| Club Ownership / Directors 19:14 - Jun 15 with 32943 views | Phil_S |
There are a few questions floating around the various websites about Swans directors and their shareholdings
We have 9 directors in total who are
Huw Jenkins
Leigh Dineen
Huw Cooze (Trust representative)
John Van Zweden
Steve Penney
Don Keefe
Gwilym Joseph MBE
Martin Morgan
Brian Katzen
We also have two associate directors in David Morgan and Will Morris - these are both non executive positions
Of these 9, 3 of them - Gwilyn, Don and Steve own no shares in the club with the share ownership made up as follows
Martin Morgan 225,000 shares
Brian Katzen 200,000 shares
Swansea City Supporters Trust 200,000 shares
Huw Jenkins 125,000 shares
Robert Davies 100,000 shares
Leigh Dineen 50,000 shares
John Van Zweden 50,000 shares
(Many of these shares are not listed to the individual but businesses associated to them but I have used individual names for ease)
Overall share issue is 950,000 shares
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |  |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:12 - Jul 1 with 615 views | londonlisa2001 |
I can't speak Danish Shaky - never needed to learn, so not sure why I would read that. You presumably use google translate (since it's your fall back for everything).
Given up on the whole 'she's not from Swansea bit' now have you ??? |  | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:14 - Jul 1 with 612 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:10 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
Here is the thing though Lisa; a lot of speculative penny stocks traded still equals very little total value of shares traded.
Put your grey matter to work thinking about that for a while. |
oh I know - that's why I also gave you the average daily value traded as well - did you not understand what that meant?? | | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:19 - Jul 1 with 599 views | Shaky |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:14 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
oh I know - that's why I also gave you the average daily value traded as well - did you not understand what that meant?? |
£209.9 million per day total value at an average of 1,380 million shares per day (almost 1.5BILLION!!!!) = an average price per share 15.2 new English Pence.
Penny shares, just like I said Lisa.
You're great though, foolish stuff just comes out of you automatically. |  |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:22 - Jul 1 with 590 views | jackonicko |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:10 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
Here is the thing though Lisa; a lot of speculative penny stocks traded still equals very little total value of shares traded.
Put your grey matter to work thinking about that for a while. |
I hate to be a frightful bore, but you still don't seem to be answering the questions?
- What are your thoughts on the recent HR survey that says 3/4 of HR directors are women? Do you now think that Lisa may have had a point?
- What are your thoughts now on your earlier comment that AIM stocks "rarely trade and there is practically no liquidity or market maker support". Does your view change based on what has happened with AIM since you pulled your capital in the early 2000s? You could answer by reference to the three stocks I mentioned if that's helpful.
- and, for the love of God, could you answer the question on AGMs versus EGMs. See page 4 of the thread. |  | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:24 - Jul 1 with 586 views | Uxbridge |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 13:50 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
What the f*ck are you talking about?
Mr Calculator has just posted 4 or 5 times that I keep avoiding the "AGM/EGM" question.
Look for yourself; there is no bloody question! |
Page 4. You stated that voting thresholds are lower in an AGM than an EGM, and on Page 3 you seemed to think it would only take a 50%+1 vote at an AGM to force through a proposal that would result in the Trust owning 25%.
So, the question is whether you still believe the above to be correct? |  |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:27 - Jul 1 with 578 views | Musical_Swan |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:24 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Page 4. You stated that voting thresholds are lower in an AGM than an EGM, and on Page 3 you seemed to think it would only take a 50%+1 vote at an AGM to force through a proposal that would result in the Trust owning 25%.
So, the question is whether you still believe the above to be correct? |
Cue long wait while he frantically searches the web for answers.  |  |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:28 - Jul 1 with 574 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:19 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
£209.9 million per day total value at an average of 1,380 million shares per day (almost 1.5BILLION!!!!) = an average price per share 15.2 new English Pence.
Penny shares, just like I said Lisa.
You're great though, foolish stuff just comes out of you automatically. |
Oh right - so now I've pointed it out, you understand.
lol.
Yeah - cos that's exactly the way it works - all those companies with share price of 15p - what an amazing market.
You said to recap that there was no liquidity and no shares traded in the market - I pointed out that there is over £200m traded per day - that's quite a bit of liquidity and over a billion shares traded - that's quite a lot of shares.
You have no clue. | | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:32 - Jul 1 with 561 views | Shaky |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:28 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh right - so now I've pointed it out, you understand.
lol.
Yeah - cos that's exactly the way it works - all those companies with share price of 15p - what an amazing market.
You said to recap that there was no liquidity and no shares traded in the market - I pointed out that there is over £200m traded per day - that's quite a bit of liquidity and over a billion shares traded - that's quite a lot of shares.
You have no clue. |
£200million spread over 3000 companies.
You clearly have no idea of institutional position sizes; $5 million is a smallish one. [Post edited 1 Jul 2014 14:37]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:33 - Jul 1 with 557 views | Shaky |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:24 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Page 4. You stated that voting thresholds are lower in an AGM than an EGM, and on Page 3 you seemed to think it would only take a 50%+1 vote at an AGM to force through a proposal that would result in the Trust owning 25%.
So, the question is whether you still believe the above to be correct? |
Well thanks, finally.
I'll get back on this. [Post edited 1 Jul 2014 14:36]
| |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:39 - Jul 1 with 538 views | jackonicko |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:33 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
Well thanks, finally.
I'll get back on this. [Post edited 1 Jul 2014 14:36]
|
Don't forget mine while you're at it. | | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:45 - Jul 1 with 525 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:32 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
£200million spread over 3000 companies.
You clearly have no idea of institutional position sizes; $5 million is a smallish one. [Post edited 1 Jul 2014 14:37]
|
I didn't say anything at any point about institutional position sizes, nor indeed on institutional investors or anything even similar.
Are you twisting things again per chance to back out of your nonsense ???
Now - back to the Swansea issue - still think I'm not from Swansea? | | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:49 - Jul 1 with 519 views | Musical_Swan |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:45 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
I didn't say anything at any point about institutional position sizes, nor indeed on institutional investors or anything even similar.
Are you twisting things again per chance to back out of your nonsense ???
Now - back to the Swansea issue - still think I'm not from Swansea? |
More questions. This may take a while! | |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:51 - Jul 1 with 508 views | WarwickHunt |
Ux - I'd add suntan lotion to this week's shopping list... |  | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:55 - Jul 1 with 495 views | Shaky |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:24 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Page 4. You stated that voting thresholds are lower in an AGM than an EGM, and on Page 3 you seemed to think it would only take a 50%+1 vote at an AGM to force through a proposal that would result in the Trust owning 25%.
So, the question is whether you still believe the above to be correct? |
OK, I see I was responding quickly to one of your posts in bullet points that I had read only superficially as I was heading out of the door.
You said a number of things including that a right issue required 75% approval. That is wrong; a rights issue treats all shareholders equally and requires only 50% approval.
You then started talking about 25% blocking minorities and asked about why an AGM was necessary.
Clearly some form of meeting would be required to approve this. In bullet point form I then said the voting threshold was lower at AGM than EGM as a general matter, however, I can see that is not semantically true, except to the extent that resolutions tabled at EGMs are invariably Special Resolutions that do require 75% approval. My quick fire bullet point skipped a step; sue me.
Finally your question above; yes, with the buyback scheme in lieu of dividends I originally proposed that would absolutely only require 50% approval. Would an alternative scheme to pay dividends to the trust in shares require only 50% approval? I believe so, but clearly all of this would require rubber stamping from company lawyers anyway. | |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:58 - Jul 1 with 480 views | Shaky |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:45 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
I didn't say anything at any point about institutional position sizes, nor indeed on institutional investors or anything even similar.
Are you twisting things again per chance to back out of your nonsense ???
Now - back to the Swansea issue - still think I'm not from Swansea? |
No, I am pointing out your lack of understanding of the concept of liquidity. | |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:01 - Jul 1 with 476 views | Uxbridge |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:55 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
OK, I see I was responding quickly to one of your posts in bullet points that I had read only superficially as I was heading out of the door.
You said a number of things including that a right issue required 75% approval. That is wrong; a rights issue treats all shareholders equally and requires only 50% approval.
You then started talking about 25% blocking minorities and asked about why an AGM was necessary.
Clearly some form of meeting would be required to approve this. In bullet point form I then said the voting threshold was lower at AGM than EGM as a general matter, however, I can see that is not semantically true, except to the extent that resolutions tabled at EGMs are invariably Special Resolutions that do require 75% approval. My quick fire bullet point skipped a step; sue me.
Finally your question above; yes, with the buyback scheme in lieu of dividends I originally proposed that would absolutely only require 50% approval. Would an alternative scheme to pay dividends to the trust in shares require only 50% approval? I believe so, but clearly all of this would require rubber stamping from company lawyers anyway. |
No. Incorrect. Wrong. | |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:02 - Jul 1 with 470 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:55 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
OK, I see I was responding quickly to one of your posts in bullet points that I had read only superficially as I was heading out of the door.
You said a number of things including that a right issue required 75% approval. That is wrong; a rights issue treats all shareholders equally and requires only 50% approval.
You then started talking about 25% blocking minorities and asked about why an AGM was necessary.
Clearly some form of meeting would be required to approve this. In bullet point form I then said the voting threshold was lower at AGM than EGM as a general matter, however, I can see that is not semantically true, except to the extent that resolutions tabled at EGMs are invariably Special Resolutions that do require 75% approval. My quick fire bullet point skipped a step; sue me.
Finally your question above; yes, with the buyback scheme in lieu of dividends I originally proposed that would absolutely only require 50% approval. Would an alternative scheme to pay dividends to the trust in shares require only 50% approval? I believe so, but clearly all of this would require rubber stamping from company lawyers anyway. |
sorry, but semantically, you didn't skip a step - you were wrong.
And on the buy back point - you are missing what was said. The whole point of why the scheme was flawed was that a company may well get the authorities it needs to institute a share buy back - the problem though is you can't force shareholders to sell back their shares (unless there are specific drag along rights in the shareholders' agreement and we can't assume that to be the case - why would it be so) so effectively each shareholder needs to agree before the scheme has any merit in increasing the proportion of shares that the trust holds.
That was exactly what the whole problem is with only a small handful of shareholders which was the point I made originally. | | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:03 - Jul 1 with 467 views | Uxbridge |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:51 - Jul 1 by WarwickHunt |
Ux - I'd add suntan lotion to this week's shopping list... |
Already packing old chap ... | |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:03 - Jul 1 with 466 views | JackSomething |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:55 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
OK, I see I was responding quickly to one of your posts in bullet points that I had read only superficially as I was heading out of the door.
You said a number of things including that a right issue required 75% approval. That is wrong; a rights issue treats all shareholders equally and requires only 50% approval.
You then started talking about 25% blocking minorities and asked about why an AGM was necessary.
Clearly some form of meeting would be required to approve this. In bullet point form I then said the voting threshold was lower at AGM than EGM as a general matter, however, I can see that is not semantically true, except to the extent that resolutions tabled at EGMs are invariably Special Resolutions that do require 75% approval. My quick fire bullet point skipped a step; sue me.
Finally your question above; yes, with the buyback scheme in lieu of dividends I originally proposed that would absolutely only require 50% approval. Would an alternative scheme to pay dividends to the trust in shares require only 50% approval? I believe so, but clearly all of this would require rubber stamping from company lawyers anyway. |
I think I have translated this from the Shaky language and it means:
"Yes, I was wrong. Sorry. But it will never happen again." |  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:05 - Jul 1 with 461 views | Shaky |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:02 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
sorry, but semantically, you didn't skip a step - you were wrong.
And on the buy back point - you are missing what was said. The whole point of why the scheme was flawed was that a company may well get the authorities it needs to institute a share buy back - the problem though is you can't force shareholders to sell back their shares (unless there are specific drag along rights in the shareholders' agreement and we can't assume that to be the case - why would it be so) so effectively each shareholder needs to agree before the scheme has any merit in increasing the proportion of shares that the trust holds.
That was exactly what the whole problem is with only a small handful of shareholders which was the point I made originally. |
You don't bloody understand.
The other shareholders want cash. They can get that through dividends or from shares bought back by the company!
It is easy.
And if individual shareholders failed to offer their shares for buyback the increase in the Trust's shareholding would simply progress at a slower rate.
F*ck me, we are back to square 1. | |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:06 - Jul 1 with 459 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 14:58 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
No, I am pointing out your lack of understanding of the concept of liquidity. |
no you're not - you're wrong again. Liquidity is liquidity, or are you saying that somehow liquidity only matters if it is from a certain source?
And for the record I never said anything originally about liquidity or otherwise of AIM, in fact I pointed out that when I gave the number of companies listed on the Stock Exchange that I didn't include AIM companies - only main market companies.
You are twisting and squirming again. | | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:10 - Jul 1 with 452 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:05 - Jul 1 by Shaky |
You don't bloody understand.
The other shareholders want cash. They can get that through dividends or from shares bought back by the company!
It is easy.
And if individual shareholders failed to offer their shares for buyback the increase in the Trust's shareholding would simply progress at a slower rate.
F*ck me, we are back to square 1. |
I do understand.
And as I said at the time, if they are happy to be diluted, then there are easier ways of doing it. Just issue more shares that the trust can buy with its dividends for example.
You came up with some bollocks about tax from memory which was also wrong. | | | |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:14 - Jul 1 with 439 views | Shaky |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:10 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
I do understand.
And as I said at the time, if they are happy to be diluted, then there are easier ways of doing it. Just issue more shares that the trust can buy with its dividends for example.
You came up with some bollocks about tax from memory which was also wrong. |
Fortunately we have quickly progressed to square 2; your (and MattG's) braiwave proposal to ask all of the other shareholders to give the Trust more shares.
Wake me up when we come round to the starting/finishing line again. | |
| |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:15 - Jul 1 with 437 views | Uxbridge |
| Club Ownership / Directors on 15:10 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
I do understand.
And as I said at the time, if they are happy to be diluted, then there are easier ways of doing it. Just issue more shares that the trust can buy with its dividends for example.
You came up with some bollocks about tax from memory which was also wrong. |
I think this might go better if I ask Lisa the questions.
So Lisa:
a) Are there any different voting thresholds between an AGM and EGM?
b) can changes be made to the Articles of a company without a special resolution or with a straight 50%+1 number of votes in an AGM?
c) can a company issue new shares without a special resolution?
d) can a shareholder be forced to accept a dilution in their shareholding? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
