Grendel
Well-Known Member
I doubt we mix in the same circles
No I haven't - and I don't particularly want to
I'm thinking of annoying Nick by posting a link to the CT article about the Ricoh deal running out at the end of the season with a poll to see where everybody thinks the club will be playing next season. Should I or shouldn't I? I'll probably get a 'should' I be banned cause I'm not a real fan' or 'Let the ****** continue to post' poll all to myself.
* I have not knowingly met covmark.
That's correct - Charlton away. Great detective work (wasn't really what was said, more the attitude - sure he is a nice chap really)I think I can recall someone on here, may have been you, said they bumped into some fans and when they introduced themselves to said fans, they were called a Skybluestalk nutjob, or words to that effect.
*Although this may have been a alcohol fuelled dream.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
..and happy to keep it that wayI doubt we mix in the same circles
The main reason I think Rasputin is Dongo in drag is because of how quick he was to distance himself from Dongo and his views by saying something along the lines of “how can I be Dongo when he was one of the reasons I’ve never signed up before now”
Christ. ACl decision making was with the board of directors and the side that had power to excercise veto. Shares don’t automatically have voting rights at all.
I’m talking about the price to purchase the Higgs share through a formula calculation.
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.
So who was it?That's correct - Charlton away. Great detective work (wasn't really what was said, more the attitude - sure he is a nice chap really)
I doubt we mix in the same circles
American Football season starts soon!? Who do you follow? I like the BroncosNot many people go to Fish concerts m8
He mixes more in stockbroker circles, USS, so either fish stocks, or fish markets.Not many people go to Fish concerts m8
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.
He mixes more in stockbroker circles, USS, so either fish stocks, or fish markets.
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)
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.
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.Hi welcome back missed you from any football speak. How many directors were there and who appointed the fifth director?
Fuck me. Keep having to look at the thread title to remember what the thread is all about.
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.
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.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
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?
What's it about?Fuck me. Keep having to look at the thread title to remember what the thread is all about.
I presume that as you're resorting to guesswork you don't have anything.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
American Football season starts soon!? Who do you follow? I like the Broncos
Not sure. Each time I read the title I forget what I have read previously.What's it about?
Not sure. Each time I read the title I forget what I have read previously.
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.
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.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?
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.
Maybe he has, but you just haven't noticed yet.Looking what this thread is bringing out the woodwork im surprised Sky Blue John hasn’t resurfaced
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?