GMF

Just for clarity, a lot of pubs around Shepherd’s Bush are home fans only, and the Belushis Bar was advertised on social media as the Capital Canaries destination for yesterday’s game. It’s easy to say, whether with foresight or hindsight, that the choice of venue was poor, nevertheless, when proceedings began, I’m personally struggling with the suggestion that fans had nothing to be ashamed of. For context, on the two or three occasions Neil Adams tried to start the Q&A, was it really justified to respond with, “who’s the w**ker with the mic”, or, “shove the f**king microphone up your ar53”. It wasn’t just a few people, it was a significant number. It’s hard to condone such behaviour, and, as my dear old grandmother used to say, “judge people by what they say and do.” Hate on me if you want, but that was embarrassing on so many levels.

Remind me whose idea it was to ask a question about this topic at last year’s AGM….

The crowd wasn’t in the mood for a Q&A, which is probably the politest way to put it. Someone got hold of the microphone, supposedly to ask a question, only to start shouting / singing into it.

Once met, never forgotten. 😶

Funny how the families of the other three or four AD’s who’ve since sadly passed away, fully understood the meaning of “subscriber benefits being for life”, as prescribed in the original share offer document. However, there’s always one person who thinks that they’re the exception to the original offer terms, and can’t understand why they don’t get any support from fan representatives, who don’t agree with their views, not least because there’s no credible evidence to support their position. 🤦‍♂️

Wowzers, it’s amazing how some people like to rewrite history to fit their own narrative. Prior to the Companies Act 2006, companies had to specify its maximum authorised share capital within their accounts. The number of shares actually allotted was typically far less than the maximum authorised share capital. The restriction limited the ability of companies to raise new equity, hence why it was removed. It would be totally wrong to judge the success, or otherwise, of a share offer based upon whether it was fully subscribed, unless you’re in stick waving mode, which most reasonable people usually are not. No one really cares about how many shares the AD’s purchased, it was always about raising sufficient capital to cover the projected shortfall from the collapse of ITV Digital, which is what happened.

It’s also known as Corporate Governance Corner.

Associate Directors were entitled to a business seat, for life, as part of the public share offer back in 2002. Rumour has it that one person has wangled a second seat, albeit in a cheaper area of the ground.

The logistics of this would be a nightmare, especially given the high traffic volumes on Bracondale, King Street and Koblenz Avenue, both pre-match and post-match.

It’s a change of policy in relation to future share purchases, rightly communicated out to members first, with wider messaging out to all to follow. Crazy logic, I know, but it doesn’t not stop certain people from throwing out false information in the meantime! 😩

I often wonder what planet some posters are on at times. You’re definitely not the message board’s Mercury. Mind Uranus is quite large…. 😉

At last. Someone who can read and understand the mail out….

If they own it, rather than rent, which is likely given the time they’ve been there, I suspect that alternative accommodation would be expensive, whether to rent or buy.

Kieran Maguire has previously estimated the number at £30m, too.

Let’s see how long those posts last….