Print

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

[Jambo]

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??

Would've thought the obvious choice would be for the stock/shares to be held in escrow, as someone alluded to in the discussion, then to be given to the investor on hand over of the monies. Not a legal-eagle but reclassification or reassignment of shares can be an absolute legal minefield if the involved parties have differing ideas on the future direction of the Club but then no investor worth his salt will buy non-voting shares so could be a real sticking point there. However, get the right investor, one with sincere altruistic tendencies and a love for the Club, and football, and you guys will walk the next two Leagues.
As for the timing of the announcement, NO time is right after such an appalling tragedy but if it is done with the best of intentions then nobody can fault them.
Best of luck for the season.     

[Darren]

Where's the money coming from to buy back the shares? Is a certain person funding it that's why there going in thier name

[GB Alty]

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?
 Well played rowley 1-0 to you.

I find this hard to believe, they must have been told something else? Would be good to hear from the ROWLEY OUT group now

This transfer of shares to Rowley should be blocked at all costs

[Time to go]

To clear a few things up from our side...


The details of this proposal were discussed by a small number of supporters and the Chairman at a meeting which took place on 23rd March, arranged following a high profile protest by the supporters against Graham Rowley continuing in his role as Chairman. The subsequent agreement to suspend any future action was taken as a direct consequence of the proposals and their potential implications.

We particularly welcome this week’s announcement, as the calling of an EGM to consider a share issue offering a controlling interest in the club were key pre-conditions in agreeing to March’s meeting. For creating such an opportunity, regardless of the circumstances and people’s own opinion of his tenure, Graham Rowley should be applauded.

As a direct result of the strategy and focus of the current (and previous) Board, the club can now market itself to the outside world as a debt-free operation, which boasts significant non-football related income. Coupled with a solid fan base, rich history and huge growth potential, there shouldn’t be a shortage of willing parties looking to take advantage of the available shares.

Our focus now turns to ensuring this unique opportunity is utilised to its maximum potential, for attracting new investment, expertise and leadership into the club. This football club represents a fantastic opportunity for potential investors to acquire a controlling share in one of the most famous names in non-league football, at a time when we find ourselves in our lowest ever position.

Therefore, assuming the successful transfer of the shares at the upcoming EGM, we would then call on all supporters to do everything they can to spread the word as far and wide as possible to ensure that this opportunity to turn around our fortunes is not a wasted one…

Altrincham Football Club is open for business!

[Timperley The Best]

Hasn't Dom McGuinness been mentioned as a potential investor in the past ?I know his role in this is a bit different but wonder if he has the potential ?

[Saughall Robin]

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? 

[taxi Phil]

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.

[Graham Bennetts Perm]

I'll be abstaining. The shares should be returned to the football club as the legal entity, under the control of all shareholders, not to a particular individual.

[Saughall Robin]

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.

Thanks Romeo! Nice to know I'm not totally losing it (yet).

My worst Alty moment used to be that South Liverpool leathering we got (0-6?) at Holly Park many years ago. I can still remember the long train and bus journey back home to north manchester and how utterly gutted I was.
The last 18 months have obliterated the hurt from my mind as I've witnessed a long succession of shamefully spineless results week after week.
I haven't said much on here for a good while and don't intend to really but I simply have to point out that however nice a bloke GR is, he's no chairman for us in the position we're in now.
If he loves the club half as much as we on here do, he should stop the politics, tell us the real situation, apologise unequivocally and go. Anything else would be unacceptable (except making it clear he WILL go when new investment comes in - whenever that might be).

[FatJan]

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.

[Saughall Robin]

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!

[JTH]

I've now had sight of the EGM notice (someone's else's as mines not arrived yet). I don't know if everyone who has commented thus far has read it, if so I'm slightly puzzled as to some of the responses. From my reading this is what is being proposed:-

John King has already transferred his 117,000 £1 non voting shares to GR, I'm presuming via a private arrangement.

At the EGM the club is asking it's shareholders to:-

1 agree to buy all of these shares from GR for a total sum of £1
2 to convert these 117k shares from non voting to voting - thus creating some real value i.e. 50%+ of total voting shares
3 to waive their first option to purchase these shares and allow the board of directors to sell them to interested parties

So, if there is a vote against these proposals by the shareholders GR retains 117k non voting shares in the club. If people are keen to see GR go, leaving him with 117,000 more shares  (over 50% of the club's capitalisation) seems a rather curious way of going about it.

For the record I shall be voting Yes and so should everyone else.

[Uncle Globnasty]

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!

No Harold, it is nothing like what you said. You stated "shareholders are being asked to sell/transfer their shares to GR's name" and that is patently not the case.

If people vote Yes, then the club is effectively on the market and a potentially attractive proposition for somebody. This is what many on here have been crying out for, even going so far as to say there were potential investors who had been turned away (Dominic McGuinness was mentioned as one such potential investor, although that was obviously rubbish given his current involvement). Well, now we will see if there is a knight on a (red and) white charger waiting on the horizon.

If people vote No, we are back where we started and for those wanting change this is a course of action that makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Sarf London Alty]

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!

It will not be viable for anyone to invest a penny in the club unless they know they are getting a controlling interest in the club which the proposals being voted on at the EGM aim to facilitate. I don't personally see why this is so hard for people to understand. The club never actually confirmed any rumours about external investment more they were working on a delicate negotiation that needed time and patience. I think too many people have been led up the garden path by internet rumours and now Rowley isn't going tomorrow and Sheikh Manaour's brother isn't turning up are in a huff. Literally for the club to have any appeal for anyone with some serious wedge to invest the EGM needs to pass the various proposals as JTH outlines above. I want GR to stand down as Chairman as much as anyone on here but without the proposals being agreed on at the EGM then litterally nothing will change off the field.

[Jezza]

JTHs post is the only one that makes sense regarding the actual intended process.

Jesus it takes a long time to get to the truth on here doesn't it? 

This is patently the only way we will get be in a position to offer a majority shareholding and the way forward.....the only proviso being we need a white knight....we need to be careful what we wish for.....I dread a press release "we are delighted to welcome Mr Vaughan......"