| Trust meeting with BoD 09:00 - Nov 3 with 29123 views | IOMDale |
Does anybody know how last night went or are we to wait for an update from the Trust? Because let's be honest, it won't be the BoD releasing information in a rush. |  | | |  |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:25 - Nov 5 with 3157 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:34 - Nov 5 by 49thseason |
I suspect the Trust is at a major crossroads, clearly having a Board member isn't achieving what many thought it would do. Having a foot in both camps is neither comfortable nor effective I personally think Murray would be better off helping to guide the Trust using the knowledge he now has into the machinations of the Board.
If the Board are so difficult to tie down and evasive then it might be time to rip the plaster off and become a totally independent supporters organisation with the stated aim of helping the Club to make better decisions off the pitch and raising money to invest in the club as shareholders. Put simply the more the Trust raises, the more influence it will have over how the club operates. |
So we just accept that we have a board that are difficult to tie down and evasive? We are supposed to be a fan owned club. How can a independent Trust help the club to make better decisions off the pitch if the board are difficult and evasive? How long would it take the Trust members to raise the required monies to influence how the club operates? The Trust is already the major shareholder in the club thanks to its members and it appears they have no influence whatsoever. A waste of time buying shares in the club really and no point shareholders donating their shares to the Trust when they have no voice. Why is it only the Trust Chairman and the Trust Director who were involved in the teams meeting and are any of the other Trust Directors invited to speak to potential investors? [Post edited 5 Nov 2023 22:29]
|  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:39 - Nov 5 with 3112 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:34 - Nov 5 by 49thseason |
I suspect the Trust is at a major crossroads, clearly having a Board member isn't achieving what many thought it would do. Having a foot in both camps is neither comfortable nor effective I personally think Murray would be better off helping to guide the Trust using the knowledge he now has into the machinations of the Board.
If the Board are so difficult to tie down and evasive then it might be time to rip the plaster off and become a totally independent supporters organisation with the stated aim of helping the Club to make better decisions off the pitch and raising money to invest in the club as shareholders. Put simply the more the Trust raises, the more influence it will have over how the club operates. |
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/april/notification-of-available-shares--
The Trust has been at that crossroads as the largest individual shareholder in the club but only at c.13% since Morton Hiuse reared their head.
They’ve done brilliantly and let’s not forget pre June 2021 had shares but zero Board representation.
We are back to money again - do the Trust’s members want to make a bigger stake and buy more shares into the club (thus injecting capital) but also take greater responsibility for ensuring annual losses are funded?
Or put another way, c. 87% of shares are not with the Trust but individuals.
“The Club” is only ever an elected Board of Directors as voted on from time to time by shareholders.
13% economic ownership gets a seat at a Board table but not effective control or a complete say and wrong for anyone to think as such. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:50 - Nov 5 with 3060 views | nordenblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:39 - Nov 5 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/april/notification-of-available-shares--
The Trust has been at that crossroads as the largest individual shareholder in the club but only at c.13% since Morton Hiuse reared their head.
They’ve done brilliantly and let’s not forget pre June 2021 had shares but zero Board representation.
We are back to money again - do the Trust’s members want to make a bigger stake and buy more shares into the club (thus injecting capital) but also take greater responsibility for ensuring annual losses are funded?
Or put another way, c. 87% of shares are not with the Trust but individuals.
“The Club” is only ever an elected Board of Directors as voted on from time to time by shareholders.
13% economic ownership gets a seat at a Board table but not effective control or a complete say and wrong for anyone to think as such. |
Not sure its a "complete say" they're even looking for, maybe a tiny involvement wouldn't be a bad starting point, failing that even some sort of decent communication wouldn't be too wild an expectation either. |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:52 - Nov 5 with 3054 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:50 - Nov 5 by nordenblue |
Not sure its a "complete say" they're even looking for, maybe a tiny involvement wouldn't be a bad starting point, failing that even some sort of decent communication wouldn't be too wild an expectation either. |
Just sticking to agreed meeting schedules would be a start. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:56 - Nov 5 with 3038 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:52 - Nov 5 by judd |
Just sticking to agreed meeting schedules would be a start. |
I'm assuming the meeting did take place in the evening as specified and not at a time when Trust Committee members would be at work? This was viewed as a important meeting from a Trust members point of view due to the questions submitted and discussions in regards to the role of the Trust Director. [Post edited 5 Nov 2023 22:58]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:04 - Nov 5 with 3006 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:50 - Nov 5 by nordenblue |
Not sure its a "complete say" they're even looking for, maybe a tiny involvement wouldn't be a bad starting point, failing that even some sort of decent communication wouldn't be too wild an expectation either. |
The Trust’s newsletter does state the ”need to meet with supporters at the earliest opportunity to allow them to present their plans and to allow supporters to ask questions of them.
With those words the commitment appears to be there as they are saying it is.
The point is more that if one shareholder is only at 13% of voting rights there’s not a huge impetus that shareholder can make to express their displeasure.
Even the voting off of two directors in June 2021 would not have happened unless main shareholders of the time backed it, alongside the Trust. [Post edited 5 Nov 2023 23:04]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:05 - Nov 5 with 2997 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:56 - Nov 5 by TalkingSutty |
I'm assuming the meeting did take place in the evening as specified and not at a time when Trust Committee members would be at work? This was viewed as a important meeting from a Trust members point of view due to the questions submitted and discussions in regards to the role of the Trust Director. [Post edited 5 Nov 2023 22:58]
|
Don't know the exact details. Meeting was originally scheduled at 5:30 start.
It won't stop here. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:20 - Nov 5 with 2943 views | nordenblue |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:04 - Nov 5 by RAFCBLUE |
The Trust’s newsletter does state the ”need to meet with supporters at the earliest opportunity to allow them to present their plans and to allow supporters to ask questions of them.
With those words the commitment appears to be there as they are saying it is.
The point is more that if one shareholder is only at 13% of voting rights there’s not a huge impetus that shareholder can make to express their displeasure.
Even the voting off of two directors in June 2021 would not have happened unless main shareholders of the time backed it, alongside the Trust. [Post edited 5 Nov 2023 23:04]
|
Whilst knowing who's actually involved within this "only 13%" it's piss poor knowing their displeasure, but not in the slightest a surprise. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting with BoD on 04:16 - Nov 6 with 2837 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 23:05 - Nov 5 by judd |
Don't know the exact details. Meeting was originally scheduled at 5:30 start.
It won't stop here. |
A 530pm start for a teams meeting speaks volumes, a time when many people are travelling home from work, or even still at work. That must have been discussed and agreed on by the Trust representatives though, so it can't have been just down to those in the Boardroom. I'm also assuming the Trust members will be given sight of the details submitted on the evening in relation to the workings of the Trust Director on the board going forward and something the shareholders should also be included in. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 5:43]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 05:40 - Nov 6 with 2816 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:39 - Nov 5 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2023/april/notification-of-available-shares--
The Trust has been at that crossroads as the largest individual shareholder in the club but only at c.13% since Morton Hiuse reared their head.
They’ve done brilliantly and let’s not forget pre June 2021 had shares but zero Board representation.
We are back to money again - do the Trust’s members want to make a bigger stake and buy more shares into the club (thus injecting capital) but also take greater responsibility for ensuring annual losses are funded?
Or put another way, c. 87% of shares are not with the Trust but individuals.
“The Club” is only ever an elected Board of Directors as voted on from time to time by shareholders.
13% economic ownership gets a seat at a Board table but not effective control or a complete say and wrong for anyone to think as such. |
Nobody is daft enough to suggest that the Trust should expect or need to have a complete say in the boardroom, so your last point isn’t relevant.
As somebody who was very vocal on this forum during the MH saga and also went out of your way to do a character assassination on our ex Chairman Chris Dunphy i’m interested to hear your views on why the ‘us and them’ has come about between those in the boardroom and the fans since the buy back of the MH shares? Do you feel as though the Chairman and Directors ever bought into the concept of a fan owned club with a long term vision to fully engage the Trust, shareholders and the fanbase..do you even view it as a fan owned club, more importantly, do you think those in the Boardroom do?
Do you think the communication and engagement has been better than we have seen from Chairmen such as David Kilpatrick and Chris Dunphy, that at a time when the Trust had little to no shares in the club? I’m asking you that as a fan of the club and hopefully a shareholder and member of the Trust. I take on board the fact that we now have a fan in the boardroom but to my mind that’s just given the rest of the members of the boardroom the green light to distance themselves even further in regards to communication.
I have a feeling the Trust Committee will come in for some stick over the coming days and i’m at the point where i’m starting to wonder if there is a deliberate ploy to cause disharmony amongst the fanbase and undermine the Trust, at a time when we all need to be united and keep a close eye on the credentials on any investor. I think fans need to consider that possibility, no matter how unpalatable that might be for some. It makes no sense for the board not to fully engage with the Trust. Remember we ALL promised to try to protect the club so let’s be suspicious of everything and keep a open mind when it comes to investors. It needs to be investors who are right for the long term good of the club and not just down to the preference of those in the boardroom, would you agree with that?
If investors are presented to the Trust/ shareholders/ fans who are deemed not to be suitable what would you suggest should happen then from a Trust/ shareholders perspective? What course of action should they take?
Apologies for all the questions but rightly or wrongly i interpret your posts as somebody who is trying to play devils advocate and your stock answer always seems to come down to finance. If you could remove your financial hat and give me your perspective from a run of the mill fans point of view i would appreciate it. Thanks in advance. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 6:06]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:09 - Nov 6 with 2784 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 05:40 - Nov 6 by TalkingSutty |
Nobody is daft enough to suggest that the Trust should expect or need to have a complete say in the boardroom, so your last point isn’t relevant.
As somebody who was very vocal on this forum during the MH saga and also went out of your way to do a character assassination on our ex Chairman Chris Dunphy i’m interested to hear your views on why the ‘us and them’ has come about between those in the boardroom and the fans since the buy back of the MH shares? Do you feel as though the Chairman and Directors ever bought into the concept of a fan owned club with a long term vision to fully engage the Trust, shareholders and the fanbase..do you even view it as a fan owned club, more importantly, do you think those in the Boardroom do?
Do you think the communication and engagement has been better than we have seen from Chairmen such as David Kilpatrick and Chris Dunphy, that at a time when the Trust had little to no shares in the club? I’m asking you that as a fan of the club and hopefully a shareholder and member of the Trust. I take on board the fact that we now have a fan in the boardroom but to my mind that’s just given the rest of the members of the boardroom the green light to distance themselves even further in regards to communication.
I have a feeling the Trust Committee will come in for some stick over the coming days and i’m at the point where i’m starting to wonder if there is a deliberate ploy to cause disharmony amongst the fanbase and undermine the Trust, at a time when we all need to be united and keep a close eye on the credentials on any investor. I think fans need to consider that possibility, no matter how unpalatable that might be for some. It makes no sense for the board not to fully engage with the Trust. Remember we ALL promised to try to protect the club so let’s be suspicious of everything and keep a open mind when it comes to investors. It needs to be investors who are right for the long term good of the club and not just down to the preference of those in the boardroom, would you agree with that?
If investors are presented to the Trust/ shareholders/ fans who are deemed not to be suitable what would you suggest should happen then from a Trust/ shareholders perspective? What course of action should they take?
Apologies for all the questions but rightly or wrongly i interpret your posts as somebody who is trying to play devils advocate and your stock answer always seems to come down to finance. If you could remove your financial hat and give me your perspective from a run of the mill fans point of view i would appreciate it. Thanks in advance. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 6:06]
|
Being able to question prospective investors might be seen as essential, but in my view it's worth very little
The Trust has no veto over who the BoD sell shares to. In order to recoup their investment (including the MH shares they hadn't anticipated) the BoD are entitled to ignore anyone who might wish to put a spoke in the wheel
The Trust having a rep in the boardroom has no bearing on this, except in acting as a means for the BoD to control the Trust. Withdrawal from that leash is the first step towards change, and my email to the Trust asked if they'd put this to the membership after the meeting with the BoD
If not, there's nowhere to go from here, and the Trust will imo become not fit for purpose. Of course, a vote could go either way, but at least it'd have fulfilled its duty to its members [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 6:13]
|  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:36 - Nov 6 with 2762 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:09 - Nov 6 by D_Alien |
Being able to question prospective investors might be seen as essential, but in my view it's worth very little
The Trust has no veto over who the BoD sell shares to. In order to recoup their investment (including the MH shares they hadn't anticipated) the BoD are entitled to ignore anyone who might wish to put a spoke in the wheel
The Trust having a rep in the boardroom has no bearing on this, except in acting as a means for the BoD to control the Trust. Withdrawal from that leash is the first step towards change, and my email to the Trust asked if they'd put this to the membership after the meeting with the BoD
If not, there's nowhere to go from here, and the Trust will imo become not fit for purpose. Of course, a vote could go either way, but at least it'd have fulfilled its duty to its members [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 6:13]
|
Yes I understand that and you make some good points. As you rightly point out the BOD can sell their shares to who they see fit but would anybody with the wrong credentials want to fork out that amount of money to walk into a hostile environment? Wrong'uns don't like the spotlight shining on them and their names plastered all over the media, we saw that with MH and it would be no different should the same scenario present itself again. I don't think any true fan of the club would look to put a spoke in the wheel of any investor if they have the right credentials, that would be crazy, get the right people in and there is a Trust and fan base chomping at the bit to work alongside them.
Hopefully the right investors are out there and the Chairman and Directors can recoup their outlay and walk away. A new chapter needs writing for the club with new owners and investors who are fully behind working with the Trust and engaging with the fan base, everybody pulling together and feeling fully invested in the club. I don't think there is the appetite or will for a fan owned and fan run club and everything that entails. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 6:55]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:00 - Nov 6 with 2733 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:36 - Nov 6 by TalkingSutty |
Yes I understand that and you make some good points. As you rightly point out the BOD can sell their shares to who they see fit but would anybody with the wrong credentials want to fork out that amount of money to walk into a hostile environment? Wrong'uns don't like the spotlight shining on them and their names plastered all over the media, we saw that with MH and it would be no different should the same scenario present itself again. I don't think any true fan of the club would look to put a spoke in the wheel of any investor if they have the right credentials, that would be crazy, get the right people in and there is a Trust and fan base chomping at the bit to work alongside them.
Hopefully the right investors are out there and the Chairman and Directors can recoup their outlay and walk away. A new chapter needs writing for the club with new owners and investors who are fully behind working with the Trust and engaging with the fan base, everybody pulling together and feeling fully invested in the club. I don't think there is the appetite or will for a fan owned and fan run club and everything that entails. [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 6:55]
|
I daresay you're right and that's probably what the Trust board has concluded too, although you've been advocating trying the fan-owned route for some time. Have you changed your mind? Fair enough if you have
Playing small-scale realpolitik might give the Trust board a sense they're "in the game" but it's an illusion
All that new investors would have to do is maintain that illusion, until it suited them not to. MH were too stupid to realise that but others may have a better gameplan. Once ownership has changed hands, just watch the tone change
Full independence from the BoD allows the Trust to question independently too, as you rightly point out, happened two years ago. Right now, we need that independence more than an illusion of having any impact on new investors via Q&As arranged by the BoD. New investors unwilling to engage with an independent Trust would ring alarm bells [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 7:03]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:19 - Nov 6 with 2699 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:00 - Nov 6 by D_Alien |
I daresay you're right and that's probably what the Trust board has concluded too, although you've been advocating trying the fan-owned route for some time. Have you changed your mind? Fair enough if you have
Playing small-scale realpolitik might give the Trust board a sense they're "in the game" but it's an illusion
All that new investors would have to do is maintain that illusion, until it suited them not to. MH were too stupid to realise that but others may have a better gameplan. Once ownership has changed hands, just watch the tone change
Full independence from the BoD allows the Trust to question independently too, as you rightly point out, happened two years ago. Right now, we need that independence more than an illusion of having any impact on new investors via Q&As arranged by the BoD. New investors unwilling to engage with an independent Trust would ring alarm bells [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 7:03]
|
I haven't changed my mind regarding a fan owned and fan run club but realise there is no appetite for it from the fan base and I can understand why. It would require starting again further down the pyramid and probably in a new stadium. We also have a small and ageing fan base, that would also impact on the number of volunteers required. So it would involve a massive effort and without the buy in from the fan base and the Town its not going to happen. We either find the right investors or start looking for another club to get our football fix because soon we wont have a club to support, that's my mindset now. Supporting a club without having all the worry about what's happening in the background will be like a breath of fresh air. I would maybe look at somewhere like Radcliffe or Ramsbottom if the worse case scenario presented itself. In fact I'm going to take in a couple of Radcliffe's games before the end of the season. If we do get shysters in the club they wont be getting any of my money so that will make my mind up straight away. Great point in your post about the 'illusion' that can be created in order to make the Trust feel inclusive.👍 [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 7:34]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 08:16 - Nov 6 with 2625 views | James1980 |
I'd like to know when the brief of the meeting was changed? If it was known in advance why weren't we advised the meeting would be an introduction to potential investors, instead of the planned Q&A session? | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 09:50 - Nov 6 with 2471 views | A_Newby |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 08:16 - Nov 6 by James1980 |
I'd like to know when the brief of the meeting was changed? If it was known in advance why weren't we advised the meeting would be an introduction to potential investors, instead of the planned Q&A session? |
Possibly NDAs. |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:15 - Nov 6 with 2382 views | James1980 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 09:50 - Nov 6 by A_Newby |
Possibly NDAs. |
Not expecting at this early stage for details of the investors to be revealed but if it was an NDA that kept details hidden until the newsletter came out then I'm not sure that people who want meetings shrouded in that much secrecy are the right people to be running or takeover our club. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 12:15 - Nov 6 with 2191 views | DaleiLama |
One of the many concerns I have, was in ref to the loan against the stadium which was unanimously voted for. In a hypothetical situation, where we were sold to a wolf in sheep's clothing, could the value of the loan be increased up to the maximum the lender would allow, using the stadium as collateral, then the rug be subsequently pulled, cash siphoned off and club wound up? I'm not sure anyone outside the board could answer that and/or whether Murray would know or be bound not to answer it? |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 12:52 - Nov 6 with 2076 views | 49thseason |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:15 - Nov 6 by James1980 |
Not expecting at this early stage for details of the investors to be revealed but if it was an NDA that kept details hidden until the newsletter came out then I'm not sure that people who want meetings shrouded in that much secrecy are the right people to be running or takeover our club. |
NDAs are designed to protect either party or both from having details of their discussions getting into the public domain or the hands of another bidder. If we are getting closer to getting an investor through the door, its reasonable to expect that it will remain a "secret" negotiation until a deal is fully concluded and even afterwards if it isnt concluded.
There will be lots of details that most of us wouldnt even consider to be taken into account if a full takeover is being considered, an injection of funds should be quicker but even so might require a lot of due diligence and the involvement of lawyers, accountants, and the like.
Timing is also key, so if the funds are not immediately available because they are dependant on the sale or divestment of other investments an NDA would protect the process until it is complete. I have wondered if the time these things often take is why 2 Directors decided to set up the loan facility secured on the ground?
Also we talk about " an investor" but it could be a consortium of 2, 3 or more people which would also extend the process and increase the need for NDAs.
All we can do at present is wait and hope..... |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:06 - Nov 6 with 2014 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 12:15 - Nov 6 by DaleiLama |
One of the many concerns I have, was in ref to the loan against the stadium which was unanimously voted for. In a hypothetical situation, where we were sold to a wolf in sheep's clothing, could the value of the loan be increased up to the maximum the lender would allow, using the stadium as collateral, then the rug be subsequently pulled, cash siphoned off and club wound up? I'm not sure anyone outside the board could answer that and/or whether Murray would know or be bound not to answer it? |
It wasn't voted through unanimously. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:08 - Nov 6 with 2004 views | James1980 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 12:52 - Nov 6 by 49thseason |
NDAs are designed to protect either party or both from having details of their discussions getting into the public domain or the hands of another bidder. If we are getting closer to getting an investor through the door, its reasonable to expect that it will remain a "secret" negotiation until a deal is fully concluded and even afterwards if it isnt concluded.
There will be lots of details that most of us wouldnt even consider to be taken into account if a full takeover is being considered, an injection of funds should be quicker but even so might require a lot of due diligence and the involvement of lawyers, accountants, and the like.
Timing is also key, so if the funds are not immediately available because they are dependant on the sale or divestment of other investments an NDA would protect the process until it is complete. I have wondered if the time these things often take is why 2 Directors decided to set up the loan facility secured on the ground?
Also we talk about " an investor" but it could be a consortium of 2, 3 or more people which would also extend the process and increase the need for NDAs.
All we can do at present is wait and hope..... |
But this scenario (if it was due to NDA's seems excessively secretive.
Why could we not have been told The schedule for the meeting has been changed and what will take place is introducing the trust board to 3 potential investors. NDAs have been signed by all parties attending the meeting so we respectfully not to ask club staff or trust board details of the prospective investors. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:32 - Nov 6 with 1928 views | 442Dale |
Some questions around the loan were submitted to the Trust to ask at the meeting that then didn’t take place. Twice.
Note the details around this in the newsletter:
“We will make sure that the questions that we were given for the original meeting with the Club are answered and published on our website.”
With the Trust having their own meeting tonight, you’d hope that by tomorrow they will be providing details to members about when the scheduled meeting that has been postponed twice (despite having been in the diary for the best part of five months) will actually take place. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 14:23 - Nov 6 with 1807 views | A_Newby |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:08 - Nov 6 by James1980 |
But this scenario (if it was due to NDA's seems excessively secretive.
Why could we not have been told The schedule for the meeting has been changed and what will take place is introducing the trust board to 3 potential investors. NDAs have been signed by all parties attending the meeting so we respectfully not to ask club staff or trust board details of the prospective investors. |
James,
I do not like NDAs, but I do not think that the NDAs in place, even if that is why the Trust did not tell us about a meeting in advance, are over restrictive.
The Trust were able to report that they had met with the board and some potential investors after the meeting had taken place. Some NDAs would not have allowed that, in fact some NDAs will not even allow you to report that there is an NDA in place.
From the Trust newsletter.
“a meeting that both myself and Murray Knight were invited to, where we were introduced to three potential investors via Teams.”
Speculating on this short statement.
Were the Trust introduced to three competing potential investors or one consortium of three potential investors?
Was the meeting held by Teams and not in person to keep the meeting secret or was it because the three potential investors are located elsewhere in this country or abroad? [Post edited 6 Nov 2023 15:20]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 14:55 - Nov 6 with 1727 views | A_Newby |
Here are a couple of questions I would like answered.
Are the Board trying to sell just the new shares or the new shares and those owned by the board members?
If the latter, a new investor could buy the “new” shares and those of the current directors for around £1.5 to £1.7 million and then own just over 53% of the club and have effective control.
If the club get new “owners” under the above scenario what will happen to the remaining 47% of the shares owned by the trust and individual shareholders. (value £1.4 to £1.6 million)?
Will there be an offer to purchase these shares at the same price as that paid for the board’s shares? | | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 15:14 - Nov 6 with 1679 views | DaleiLama |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:06 - Nov 6 by judd |
It wasn't voted through unanimously. |
Sorry, badly worded, by large majority! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
