Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graham Bennetts Perm]

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.

[York Alty is back]

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.

[im not really here]

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.

[GB Alty]

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

[HashtagAlty]

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...

[York Alty is back]

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...

They become voting shares once out of Treasury, otherwise any new owner would have no control of their investment.

Given that, these moves can very easily be used by Mr. Rowley to turn the club into a personal fiefdom where the man can't be touched.

[Leon]

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.

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?

[taxi Phil]

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.

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?

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.

[York Alty is back]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Alty Bri]

Trusting this chairman and this board to hand over control of the club to the right person, indeed any person, is an enormous leap of faith, but I see little alternative.

[Teasierbeaver]

Exactly, the only alternative is stay as is. There is literally no other viable option.

[York Alty is back]

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.

[GB Alty]

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

Therefore the vote needs to be NO at all costs, not in my name Rowley gets more power

[FatJan]

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.

[Graham Bennetts Perm]

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.

I would have thought that a well intentioned investor would welcome the opportunity to explain their plans to all other shareholders and get them on board, rather than be seen to be doing a deal without their involvement.