Grendel
Well-Known Member
I doubt we mix in the same circles
Should Rasputin be banned? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter fernandopartridge
- Start date
I doubt we mix in the same circles
Nick
Administrator
It's easy to make a bot that just posts links to the Telegraph, that's what RSS feeds are for.
I could probably script something up to post "good goal" in match threads when we score that would outdo you as well.
Did somebody put out a call for anybody who has felt the need to have multiple accounts? Avengers style.
That's correct - Charlton away. Great detective work (wasn't really what was said, more the attitude - sure he is a nice chap really)
..and happy to keep it that way
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
When one of the most well informed, reasoned contributors on the forum posts something as absolutely bonkers ad this you know the threads a winner.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Right, I'm not going into this too much so I'll leave it with this as my last contribution on the subject.
"So when ccfc were offered half share at £6 million taking on the debt which you believe is part of the shareholder value on a 45 year lease perhaps you’d like to explain how that is reasonable. Especially as there were no voting rights and the club still would pay £1.3m a year rent."
Once again, you've stretched the truth out quite a bit there, hence why I wasn't sure what bid you were talking about. The Higgs half did instantly spring to mind with the £6m but all the caveats you added on made me think it must be something different.
For a start, ordinary shares do have voting rights. They give the right to vote for the directors. If a director were to stand down that 50% share would have given them the opportunity to have equal say on the new appointee. In the event of a stalemate the current directors would likely get the final say and initially as they have been Council/Higgs picks it would effectively give the council-held 50% share veto but wouldn't have officially given them the right to overrule as you appear to suggest.
With ACL still being a separate entity the club would still have been paying the rent. If I take your skewed stance I could say that with a 50% shareholding it would also classify as income and thus increase our spending power under SCMP and as half of that rent would come back to them it would effectively be a rent of 600k. However I think that's an unfair representation of the facts and it's assuming SISU would put CCFC as the owners of ACL rather than one of their own subsidiaries (in which case that would not be the fault of the council).
As for taking on the debt - that's pushing things to Trump levels of distortion. ACL would still have been an entity and thus responsible for it's own debts. As shareholders in ACL the club would have been jointly responsible with the council had those debts been defaulted on, but with those debts being owed to the council it would be more favourable for the council side. Not the same thing.
Since that time and the subsequent sale to Wasps, it's not surprising that the value had reduced given the actions of SISU in causing ACL cashflow problems and removing the main tenants and income stream from the business.
It's how I can't fathom SISU's legal argument. They at first argue that the arena (and expansion land) is worthless (a net value of zero). They then take actions that put into question the viability of the company and stadium (inevitably causing a decrease in it's value), which is then sold for a net value of greater than zero and complain it's been sold under-value. Pick an argument! Yes, the lease on the stadium has been extended but that is not going to affect the value by the extent they claim. The other option would've been sell cheaper on the original lease, Wasps apply for the extension, it's granted and they get that extra lease for nothing. Extending the lease gave the council more of a bargaining chip and higher price.
Anyway, back to the original thread and as I've no idea what the issue is other than something to do with an unpaid bet I have no opinion on it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Show me where the shares in the private limited company had equal voting rights. I own shares in such a company and the voting rights are not equal - the directors made policy decisions - the shares allowed Appointment of 2 directors each and the independent director always voted with the controller of the veto - the council.
The rent would be £1.3 million to the football club. It’s separate to ACL
The debt is irrelevant as the council wanted to buy the loan from an external source to benefit the taxpayer
The stadium value has increased six fold due to a lease extension the council refused to allow ACL when the council and Higgs owner the shares
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
So who was it?
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Not many people go to Fish concerts m8
Greggs
Well-Known Member
American Football season starts soon!? Who do you follow? I like the Broncos
Otis
Well-Known Member
He mixes more in stockbroker circles, USS, so either fish stocks, or fish markets.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The articles of association for ACL state that both shareholders had equal rights, and both shareholders had to agree to a sale of shares to anyone else, in other words both had a right to veto a sale.
You can read this for yourself on the companies house website, no need to thank me.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Shame. Fish’s stock lowered after he left Marillion m8
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This threads reminded me of the time I borrowed my Dads laptop and accidentally posted as him once, Nick was on me for multiple accounts before the bits were cool.
Still don’t see the point, unless you have a knockout joke persona. Like Otis (who is obviously also Grendel)
Still don’t see the point, unless you have a knockout joke persona. Like Otis (who is obviously also Grendel)
Nick
Administrator
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Hi welcome back missed you from any football speak. How many directors were there and who appointed the fifth director?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Thanks. Each shareholder could appoint up to 2 Directors, and there could be up to 3 independent Directors, the shareholders should jointly agree on the independent Directors. As before this is in the articles of association.
Feel free to show where you get the idea only the Council had a veto, or that both shareholders didn't have equal rights.
itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
They're the best.
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What if they fail to agree on the independent director and both parties have diametrically opposed views on future strategy?
What does happen in that eventuality
And are you denying the council had a veto to sell Higgs share? You did if course once try and claim Higgs veto was stronger as Higgs could threaten not to invest in property in the City - like Browns.....didn’t you?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Work it out I suppose, they must have found a way through any disagreements if they had any. If that fails they could always sell up, as long as both shareholders agree to the potential buyer.
Have you got any info on your suggestion that only the Council had a veto, or that the shareholders didn't have equal rights, or has that been put to bed now?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The council had a veto on the share of Higgs to future purchasers yes - as one said your attempt to claim Higgs were the stronger partner was met with scorn and ridicule
People don’t work it out. The council control the lease and they control the veto and they determined strategy by control of the veto.
It’s very clear Higgs had no say at all as they would have massively benefited from an extension of the lease BEFORE the sale. Yet the sake of the council share went through with zero opposition.
The only thing in bed is you and your type with the council. Interesting the vermin this thread is flushing out
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
What's it about?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I presume that as you're resorting to guesswork you don't have anything.
It's clearly written that both sides have to agree to any sale by the other shareholder. 'The veto' isn't a singular thing, so no one side has control of it.
In bed with the Council? I see you've reverted to type and when shown to be wrong throw your dollies out of the pram.
Vermin? That's harsh, I thought you'd missed me.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Bucs innit m8
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not sure. Each time I read the title I forget what I have read previously.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Conor Chaplin getting banned for missing summut from throw-ins I think m8
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Lame response. I’m right and you know it. The notion Higgs has any say in anything is offending this forums intelligence.
What people really might be curious about is your clear passion for this topic clearly exceeds any interest in football
Strange isn’t it?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Quality, you are excelling yourself here. Not only are you now reading my mind, you are also speaking on behalf of the whole forum. I think you need to seek professional help for your delusions. Seriously.
My passion in this detail of the topic, using your terminology, is to try and avoid what I like to call 'bullshit', I have probably explained the veto thing to you 2 or 3 times, with detail of where you read it for yourself. Sadly my passion for correcting you is not quite as strong as your passion for the veto 'bullshit', as you tend to spread it around like a careless farmer.
Anyway, get some help. If you want to know anything about football let me know.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I also have explained it and unlike you I understand it’s purpose and intent.
You genuinely seem to believe it was available to both sides. The whole turn of events prove otherwise.
Your last sentence is at least funny
Otis
Well-Known Member
Maybe he has, but you just haven't noticed yet.
