| Further Q&As on 09:09 - Jun 10 with 5224 views | RaymondJohn |
Will the additional commercial staff be open to current staff members or will thay be placed in by the new investors. | | |  |
| Further Q&As on 09:30 - Jun 10 with 5165 views | James1980 |
Won't all furloughed staff have to be reinstated before employing any new staff? I would like to think that if current staff have the necessary skills and competencies or to perform any of the new roles they will get them. | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 09:45 - Jun 10 with 5120 views | SuddenLad |
So whose shares did Andrew Kelly offer for sale, if not the unissued ones? He claimed his own WERE NOT FOR SALE. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Further Q&As on 09:58 - Jun 10 with 5088 views | James1980 |
He does say in his statement he offered his shares to Dan and Emre. | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 10:10 - Jun 10 with 5068 views | aleanddale |
To develop his understanding he dangled a carrot of his shares to see the response from Altman.
At this stage at least they were not for sale rather used as bait.
When the discussion became public knowledge AK put on record his shares are not for sale.
There will be a price. What that price is and how this plays out is anyone’s guess. | | | |
| Further Q&As on 10:12 - Jun 10 with 5058 views | judd |
So the price paid for CD,WG & PH's shares were unknown at that time? | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 10:23 - Jun 10 with 5021 views | TalkingSutty |
To develop his understanding he ‘dangled a carrot’. The moons made of cream cheese also! It’s ok if I’m sceptical about that explanation isn’t it? [Post edited 10 Jun 2020 10:26]
| | | |
| Further Q&As on 10:28 - Jun 10 with 5000 views | D_Alien |
It also very much begs the question of what he'd have done (and possibly others) had Altman/Marcelli taken him up on his offer | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 10:51 - Jun 10 with 4928 views | James1980 |
What about him buying Leods shareholding which he believed to be vulnerable? I assume the intention is to protect those shares by adding those to his holding perhaps I am being naive. | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:05 - Jun 10 with 4888 views | dawlishdale |
Something isn't adding up here.
It looks like the club wants £6 per share for the unissued shares, but Altman & Co are offering closer to £2 (which has been the valuation placed on shares in recent times by the club)
Because the parties can't agree on a price, the new investors have been buying shares privately, and presumably at or close to £2 a share. Thus, they have bought CD's PH's and BG's shares privately, with no financial benefit to the club.
It looks like AK did offer his shares at or close to this price (Altman confirms this in the latest Q&A) but for some reason this deal never happened.
There is nothing to say that AK didn't purchase Leods shares at a lower figure than £2, and could possibly have been looking to recoup some of the monies he has spent over the years. Of course, he could have been doing this for entirely genuine reasons.
What we now have is a stalemate... the new people have a stake in the club, but no influence. it needs either for them to increase their offer to buy the unissued shares (very unlikely) or for the club to reduce its asking price ( I'd like to think this is doable because it's the only scenario where we benefit financially) or for another shareholder/s to agree to sell their shares to Altman at what they are offering ( the 2 most likely targets imho would be the two largest shareholders; one of whom has now stated that his shares are not for sale; leaving the other as the Kingmaker.
I'd hope that any new investment would actually be money actually coming into the club, but it might be that Altman & Co gain control without the club getting a penny, should one or more shareholders sell to them. That would be awfully bad business sense by the club. | | | |
| Further Q&As on 11:06 - Jun 10 with 4884 views | tony_roch975 |
Have to commend the Trust & Dan Altman for the speed and clarity of the answers - it's pretty clear what Altman/Marcelli wanted, got, didn't get and plan to do now (might have been useful to check how many unissued shares they were looking to buy (original 400,000 or expanded EGM figure of 700,000?). Now up to the Board to be as clear. | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:12 - Jun 10 with 4863 views | judd |
Haven't the unissued shares now lapsed, hence the desire for an EGM to either remove the cap on authorised shares and increase them to 1.2m or, failing that, to re-offer the unissued shares currently available, both share offerings at not less than £6?
I would be interested to know how that share valuation has been arrived at. | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:17 - Jun 10 with 4846 views | James1980 |
Did we establish whether there is a minimum percentage of shares to force a takeover? If there is doesn't that mean a fewer people holding the bulk of the shares would make the process go more smoothly? | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:21 - Jun 10 with 4834 views | judd |
51% appears to be the threshold, James. | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:24 - Jun 10 with 4822 views | dawlishdale |
Not entirely sure Judd, but i read it that the American's wanted to buy up all the unissued shares, thus putting funds directly into the club.
I suppose it would be a fair comparison to see what recently joining Directors who hold shares have paid for their shares.
The 2 most recent being Tony Pockney and David Bottomley. If they paid somewhere near the current valuation then fair enough. | | | |
| Further Q&As on 11:29 - Jun 10 with 4811 views | judd |
I read the same about putting the funds into the club, Dawlish.
I would expect that share purchases by recent directors would have been at the prevailing price of £2 each from the unissued element, thus benefitting the club. | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:33 - Jun 10 with 4798 views | dawlishdale |
Kind of what I was expecting. Has the clubs value trebled in a short timescale? Or were we always treating this as a hostile takeover bid? | | | |
| Further Q&As on 11:38 - Jun 10 with 4785 views | judd |
The announcement to shareholders was February/March this year, I think, valuing new shares at not less than £6.
According to recent statements, talks stalled with Dan Altman and his colleague last year, and further they turned down an offer to buy more shares in December 2019 "at valuations close to our own". | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:45 - Jun 10 with 4752 views | SuddenLad |
What suddenly made the shares worth £6 when the previous valuation was accepted as £2 by all other selling/buying parties. Opportunism perhaps? An unrealistic valuation obviously, it seems. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Further Q&As on 11:48 - Jun 10 with 4755 views | Sandyman |
To say buying shares "at no benefit to the club" is a bit of a red herring.
When the shares now owned by Altman and Marcelli were purchased originally by the previous owners, the money did go directly to the club and the club benefited.
Likewise, the shares LEODS purchased, the money went directly to the club. Those shares, now owned by AK, were purchased "at no benefit to the club" but that isn't being mentioned about his recent purchases.
The club can't be paid for a second time when shares are sold on privately. | | | |
| Further Q&As on 11:52 - Jun 10 with 4748 views | VivaDonaldo |
Altman values the cost of the things promised at between 3-4m and claims he has investors willing to loan that (without security!). Yet baulks at paying the equivalent amount by purchasing the unissued shares at £6 a share. Roughly 4.2m on the expanded share issue?
Doesn't quite add up to me. Either he's able to invest that money in the club and get a controlling interest or there's something he's not being entirely transparent with the trust in his answers. | | | |
| Further Q&As on 12:01 - Jun 10 with 4719 views | judd |
There aren't any unissued shares at £6 are there? | |
| |
| Further Q&As on 12:14 - Jun 10 with 4674 views | dawlishdale |
Of course, you are correct, but what I was getting at is that there is no immediate injection of cash if the shares are sold privately.
CD owned his shares for a considerable length of time, and possibly paid much less than £2 for them. I was told that a current Director also paid much less than £2 when purchasing his shares.
From outside looking in, it seems that the Board don't really welcome this new investment...certainly not at £2 a share. But they might agree to it at £6 a share. | | | |
| Further Q&As on 12:38 - Jun 10 with 4610 views | VivaDonaldo |
Wasn't that the intention of the EGM? To create the room for that level of investment? | | | |
| Further Q&As on 12:51 - Jun 10 with 4563 views | judd |
I believe so, but it never happened.
Whilst unissued shares were available they would surely have been at the existing value of £2?
I suppose the club could ask for more and I suppose the buyer could ask for a bulk discount.Or buy from a cheaper source and thereby not benefit the club financially?
"Our investment group could only buy shares at a price that fairly represented the value of the club. We preferred to buy the unissued shares, so that our funds would go directly towards helping the club succeed. Existing owners including Andrew Kelly offered us shares at valuations close to our own, but the board has not done the same with the unissued shares."
From that statement existing shares were offered at almost acceptable levels, whereas unissued shares were being offered at a higher level.
Would you pay, say, £6 per share when an existing shareholder offered you shares at a seemingly much lower value?
Does £6 "fairly represent the value of the club", and if so, on what basis, as there is no history whatsoever on return on investment? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
