Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

60 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

655 profile views
  1. Just for a bit of fun, of course, £1,000,000 divided by 48,000 shares is just over £20.00 each!
  2. I'm not sure why this is such a big deal, given the passage of time? In the year to 31 December 1995, the Club was buying back its ordinary shares at £12.00 each and, by 1997, new shares were being allocated at £18.50 each. If Geoffrey Watling did acquire Chase's shares at a relatively low price and turn them on to D&M at a higher price (and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that he did) fair play to him, given all he'd done for the Club over the years. In the same context, ditto for D&M if they subsequently acquired them from Geoffrey for less than £18.50, especially given the state the Club was in at the time.
  3. I suspect that you already know how much D&M paid for their 100 ordinary shares, given the Club's long established practice, stretching back over many years, for new directors to acquire the minimum 100 ordinary share holding at notional value.
  4. There’s absolutely no evidence, either from the accounts, or in share transfers to support that the takeover code (which, in its current form actually dates from 2006) applied at the time. In fact, I’m sure that we can conclude with near 100% certainty that it did not. One other observation, Chase actually owned just over 48,000 ordinary shares in December 1995. Back then, the Club had allocated just over 141,000 ordinary shares in total, so Chase’s holding of 34% was of a much smaller figure.
  5. Aston Villa v Brentford - home win. Good luck everyone.
  6. Best of luck all PUP’s, especially those in the hot seats! For me it’s Villa v Newcastle - home win. Norwich game, Pukki to score anytime. Bonkers, I know, but there you go
  7. Keeping this reply purely factual, the club's actual shareholding structure has a legacy issue. Three individuals, all board members, now own just over 69% of the total shares. There's now approximately 6,800 ordinary shareholders and approximately 5,400 (79% of the total shareholders) who own 10 shares, or less. However, they actually own just 4.38% of the total shares in issue. There's your administrative issue you refer to. The largest non-board shareholding owns less than 4% of the total shares. Even if that interest was acquired, it wouldn't guarantee any influence in the boardroom.
  8. John, if you reread my previous reply, that’s exactly what I said, they ignored fan consultant. The half a dozen, or so, that were at that meeting you mentioned, doesn’t constitute consultation at all, in my opinion. So, I think we’re agreed. As for second paragraph, as @Feedthewolf has said, the match pick option isn’t going to be changed this season, but there’s absolutely no reason why the Club can’t now comment on how the process went. They now know how many people picked specific games, both home and away, so they should be able to confirm how many are likely to be available for the groups when each game comes available.
  9. Never presume anything, John. The MOU was signed up to during Steve Stone’s time and, for it to work well, it’s reliant upon both parties to remember its existence. Generally, in my opinion, it’s worked effectively, but there have been occasions, when it’s not. The first revision of the membership scheme being the prime example. Not only was the Club ‘dismissive’ (to use your word) of the MOU, but fan consultation completely. Our last quarterly meeting with the Club was right in the middle of the match pick window, so, understandably, they weren’t able to answer the above questions specifically, only give us an indication of how they thought it was going at the time. The OSP meeting is before our next meeting, so, personally, I think that’s a perfect opportunity for an update.
  10. A couple of observations in relation to away allocation system. First, if the suggestion is to extend it over more than one season (and, personally, I’m not sure if it’s actually necessary) it would surely be logical for it to be based upon just the current system, rather than including previous seasons based upon what’s now an absolute system? Second, (an observation based purely on the feedback from fans other clubs, via the FSA network groups) the reality of extending the assessment period to more than one season, is that it tends to concentrate the purchasing priority towards far fewer fans than a single season allocation based system. While that may suit those who’re in the group, isn’t the Club’s objective to extend the away following as much as possible, so newer / younger fans aren’t excluded? On another matter, now the match pick windows are closed, it would be interesting to get some feedback / transparency from the Club, on how the actual take up for future fixtures actually worked out in reality. This should apply to both home and away games for this season.
  11. Norwich v Liverpool - away win. Norwich bet - BTTS. Good luck all
  12. Yes, log in under tickets and look at your purchase history and it will tell you which group you are in beneath your match pick.
  • Create New...