|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 24, 2015 8:19:53 GMT
All the 'City' fans I know always have an excuse why they don't actually go, in fairness though none of their excuses usually make it onto the BBC
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 23, 2015 16:33:17 GMT
These morons are destroying this club, dc and any player worth anything will be gone by xmas. Unless new owners are found, we'll be dead in two years. The gas heads who support the club who can go to games, but don't go are not without some blame. Let's face it if the Mem had a full house every game, it would go a long way to solving the money issues. (Would also annoy TRASH and the locals). I'll get my coat Why get your coat? If the Mem was bursting at the seams every game we'd be very attractive to investors & investing £30m in building a new stadium would look a good investment. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 23, 2015 9:09:52 GMT
Let's hope Bobby gets a good sendoff at the Northampton match (ironically one of his other clubs). Surely the club will play "Viva Bobby Jo(nes)" by the Equals for one last time before the match - if the club don't have the CD I will be happy to bring mine. Nothing but good memories. Condolences to the family. RIP Bobby. Legend. Nick Day will play just about anything you request. So he just needs to know about this. Over to you.... RIP Bobby |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 22, 2015 11:23:02 GMT
You can't spell Fanatical Feminist without Tical. Going over the same old ground, dragging up old arguments.....madam, please, we've been through this many times, please would you leave me alone with my paper. It's a good read that Daily Star |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 22, 2015 9:44:20 GMT
It'd be free for you Rex, I only charge s***heads, but I'll be at work. Is there beer in the fridge? Only healthy apple juice |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 22, 2015 9:22:31 GMT
Who's the gashead in the penthouse flat on the left at the old Jessop end? Was wearing his shirt at a recent GCCC game. There's a few of us in there but not met him. Will try to find out. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 22, 2015 9:21:36 GMT
Knowing how popular the Women's world cup was with members of the forum I'm expecting a big turn out at the County Ground tomorrow when England take on Australia in the 2nd ODI. Think entry is only £10 a bargain for 100 overs of international cricket Is that how much you're charging to watch from your place? It'd be free for you Rex, I only charge s**theads, but I'll be at work. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 22, 2015 8:33:53 GMT
Knowing how popular the Women's world cup was with members of the forum I'm expecting a big turn out at the County Ground tomorrow when England take on Australia in the 2nd ODI. Think entry is only £10 a bargain for 100 overs of international cricket
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 21, 2015 10:12:42 GMT
I thought about it. And it's the thought that counts
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 20, 2015 10:41:26 GMT
I would be happy with someone coming in, with money, and building a new stadium at the UWE. I have not read any where that Vince Dale is vaguely interested in buying the Gas. I have read that Higgsie has borrowed £2M to fight a court case which BRFC have lost and he is now putting the club into further debt by throwing even more money at a meaningless appeal. If there is a provision in the original contract allowing Sainsburys to be able to terminate the agreement; then whats changed ? doh "nothing". Time to swallow hard and move on, with Plan B, whatever that is suppose be. Higgsie has had a go and its not worked out for him, it is a shame; however, he cannot be allowed to simply put the club into further debt, because he has gambled and lost. Jusy my opinion. UTG You liked his "ideas" which, thus far have involved changing the badge, club colours, wanting to move them 23 miles and employing whoever leaves Leyhill. One of the worst shouts I've ever seen on here. In fairness to Stale Mince he is only employing people from Leyhill as that's the nearest open prison to wherever FGR will be playing next. I'm sure if he moves them to Sussex he'll happily employ people from Ford Open prison as well |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 19, 2015 17:15:49 GMT
What a better informative answer that is. But reading through that the SC could only prevent the dilution of there shareholding if they first got to 25% (which I'm not sure they ever have). So in theory there was protection but actually they could never have enforced that protection. Hence a dilution clause would've been better. The flipside is that had they got to 25% holding and there was a need to raise, say, another £1.5m by issuing new shares then if they agreed to the issue of new shares unless there was some clause offering them free or substancially reduced price shares they would have had no ability to suddenly raise the £375k necessary to prevent there holding being dilution. You are quite correct on your point on the timing of acheiving the minimum 25% and in the draft agreement I wrote, we addressed this by them agreeing to not increase the share capital during that initial period. There was already plenty of room in the newly issued share capital which had been increased tenfold, so there were plenty of "uncalled" shares available. But here it falls apart. There were other clauses around existing directors loans which were being contested by the BoD. It held things up and it was during this period that the SC totally undermined our position by handing cash to the Bod from the rapidly accumulating fund. I remember a fateful meeting in Victoria Station where we concluded the scheme was dead in terms of the vision we had for it. I wanted a scorched earth reaction, but the majority did not, majority on the SS Committee. I continued my gold membership until the Egm of 2004 when the final nail in the coffin of the scheme was acted out when the SC prevented Roger Cooper from being elected. We all know what has happened since. o Cheers for those informative answers Oldie. It does prove everything I've ever believed about the sharescheme, it being just a donation scheme, & how those who paid over good money were completely misled in signing up. Oddly had there been a request for donations I would've been far more likely to have put my hand in my pocket. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 18, 2015 11:15:08 GMT
Well if: a) the BoD were committed to the Supporters Club getting a 30% blocking shareholding; and b) you were part of the group raising the money they needed to survive Then yes I would expect them to accept a clause so that the Supporters Club holding wouldn't be diluted. I suppose as they didn't (or actually probably they were never asked to) there was a clue in this actually being just a donation scheme. Sadly the supporters that signed up to the scheme believing that it would actually do what it said were badly let down by those who agreed the scheme on their behalf. You are though completely correct that I wasn't involved at all in setting up the sharescheme. We were badly let down by the SC Committee who gave money to the club before we had negotiated the agreement and indeed signed it.
But you are wrong. The share capital was increased by 250,000 to 2,500,000 to create the space for the purchase of 700,000 shares at £5, which created the value of £3.5M we thought the club needed to re capitalise (at that time) To do that you have to hold an EGM of the then current shareholders and pass that resolution, which they did in good faith. They also passed a resolution that no ground could be sold without an EGM resolution. As you know (I think) no EGM resolution can pass without gaining the approval of 75% of the shareholding. Thus the share scheme prevented dilution by that blocking vote. (Because you cannot increase share capital without an EGM resolution) Later in 2006/7 they gave away that blocking ability by voting FOR a resolution that withdrew pre-emption rights from the Articles of Association. But from the outset, in 2002/3, nobody in their right mind would say we would NEVER EVER need to issue new shares, if so, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would insist that pre-emption rights be removed at the point of contract thus denying the share scheme members the first opportunity to maintain their % shareholding. Would you?
What a better informative answer that is. But reading through that the SC could only prevent the dilution of there shareholding if they first got to 25% (which I'm not sure they ever have). So in theory there was protection but actually they could never have enforced that protection. Hence a dilution clause would've been better. The flipside is that had they got to 25% holding and there was a need to raise, say, another £1.5m by issuing new shares then if they agreed to the issue of new shares unless there was some clause offering them free or substancially reduced price shares they would have had no ability to suddenly raise the £375k necessary to prevent there holding being dilution. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 18, 2015 9:16:15 GMT
Are you able to answer till oi die original point of why there wasn't a clause to prevent the dilution of the SC holding? I did We were attempting to enter into a commercial agreement with the company and with a minority shareholding. Given that would you really expect the majority shareholders to forego their pre emption rights? And if they did, it would be by EGM resolution which meant the scheme members would forego their rights as well? Would you seriously negotiate away that position?
Not that you were involved with anything at all, ever.....but hey, enjoy the G&T from your self proclaimed balcony of isolation
Well if: a) the BoD were committed to the Supporters Club getting a 30% blocking shareholding; and b) you were part of the group raising the money they needed to survive Then yes I would expect them to accept a clause so that the Supporters Club holding wouldn't be diluted. I suppose as they didn't (or actually probably they were never asked to) there was a clue in this actually being just a donation scheme. Sadly the supporters that signed up to the scheme believing that it would actually do what it said were badly let down by those who agreed the scheme on their behalf. You are though completely correct that I wasn't involved at all in setting up the sharescheme. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 17, 2015 12:40:02 GMT
Don't agree with loans other than in emergencies.The summer is plenty of time to sign up the squad and IMO they should all be signed players. Whatever NH says the budget may not have changed now but would have been more if we had won the case. We are still three players short as there are too many unknowns in our squad at the moment and needed at least a few experienced at League 2 level players. Well that's that sorted then, no loans. Yep those are the FIFA rules that we'll all soon be forced to follow |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 17, 2015 9:40:17 GMT
Til Oi Die As someone who is involved with the set up of the share scheme and the scenario that lead up to that scheme being set up I can tell you that a) the timelines on here are wrong, negotiations with the then BoD started in 2000/1 b) there were three fan groupings involved c) One group defined the capital requirement d) the share price reflected the capital requirement divided by a 28% shareholding that thus prevented and EGM resolution if required, but not a takeover e) You are ignoring pre-emption rights, which no existing shareholder is going to just hand over and in any event could not without an EGM resolution. The share scheme was dead way before the events of 2006 and the resignation of some of then leading directors / shareholders. in fact it died in May 2004 when having achieved the target of share purchases the election of fans directors came into being. On the share scheme committee (within the SC) were certain people who had very definite ideas and conviction of how things needed to change. They included, Steve Martell, Roger Cooper, Kim Stuckey Yours Truly, and an acceptance from one SC stalwart in John M. The main SC committee disliked us intensely and sought to block the election of any of us, although we had designed the scheme, drafted the agreement and led the negotiations with the BoD. Reason? They didn't understand it, had zero, as in none, commercial experience (Bamber is right the then treasurer of the SC, back in 2001 when we were at a formal meeting with GD discussing share pricing amongst other things, we being the Gas Trust, the SC and yours truly representing Premier Blue ( a ltd co set up to buy shares) had this discussion. GD: So what price do you think the shares should sold at. Gas Trust: £12. SC: Why is that important? Premier Blue £1.15p (net asset value divided by proposed share capital) So I bristle at the comments you make, but as you were not around and not involved (and that was something we got wrong, misinterpreting the passion of support as a desire to get involved) I accept of course your comments are not based on any knowledge of what actually happened Are you able to answer till oi die original point of why there wasn't a clause to prevent the dilution of the SC holding? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 17, 2015 9:32:29 GMT
Well some on here were involved in setting up the sharescheme so perhaps they know why that clause isn't there. I also bet there isn't a clause to say what would happen if the club was sold and the supporters club had to sell their holding. I'd imagine it would be like any other company; if an new investor gets to >50% equity they have the ability to control the board, at that point its effectively game over (Hence why German clubs have the 51% rule). The next hurdle is typically 75-80% (depends on the articles of association) - which in practice once the board is lost most shareholders cave in and sell their holding. Post this point the purchase of outstanding shares is mandatory, thus getting the new owner to 100%.
If the SC amount is less than 100%-the mandatory purchase level (expect this to be 20-25%) then its a forced acquisition at the same price as sold in the initial offer. Game over.
So not a scenario you can cover in the shareholders agreement OTHER than by having an equity larger than the mandatory purchase level. That's a block to any takeover so I'd imagine would be heavily resisted by other shareholders (as it effectively devalues their shareholding as the Company/Club is less attractive to a potential suitor)
You're sounding more intelligent than anyone I'm aware of who was involved in setting up the sharescheme. My point wasn't about how they agree or not agree to sell the shares , I mean if an abramovich came in and said I either buy 100% of the shares or the deal is off then who'd want the supporters club to block it? My point was I bet there isn't a clause as to what happens to the cash if they agree to sell the shares. A pity you weren't involved in 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 16, 2015 14:12:31 GMT
Can someone relay what happened to the Gastrust last time round? Didnt participate but how was there not protection against dilution? Did the dirctors vote through issuing of new shares? Its a pretty straight-forward matter to roll anti-dilution provisions into a Share(stake)holders Agreement. The obvious approach is to raise the capital and only offer the investment IF all existing shareholders sign up to a standard SHA. There could be all sorts of restrictions in that agreement. The board either accepts them, or it finds alternatives. Seems we arent too good at legal agreements.. Well some on here were involved in setting up the sharescheme so perhaps they know why that clause isn't there. I also bet there isn't a clause to say what would happen if the club was sold and the supporters club had to sell their holding. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 16, 2015 10:54:44 GMT
Doug would never have stooped so low And probably doesn't look so good in a bikini. There's the difference in us I'd never even contemplated thoughts like that about Doug |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 16, 2015 9:30:23 GMT
So if she had done nothing you would have criticised her for not helping the club; She tries to help the club including getting our name in Parliament and you say she was after votes. She didn't need to do any of that... Disgraceful isn't it.
Local MP accused of attempting to represent the views of local people and help create employment, housing and infrastructure. Doug would never have stooped so low |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 15, 2015 16:02:35 GMT
Newport County driven by the owner wanting out so he can live in the Caribbean and also the fact he is willing to accept a loss on his investment. Personally think fan owned clubs are not the way forward and will lead to stagnation, at best, and s slow demise at worst. Of course private ownership may go that way as well depending on the abilities of the owners. Personally wouldn't touch it with a barge pole unless there was an exit strategy from the start. And that's all before you consider that a few hundred of us fans on here can barely agree if DC is or isn't the best man for the job, so what hope on other decisions? Good luck though Cheers, I hope this means you are in favour - firstly, I'm looking for people to say I back this and then we can take it from there. Think you missed the barge pole comment Mark |
|
