the power determine the make up of the board including the chairman.
Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.
I'm assuming the transaction does not leave the club £117,000 out of pocket and into individual hands, am i right?
I hope I can add something to the debate which might alleviate som of the concerns which have been expressed in this thread.
Before I do, I will declare my interest. I am a long time supporter who regularly attends home and away matches and who owns 10 ordinary voting shares in the club. I am not related to, affiliated to or a personal friend of any board member or any other club representative.
I have some experience with company law but am not a qualified expert so stand to be corrected on any of the following.
The purpose of this initiative is to create the opportunity for significant investment into the club by making a large number of shares available. Furthermore, the intention seems to be to make a controlling interest available to a single individual or corporate investor.
There are currently 232,000 shares in the club. 117,000 of those shares are owned by John King. This would be a controlling share but for the fact that they are designated as non-voting shares. Ownership and control of the club therefore rests with the owners of the remaining 115,000 voting shares. There are some 250+ of these shareholders including board members (past &present), sponsors, fans like me, former Australian international cricketers etc. The spread of ownership of the voting shares is such that no individual can exercise control of the club.
If the proposed course of action is to go ahead,the first thing which will happen is that the 117,000 non voting shares will be transferred from John King to Graham Rowley. This will be a private transaction between individuals, so is not something which can be voted on or affected by other shareholders. This does not put control of the club in Graham Rowley's hands because they remain non-voting shares at this time. Graham Rowley is then willing to sell the 117,000 shares back to the club for £1.00. A buy-back of share capital like this requires the support of the voting shareholders, so we are asked to pass a resolution to make this happen. If the buy back happens, the shares will no longer belong to Graham Rowley.
We the shareholders are then asked to pass a resolution to convert the 117,000 non-voting shares into voting shares. A crucial point to understand is that if the buy-back takes place, the 117,000 shares will be held by the club "in treasury". In simple terms, the club as a company cannot own shares in itself. Even if we accept to convert the 117,000 shares to voting shares, neither the board or the existing shareholders can utilise them as voting shares to exercise any control of the club. In effect these shares will be dormant until they are allocated to a new shareholder(s).
The next step will be pass a resolution to change the Articles of Association, basically the rules that govern how the club is run. The rules currently say that any issue of share capital by the club must first be offered proportionately to the existing shareholders. This would defeat the object which is to attract a new investor with the potential controlling stake of 117,000 voting shares.
Finally, we are asked to allow the directors to allocate the 117,000 shares as and when they see fit, to the benefit of the club. The goal appears to be to attract an investor to buy the controlling share. Whether a prospective buyer has been lined up, I know not. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. An investor with a controlling share would have the power determine the make up of the board including the chairman.
Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.
I hope I can add something to the debate which might alleviate som of the concerns which have been expressed in this thread.
Before I do, I will declare my interest. I am a long time supporter who regularly attends home and away matches and who owns 10 ordinary voting shares in the club. I am not related to, affiliated to or a personal friend of any board member or any other club representative.
I have some experience with company law but am not a qualified expert so stand to be corrected on any of the following.
The purpose of this initiative is to create the opportunity for significant investment into the club by making a large number of shares available. Furthermore, the intention seems to be to make a controlling interest available to a single individual or corporate investor.
There are currently 232,000 shares in the club. 117,000 of those shares are owned by John King. This would be a controlling share but for the fact that they are designated as non-voting shares. Ownership and control of the club therefore rests with the owners of the remaining 115,000 voting shares. There are some 250+ of these shareholders including board members (past &present), sponsors, fans like me, former Australian international cricketers etc. The spread of ownership of the voting shares is such that no individual can exercise control of the club.
If the proposed course of action is to go ahead,the first thing which will happen is that the 117,000 non voting shares will be transferred from John King to Graham Rowley. This will be a private transaction between individuals, so is not something which can be voted on or affected by other shareholders. This does not put control of the club in Graham Rowley's hands because they remain non-voting shares at this time. Graham Rowley is then willing to sell the 117,000 shares back to the club for £1.00. A buy-back of share capital like this requires the support of the voting shareholders, so we are asked to pass a resolution to make this happen. If the buy back happens, the shares will no longer belong to Graham Rowley.
We the shareholders are then asked to pass a resolution to convert the 117,000 non-voting shares into voting shares. A crucial point to understand is that if the buy-back takes place, the 117,000 shares will be held by the club "in treasury". In simple terms, the club as a company cannot own shares in itself. Even if we accept to convert the 117,000 shares to voting shares, neither the board or the existing shareholders can utilise them as voting shares to exercise any control of the club. In effect these shares will be dormant until they are allocated to a new shareholder(s).
The next step will be pass a resolution to change the Articles of Association, basically the rules that govern how the club is run. The rules currently say that any issue of share capital by the club must first be offered proportionately to the existing shareholders. This would defeat the object which is to attract a new investor with the potential controlling stake of 117,000 voting shares.
Finally, we are asked to allow the directors to allocate the 117,000 shares as and when they see fit, to the benefit of the club. The goal appears to be to attract an investor to buy the controlling share. Whether a prospective buyer has been lined up, I know not. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion. An investor with a controlling share would have the power determine the make up of the board including the chairman.
Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.
Ahhhh, finally some clarity. That certainly clears up a few things! As others have said this is a no brainer, we must do it.
I think whats really clear now is that the act of putting the shares into trust and employing a trusted company to manage the investment search is actually a relatively selfless act by GR and he should be commended for it. It might not repair some of the damage done to the club but it gives an opportunity that is the biggest thing that has happened to the club since John King took those shares on.
This is indeed exciting.
When is the EGM?
It's before my time so I have to ask the Question. How did John King end up with so many "non-voting" shares and why are they non-voting?
It's before my time so I have to ask the Question. How did John King end up with so many "non-voting" shares and why are they non-voting?
It was a vehicle for a tax write off when Maunders was persuaded to donate his voting shares (76.1%) to the new board in 1995. His accountant offset 117K of losses against his tax return!
The shares have no value at all. They now just provide a simpler way of creating new shares for the club in order that any new investment goes to the club rather than shareholders who sell their own,... but these are useless until shareholders approve their conversion to voting shares, thus the need for an EGM.
I will be voting yes,... however my only concern is at present it would be very difficult (indeed probably impossible) for a new investor to obtain a controlling stake, whereas once converted we would rely only on the board to approve the "sale" of the club to someone, who may not, it might turn out have good long term intentions.
On balance, my view is that the fan owned community model, albeit laudable, appears not capable in the current football world of keeping us at the top end of the pyramid.
So, I would welcome external investment, however I would want to be absolutely CERTAIN that if someone came in who wanted 51% of the club, that he could be trusted with OUR CLUB.
Fortunately, as we dont own the ground, it would be most unlikely that an asset stripper would want to be involved, so someone like the new owner of Barrow would be good,... dont hold yopur breath ::)
It's before my time so I have to ask the Question. How did John King end up with so many "non-voting" shares and why are they non-voting?
It was a vehicle for a tax write off when Maunders was persuaded to donate his voting shares (76.1%) to the new board in 1995. His accountant offset 117K of losses against his tax return!
The shares have no value at all. They now just provide a simpler way of creating new shares for the club in order that any new investment goes to the club rather than shareholders who sell their own,... but these are useless until shareholders approve their conversion to voting shares, thus the need for an EGM.
I will be voting yes,... however my only concern is at present it would be very difficult (indeed probably impossible) for a new investor to obtain a controlling stake, whereas once converted we would rely only on the board to approve the "sale" of the club to someone, who may not, it might turn out have good long term intentions.
On balance, my view is that the fan owned community model, albeit laudable, appears not capable in the current football world of keeping us at the top end of the pyramid.
So, I would welcome external investment, however I would want to be absolutely CERTAIN that if someone came in who wanted 51% of the club, that he could be trusted with OUR CLUB.
Fortunately, as we dont own the ground, it would be most unlikely that an asset stripper would want to be involved, so someone like the new owner of Barrow would be good,... dont hold yopur breath ::)
It Hardly matters, if we go bump so be if, we've sunk That low we'd only take a matter of seasons to get back to here anyway, and might get a couple of exciting seasons out of it, celebrating winning football matches rather than celebrating balance sheets. Over 90% of the countries reformed football clubs in the last 15 years are sat above us in the pyramid
Why now? a share issue has been raised a few times over the years and has always been rejected. This despite the need for investment.
Why do the shares go in Rowley's name?
Are there investors in the pipeline?
What if investors are not found, does Rowley keep the shares forever?
Why is our aim only the Conference National, surely we want to progress as far as we can? Investors love ambition and there is no reason we couldn't get to the Football League with the right amount of investment aligned with a sound business plan.
I think I might be missing something here .. or am I?You've missed nothing as far as I can discern (albeit I'm another potty pensioner) and your summing up nails it perfectly for me.
What the current position seems to be is that rather than, as we were led to believe, there was some substantial investment looming in the background, shareholders are being asked to sell/transfer their shares to GR's name so that the club will be a great investment for someone?
Then we are being asked to 'spread the word' to try and FIND an investor?
I know I might be a potty old pensioner but that seems a bit rum to me! There must be more to it than that. What have I missed? ???
Can anyone who knows the legal ins and outs of these matters confirm whether the Board of Directors can approve a sale of shares on this scale without the say so of the shareholders, or do the Directors have to recommend the sale to shareholders, and shareholders have the final decision?
The former would be a major worry in my view.
Matt
I dont think the model has failed, it was some very bad decsions that got us in this dreadful position.
But I do think the model isnt competitive enough in this new world of highly funded non league clubs, as good as the principle is.
And for once, I do agree with you that this might just help us find what you call "the right people" to come in.
The right people would also recognise what a healthy prospect the club is and the community aspects are at the forefront of that, nothing done in that regard has been wasted at all.
Ian
Indeed it does. On that basis, I'd have to vote against resolution 4.
Can anyone who knows the legal ins and outs of these matters confirm whether the Board of Directors can approve a sale of shares on this scale without the say so of the shareholders, or do the Directors have to recommend the sale to shareholders, and shareholders have the final decision?
The former would be a major worry in my view.
I don't pretend to be proficient as regards the legal intricacies but my reading of the following resolution (as specified on the letter that was sent to shareholders by the club this week) is that the decision to approve/accept any offer to purchase those 117,000 shares in the club (and thereby gain control of 51% of its shareholding) rests entirely with the Board of Directors and does not require any consultation with the club's shareholders:
Resolution 4 - To authorise the allotment and issue of the aforementioned 117,000 voting shares
The passing of this ordinary resolution would give the Directors of the Club the authority to authorise the allotment and issue of the aforementioned 117,000 "voting" (following reclassification) shares as and when they see fit and in the interests of the club.
This means that when a suitable investor approaches the club, the Directors would be able to complete the transaction for the benefit of the club.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hope that helps...
Indeed it does. On that basis, I'd have to vote against resolution 4.I don't pretend to be proficient as regards the legal intricacies but my reading of the following resolution (as specified on the letter that was sent to shareholders by the club this week) is that the decision to approve/accept any offer to purchase those 117,000 shares in the club (and thereby gain control of 51% of its shareholding) rests entirely with the Board of Directors and does not require any consultation with the club's shareholders:
Can anyone who knows the legal ins and outs of these matters confirm whether the Board of Directors can approve a sale of shares on this scale without the say so of the shareholders, or do the Directors have to recommend the sale to shareholders, and shareholders have the final decision?
The former would be a major worry in my view.
Resolution 4 - To authorise the allotment and issue of the aforementioned 117,000 voting shares
The passing of this ordinary resolution would give the Directors of the Club the authority to authorise the allotment and issue of the aforementioned 117,000 "voting" (following reclassification) shares as and when they see fit and in the interests of the club.
This means that when a suitable investor approaches the club, the Directors would be able to complete the transaction for the benefit of the club.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hope that helps...
Because I believe a decision as significant for the future of the Club as the sale of a majority stake should be taken by all its owners, not the handful who, for whatever reason, currently happen to have a Directorship.agreed. There is no reason why these Treasury Shares would not be sold to Mr Rowley or family for a token sum. Thus giving absolute power and control to a proven poor decision maker (I know he already calls pretty much all the shots, but in this scenario there in no legal or financial route of challenging him). I am increasingly concerned about all this.
Now all the facts have been explained, I am fully behind this move and will vote YES. Rowley already has a controlling hand and calls the shots, so anything that may facilitate him moving on gets my support.the problem is voting YES gives Rowley more power, another 51% of the club. That can't be allowed to happen
Now all the facts have been explained, I am fully behind this move and will vote YES. Rowley already has a controlling hand and calls the shots, so anything that may facilitate him moving on gets my support.the problem is voting YES gives Rowley more power, another 51% of the club. That can't be allowed to happen
Now all the facts have been explained, I am fully behind this move and will vote YES. Rowley already has a controlling hand and calls the shots, so anything that may facilitate him moving on gets my support.the problem is voting YES gives Rowley more power, another 51% of the club. That can't be allowed to happen
No it doesn't... the shares have no voting power. If anything it reduces his power by half once bought...
It is a fair question to ask - is there anything to prevent GR in theory buying these shares? I can't see why he would, except to prevent anyone else getting them. And if that were the case, there would be an almighty uproar.Does he have the odd £117,000 handy ? Probably not, but could he buy just enough of them to push his holding to 51% ? Quite probably. I'd sooner trust Donald Trump personally. But then, as a non-shareholder, I have no say.
I would also like to know more about the process by which the board will decide whether to approve a potential new investor. Does it require unanimity? Or would there be a vote?
there is no fixed price for there shares, Treasury or otherwise. They are being purchased at a nominal price and therefore Mr Rowley could buy them in his own name for a nominal sum - £1. One Pound.It is a fair question to ask - is there anything to prevent GR in theory buying these shares? I can't see why he would, except to prevent anyone else getting them. And if that were the case, there would be an almighty uproar.Does he have the odd £117,000 handy ? Probably not, but could he buy just enough of them to push his holding to 51% ? Quite probably. I'd sooner trust Donald Trump personally. But then, as a non-shareholder, I have no say.
I would also like to know more about the process by which the board will decide whether to approve a potential new investor. Does it require unanimity? Or would there be a vote?
Exactly, the only alternative is stay as is. There is literally no other viable option.between a rock and a hard place then. I don't trust this board to make the correct decisions. Yet we bloody have to. What a rotten stinking mess.
Exactly, the only alternative is stay as is. There is literally no other viable option.theres plenty of other viable options, but they all involve Rowley stepping down as chairman, which isnt going to happen hence not viable
For the shareholders to pass Resolution 4, to allow the directors of the club the authority to allot the 117,000 shares, as and when they see fit, and in the interests of the club, will require a level of trust in the directors to do the right thing.
I find it hard to believe that this is a Machiavellian plot to allow Grahame Rowley to gain a controlling share in the club through the back door. I don't think John King would be turning over his shares if this was the case, nor would the club have gone to the trouble of bringing in The Sport Business to help with the search for investors.
On the other hand, like other posters, I wish I could have advanced knowledge of where the shares are likely to go, so that I could be reassured that the shares will end up in the hands of somebody with the best interests of our club at heart.
At the moment, it's a cautious yes from me, but I will attend the EGM to hear the arguments before voting.
There is the option to support resolution 1-3 but to reject resolution 4. This would prevent the allotment of the shares without a further vote of the shareholders, once a prospective investor(s) is identified. That could however, prove to be a disincentive to new investors who might think twice if they had to jump through that hoop.
When is the EGM?As a matter of strictly factual information, the extension to the deadline was activated on May 17th - renewal letters sent out at that time carried the June 17th deadline date. There was recent mention on another thread, if I remember correctly, that we had already sold more S/Ts than Stalybridge, tho' that's probably not saying much.
I note the discounted season tickets deadline has been extended by a couple of weeks.......sales disappointing Mr Chairman?
What is the likely outcome at the EGM ?
When is the EGM?As a matter of strictly factual information, the extension to the deadline was activated on May 17th - renewal letters sent out at that time carried the June 17th deadline date. There was recent mention on another thread, if I remember correctly, that we had already sold more S/Ts than Stalybridge, tho' that's probably not saying much.
I note the discounted season tickets deadline has been extended by a couple of weeks.......sales disappointing Mr Chairman?
When is the EGM?As a matter of strictly factual information, the extension to the deadline was activated on May 17th - renewal letters sent out at that time carried the June 17th deadline date. There was recent mention on another thread, if I remember correctly, that we had already sold more S/Ts than Stalybridge, tho' that's probably not saying much.
I note the discounted season tickets deadline has been extended by a couple of weeks.......sales disappointing Mr Chairman?
Stalybridge had 30 season ticket holders last year
thank heavens we had a clicker counting them out or we would never have knownWhen is the EGM?As a matter of strictly factual information, the extension to the deadline was activated on May 17th - renewal letters sent out at that time carried the June 17th deadline date. There was recent mention on another thread, if I remember correctly, that we had already sold more S/Ts than Stalybridge, tho' that's probably not saying much.
I note the discounted season tickets deadline has been extended by a couple of weeks.......sales disappointing Mr Chairman?
Stalybridge had 30 season ticket holders last year
We had nearly that many walk-outs :D
I am intrigued by how you know that. I am not saying you're wrong by any means, it's just an odd thing to know!When is the EGM?As a matter of strictly factual information, the extension to the deadline was activated on May 17th - renewal letters sent out at that time carried the June 17th deadline date. There was recent mention on another thread, if I remember correctly, that we had already sold more S/Ts than Stalybridge, tho' that's probably not saying much.
I note the discounted season tickets deadline has been extended by a couple of weeks.......sales disappointing Mr Chairman?
Stalybridge had 30 season ticket holders last year
It was discussed on the stalybridge Celtic messageboard towards the end of last season. It was a circa 30 rather than a round 30 also
"One careful owner. Hardly used"It was discussed on the stalybridge Celtic messageboard towards the end of last season. It was a circa 30 rather than a round 30 also
We should sell them our clicker.
Who knows what personal uses it has been put to?"One careful owner. Hardly used"It was discussed on the stalybridge Celtic messageboard towards the end of last season. It was a circa 30 rather than a round 30 also
We should sell them our clicker.
Go to your room !Who knows what personal uses it has been put to?"One careful owner. Hardly used"It was discussed on the stalybridge Celtic messageboard towards the end of last season. It was a circa 30 rather than a round 30 also
We should sell them our clicker.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
Thankfully most people gave the situation more consideration and didn't follow suit.
At least the door is now open.......the big question is how many will be beating a path towards it?
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
Thankfully most people gave the situation more consideration and didn't follow suit.
At least the door is now open.......the big question is how many will be beating a path towards it?
So the vote was carried ? Did they give the numbers involved ?
I guess it's now time for everyone to sell the club in the best possible way
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
Thankfully most people gave the situation more consideration and didn't follow suit.
At least the door is now open.......the big question is how many will be beating a path towards it?
So the vote was carried ? Did they give the numbers involved ?
Someone will probably confirm officially, probably about 30-40 shareholders there, there was a Q&A session, then all 4 votes were passed unanimously, don't think anyone voted against.
#TimeToGoDream on. We're stuck with him.
#TimeToGoDream on. We're stuck with him.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
Thankfully most people gave the situation more consideration and didn't follow suit.
At least the door is now open.......the big question is how many will be beating a path towards it?
So the vote was carried ? Did they give the numbers involved ?
Someone will probably confirm officially, probably about 30-40 shareholders there, there was a Q&A session, then all 4 votes were passed unanimously, don't think anyone voted against.
Unanimous in the room, as I voted against one of the four proposals via the post. Unless you are truly saying all four were passed unanimously.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
Thankfully most people gave the situation more consideration and didn't follow suit.
At least the door is now open.......the big question is how many will be beating a path towards it?
So the vote was carried ? Did they give the numbers involved ?
Someone will probably confirm officially, probably about 30-40 shareholders there, there was a Q&A session, then all 4 votes were passed unanimously, don't think anyone voted against.
Unanimous in the room, as I voted against one of the four proposals via the post. Unless you are truly saying all four were passed unanimously.
Yes, fair point - it looked liked unanimous in the room, but there are other postal votes from many other investors (like yours) who agreed / disagreed that will need to be summed up until the final official results are announced...
I fully expected all four proposals to get voted through.
The club is effectively up for sale. It is a way forward. Now some of you that were so convinced people would be beating a path to the door....maybe you could show them the way eh?I wasn't ever convinced by that particular smokescreen. But I do remain convinced that we're heading for Hell in a handcart OFF the pitch, regardless of how well we fare ON it in the future.
I hope this works, but I'm not as convinced as some that the wealthy backers are out there chomping at the bit.
The club is effectively up for sale. It is a way forward. Now some of you that were so convinced people would be beating a path to the door....maybe you could show them the way eh?
I hope this works, but I'm not as convinced as some that the wealthy backers are out there chomping at the bit.
This point was made by Grahame Rowley in answer to the very first question from Graham Heathcote. He does not envisage all 117000 shares being purchased by one ondividual, but it is a vehicle for co-opting persons onto the board who can bring skills currently unavailable. He cited Bill Waterson's recent appointment as an example.The club is effectively up for sale. It is a way forward. Now some of you that were so convinced people would be beating a path to the door....maybe you could show them the way eh?
I hope this works, but I'm not as convinced as some that the wealthy backers are out there chomping at the bit.
Is this all about wealthy backers though? Certainly isn't for me.
However it does open the door for people who want to get involved to get something for their money.
How much money is the club going to pay for the shares,and how much profit is going to be made?. And another point is surely any shares bought by the club should be in the clubs name not GR's, !?
The letter says this will be a temporary measure, but I've posted ny NO vote back. The man is totally honest in my view, it is has judgement that I have no faith in.
Thankfully most people gave the situation more consideration and didn't follow suit.
At least the door is now open.......the big question is how many will be beating a path towards it?
So the vote was carried ? Did they give the numbers involved ?
Someone will probably confirm officially, probably about 30-40 shareholders there, there was a Q&A session, then all 4 votes were passed unanimously, don't think anyone voted against.
Unanimous in the room, as I voted against one of the four proposals via the post. Unless you are truly saying all four were passed unanimously.
Yes, fair point - it looked liked unanimous in the room, but there are other postal votes from many other investors (like yours) who agreed / disagreed that will need to be summed up until the final official results are announced...
The Press Release on the main site states "A show of hands from shareholders".
There was a POSTAL VOTE too. What's the concern about releasing the actual votes for and against each proposal?
I shall be contacting the club.
I would just like to make a couple of points to clarify:
1) John's Laidlar's account on the website reflects his observations as a private shareholder. Hence his "passed unanimously in the room" comment. We have not yet released an official report of the meeting - currently I don't know when this will be released but I am following up to ascertain this. There is certainly no intent from the club to conceal the results.
2) The intent is to sell the new share issue in major tranches, in other words to investors who are putting a reasonably sized investment into the club. We have a means to sell shares to those who require a small stake which will not dilute the new issue at all.
3) As I stated last night, in order to deliver on our ambition we need to expand the board. The injection of capital will be welcome but just as welcome will be the injection of new energy, new ideas and new expertise.
4) We have not rolled back on how we intend to use the Sports Partnership. Rather we are still exploring the best way to work with them in the commercial domain - attracting new sponsors and the like - without overlapping with our current initiatives. We will continue to work with them in looking for new investors.
I hope this helps
I would just like to make a couple of points to clarify:
1) John's Laidlar's account on the website reflects his observations as a private shareholder. Hence his "passed unanimously in the room" comment. We have not yet released an official report of the meeting - currently I don't know when this will be released but I am following up to ascertain this. There is certainly no intent from the club to conceal the results.
2) The intent is to sell the new share issue in major tranches, in other words to investors who are putting a reasonably sized investment into the club. We have a means to sell shares to those who require a small stake which will not dilute the new issue at all.
3) As I stated last night, in order to deliver on our ambition we need to expand the board. The injection of capital will be welcome but just as welcome will be the injection of new energy, new ideas and new expertise.
4) We have not rolled back on how we intend to use the Sports Partnership. Rather we are still exploring the best way to work with them in the commercial domain - attracting new sponsors and the like - without overlapping with our current initiatives. We will continue to work with them in looking for new investors.
I hope this helps
May I ask why John is posting personal observations on the club's official website?
I would just like to make a couple of points to clarify:
1) John's Laidlar's account on the website reflects his observations as a private shareholder. Hence his "passed unanimously in the room" comment. We have not yet released an official report of the meeting - currently I don't know when this will be released but I am following up to ascertain this. There is certainly no intent from the club to conceal the results.
2) The intent is to sell the new share issue in major tranches, in other words to investors who are putting a reasonably sized investment into the club. We have a means to sell shares to those who require a small stake which will not dilute the new issue at all.
3) As I stated last night, in order to deliver on our ambition we need to expand the board. The injection of capital will be welcome but just as welcome will be the injection of new energy, new ideas and new expertise.
4) We have not rolled back on how we intend to use the Sports Partnership. Rather we are still exploring the best way to work with them in the commercial domain - attracting new sponsors and the like - without overlapping with our current initiatives. We will continue to work with them in looking for new investors.
I hope this helps
I would just like to make a couple of points to clarify:
1) John's Laidlar's account on the website reflects his observations as a private shareholder. Hence his "passed unanimously in the room" comment. We have not yet released an official report of the meeting - currently I don't know when this will be released but I am following up to ascertain this. There is certainly no intent from the club to conceal the results.
2) The intent is to sell the new share issue in major tranches, in other words to investors who are putting a reasonably sized investment into the club. We have a means to sell shares to those who require a small stake which will not dilute the new issue at all.
3) As I stated last night, in order to deliver on our ambition we need to expand the board. The injection of capital will be welcome but just as welcome will be the injection of new energy, new ideas and new expertise.
4) We have not rolled back on how we intend to use the Sports Partnership. Rather we are still exploring the best way to work with them in the commercial domain - attracting new sponsors and the like - without overlapping with our current initiatives. We will continue to work with them in looking for new investors.
I hope this helps
The Press Release on the main site states "A show of hands from shareholders".
There was a POSTAL VOTE too. What's the concern about releasing the actual votes for and against each proposal?
I shall be contacting the club.
Who cares, its gone through. They had a majority, thats obvious.
I do wonder if the board will ever approve the sale of these shares to anyone other than 'happy clappers' who are willing to back the current regime. In that sense I dont see really whats changed. I also note some sense of back pedalling on the involvement of 'The Sports Business' who I understood were tasked with finding investors and now seem to be just helping with PR and getting 'external contacts'.
It sounds to me like its a framework thats been put in place but still relies on the impetus of the board for it to be applied.
No change in GR's desire to control the club and do as he sees fit then.
Not really an acknowledgement that he is unable to run the club in its current form.
The club website has been updated and now includes the statementI suspect he thinks the same as me. You're an awkward a**hole with an axe to grind. John Laidlar published the facts, whether he was a private shareholder or not. He was neither deceitful nor made a mistake. Grahame Rowley used the word "unanimous" when "no votes against" was probably the correct term. Bill Waterson does not need to apologise for John Laidlar.
"The formal meeting finally voted on the four resolutions, all of which were passed without any votes against".
That is either an error or deliberate deceit.
An error is an error and is symptomatic of what is going on at the club. This is straightforward counting. Basic stuff.
I wonder what the view of the representative from MLP Law is .
The club website has been updated and now includes the statementI suspect he thinks the same as me. You're an awkward a**hole with an axe to grind. John Laidlar published the facts, whether he was a private shareholder or not. He was neither deceitful nor made a mistake. Grahame Rowley used the word "unanimous" when "no votes against" was probably the correct term. Bill Waterson does not need to apologise for John Laidlar.
"The formal meeting finally voted on the four resolutions, all of which were passed without any votes against".
That is either an error or deliberate deceit.
An error is an error and is symptomatic of what is going on at the club. This is straightforward counting. Basic stuff.
I wonder what the view of the representative from MLP Law is .
As for the "Postal vote" there was no such thing. There was a proxy vote whereby you could nominate the Chairman or someone else who would attend the meeting on your behalf to vote for you. As I assume you allowed Grahame Rowley to vote on your behalf, as seemingly did all the other proxy voters, then he and MLP Law knew full well how those votes were cast, and therefore how the votes cast in the room affected the total vote.
If anything is "symptomatic" it's your post trying to pick faults in everything associated with Altrincham Football Club. Get a life and grow up.
It's a done deal.
Before I give up on this forum I wish to point out to whoever it was who had a go at me and the non-existent postal vote...
The Company Law Club states "Unless otherwise instructed, the proxy may vote as he thinks fit or abstain from voting."
I did not abstain and I grave clear instructions for my vote, I voted against but in the weird world of Alty that just does not count.
Bye, enjoy the forum.
f**k me this is boring.
Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.
Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.
Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.
Can I just (although not "someone from the club" per se make the point that every match report John writes is, by your yardstick also a collection of personal points of view?
Can someone from the Club please explain why personal points of view are being put on the Official website? Its not only embarrassing but misleading that an account of the EGM should feature in this way. Fair play to the Laidlar's for the extensive work with the website in the past but surely if the Club wish to progress and become more commercially viable, a new website is required.
And there is at least one company willing to do it in exchange for a double hoardings, social media exposure, and some website sponsorshipx
That means the whole club is worth around £1million and I can't see that being the case. Or is this just a figure GR has plucked out of his arse in a bid to dissuade people from attempting to buy all 117000 shares at once?Exactly 100%
Get off your high horse. I'm not a happy clapper, nor a fan of the old Board. What I witnessed last night, was a Rowley who would welcome new people and investment. He may have been incompetent at times but he's not a monster. I was speaking with several of the Rowley Out gang when he came over and asked if they were satisfied with the outcome. If someone genuine comes in, he will step down.That means the whole club is worth around £1million and I can't see that being the case. Or is this just a figure GR has plucked out of his arse in a bid to dissuade people from attempting to buy all 117000 shares at once?Exactly 100%
And this has been Rowleys end game since the Stalybridge walkout. Unfortunately those that protested and the Rowley out group have been taken for mugs. This has all been about more power for Rowley, overpricing of the club is the oldest trick in the book of corruption
Those that voted for this resolution should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves
Not in my name, not my club anymore
Get off your high horse. I'm not a happy clapper, nor a fan of the old Board. What I witnessed last night, was a Rowley who would welcome new people and investment. He may have been incompetent at times but he's not a monster. I was speaking with several of the Rowley Out gang when he came over and asked if they were satisfied with the outcome. If someone genuine comes in, he will step down.That means the whole club is worth around £1million and I can't see that being the case. Or is this just a figure GR has plucked out of his arse in a bid to dissuade people from attempting to buy all 117000 shares at once?Exactly 100%
And this has been Rowleys end game since the Stalybridge walkout. Unfortunately those that protested and the Rowley out group have been taken for mugs. This has all been about more power for Rowley, overpricing of the club is the oldest trick in the book of corruption
Those that voted for this resolution should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves
Not in my name, not my club anymore
Get off your high horse. I'm not a happy clapper, nor a fan of the old Board. What I witnessed last night, was a Rowley who would welcome new people and investment. He may have been incompetent at times but he's not a monster. I was speaking with several of the Rowley Out gang when he came over and asked if they were satisfied with the outcome. If someone genuine comes in, he will step down.That means the whole club is worth around £1million and I can't see that being the case. Or is this just a figure GR has plucked out of his arse in a bid to dissuade people from attempting to buy all 117000 shares at once?Exactly 100%
And this has been Rowleys end game since the Stalybridge walkout. Unfortunately those that protested and the Rowley out group have been taken for mugs. This has all been about more power for Rowley, overpricing of the club is the oldest trick in the book of corruption
Those that voted for this resolution should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves
Not in my name, not my club anymore
So has there been a formal evaluation? And if not, do we know how much it would cost to have one done?
That means the whole club is worth around £1million and I can't see that being the case. Or is this just a figure GR has plucked out of his arse in a bid to dissuade people from attempting to buy all 117000 shares at once?Exactly 100%
And this has been Rowleys end game since the Stalybridge walkout. Unfortunately those that protested and the Rowley out group have been taken for mugs. This has all been about more power for Rowley, overpricing of the club is the oldest trick in the book of corruption
Those that voted for this resolution should be embarressed and ashamed of themselves
Not in my name, not my club anymore
Serious question as I'm curious. What would be your ideal resolution?
Is it GR just steps down overnight, no vice chairman in place and then what actually happens next?
Who even puts the statement out or organises the next stage? We're owned in the main by people who lost interest a long time ago. I can't see them banding together to relaunch things, they would sit and wait and look to others.
The "someone else will do it" attitude that presides when talk needs to turn into work would come to the fore here I'm pretty sure.
This is far from ideal for me but it's progress from where we were a month ago where if you wanted to take over it would have been difficult to actually do so.
The way I see it, the future of our club outside of being a tea and bun club that bumbles along providing wonderful community things but is watched by passive spectators and not supporters is firmly in the hands of The Sport Business. I hope they can deliver.
I'm sure it will soon be Teresa Mays fault
I'm sure it will soon be Teresa Mays fault
Typical behaviour by her not to turn up at last Thursday's EGM.