Greavsy 2,398 Posted April 28, 2021 11 minutes ago, essex canary said: If you buy a Rolls Royce, you expect a Rolls Royce. If you buy a Mini, you expect a Mini. The away members scheme is like those who live a Rolls Royce lifestyle charging extra for those who use the bus. Under the 2002 share offer you could buy a BMW today, die tomorrow, they keep the proceeds without, unlike the bondholders, even as much as a thank you. But if you died, who would have the BMW (or the mini?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 487 Posted April 28, 2021 They would keep both as under the seat for life rule you paid your money but had no time to enjoy the benefits. A superbly focused community oriented decision? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 487 Posted April 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, essex canary said: They would keep both as under the seat for life rule you paid your money but had no time to enjoy the benefits. A superbly focused community oriented decision? To be fair some of the money would be recoverable but only by selling at a knockdown price immediately as the benefit wouldn't be available to the third party buyer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 720 Posted April 29, 2021 On 26/04/2021 at 10:48, TIL 1010 said: Delia and MWJ became majority shareholders by ' accident ' and not desire as they underwrote the last share issue which it turned out did not attract sufficient interest from the fans. That took them to around the 53% mark. The club has over 6,000 shareholders so it is fan owned. The appointment to the board of Tom Smith who has a vote on decision making in the boardroom sits uncomfortably with some so what happens if an appointment is made from a man/woman acting on behalf of run of the mill fans if i may put it that crudely gives them a vote goodness knows. Yes and no to your ‘by accident’ suggestion, John, as D&M were already majority shareholders before the 2002 share issue, having already swapped previous loans for new equity. As part of the 2002 share issue, they indicated that they would acquire 12,000 new shares, but also convert £1.6m of outstanding loans into 64,000 new shares. Therefore, even if all of the 214,000 shares offered had been taken up (in reality only circa 140,000 were) they still would have been majority shareholders and this point was actually made in the share offer documents at the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 720 Posted April 29, 2021 13 hours ago, essex canary said: To be fair some of the money would be recoverable but only by selling at a knockdown price immediately as the benefit wouldn't be available to the third party buyer. You paid the same price, £25.00 per share, for 1,000 shares, as someone who acquired the minimum of four shares for £100. The extra benefits given reflected the total amount invested, rather than the offer price. Whether someone would be prepared to offer you £25.00 per share today is rather a moot point, given that they are unlisted securities and the purchaser would be acquired less than 0.2% of the total share capital. Ultimately, like all unlisted securities, they’re worth whatever someone is willing to offer for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 487 Posted April 30, 2021 On 29/04/2021 at 11:10, GMF said: You paid the same price, £25.00 per share, for 1,000 shares, as someone who acquired the minimum of four shares for £100. The extra benefits given reflected the total amount invested, rather than the offer price. Whether someone would be prepared to offer you £25.00 per share today is rather a moot point, given that they are unlisted securities and the purchaser would be acquired less than 0.2% of the total share capital. Ultimately, like all unlisted securities, they’re worth whatever someone is willing to offer for them. It would reasonably be my interpretation that the extra benefits reflect the total amount invested. A home membership for 4 shares and a seat for 1,000 shares seems reasonable. What is puzzling though is why the Club has decided that the former is inheritable but the latter is not. All the more so given that in a sale you are likely to be able to get a bigger price for a small number of shares than a large number. In my opinion that is unfair treatment of the most generous contributors as the inheritor gains no ongoing advantage relative to a supporter who owns no shares. Given that the supporters panel is supposed to give an opportunity to address all non football matters I have suggested to the C,ub that £1 season ticket discount per share would be a good idea going forward but there appears to be no enthusiasm. A disappointing attitude in my opinion especially given the approach to short term bonds with 25% promotion bonuses etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites