Shareholder Rationalisation

[GMF 1,007]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

You are very insulting and disrespectful.

Pot calling the kettle black! 😲

[TIL 1010 5,242]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

 

You are very insulting and disrespectful.

A better total lack of self awareness you will not see on this forum.

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

13 hours ago, essex canary said:

You are very insulting and disrespectful

You started  it,

long long ago my little Gollum. Your campaign has received  much too much tolerance by reasonable posters ( I don't include myself in that).  Yet you exhaust their patience  like a petulant  child but know this.... you will NOT get your way. No matter how low you go , no matter your insinuations,  whataboutery,  ahyesbuttery, and imjustgonnalieaboutthissery , all you have done is steeled the opposition against you. You have handled this all so badly your professional  reputation must be in tatters, if you had one at all. Hard to tell where the truth ends and the untruths start with you. Your complaints,are so numerous and trivial that no wonder you are indeed treated like the boy who cried Wolf! 

 

[essex canary 621]

8 hours ago, GMF said:

Pot calling the kettle black! 😲

The Club's transferability clause as attached below is unrelatable to what actually happens in practice and therefore unintelligible. Who is the Written Permissions Officer?

What happens when a ST holder passes away normally? In 2004 a 5 year season ticket could be bought for that area of the ground for £3,500. Based on your explanation I must assume that if the holder died after 2 years the Club would simply claim the outstanding £2,100 for itself.

[essex canary 621]

9 hours ago, GMF said:

Yes, of course they’ve changed, but the original concept was the offer to pay £25,000, for a 1,000 shares, with the benefit of a seat for life, that being the life of the share purchaser, not their beneficiaries. No one in their right mind would offer such an open-ended commitment, effectively in perpetuity, for £25,000.

If the purchaser was unfortunate to pass away a few years later, then, arguably, the seat would have been considered a relatively expensive investment. But we’re now twenty-two seasons later. Like every other seat in the ground, those business seats are more expensive than they were back in 2002, when the shares were acquired.

For those who took up the option, I tip my hat to them, but to expect someone else to pay them back all their money, they would argue that it should be considerably more, just seems unrealistic, especially since they have had free use of their seats in the intervening years.

Those shares are unlisted securities and are still worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for them.

 

The first paragraph is not consistent with the science of Economics given that lower risk B  Preference shares at 4.5% would themselves deliver a return of £1,125 per annum.

The more considerable investor would also take far longer to sell and/or achieve a competitive price for their holdings relative to smaller investors which is manifestly unfair to inheritors who under the current system face a challenge between getting best value return and completing their disinvestment in a timely fashion.

All factors that a caring Club should take into account.

[GMF 1,007]

Why screenshot a Google extract, rather than the relevant section of the season ticket T&C’s. And this is 2024, not 2004, so the whataboutery regarding previous five year deals is irrelevant in this context.

The B-preference shares have a limited redemption option, the ordinary shares don’t. The only exit option from ordinary shares is via a private sale.

It’s the same for all, whether a considerable investor or inheritor, and should have taken into account before investing in unlisted shares in the first place. 

[essex canary 621]

29 minutes ago, GMF said:

Why screenshot a Google extract, rather than the relevant section of the season ticket T&C’s. And this is 2024, not 2004, so the whataboutery regarding previous five year deals is irrelevant in this context.

The B-preference shares have a limited redemption option, the ordinary shares don’t. The only exit option from ordinary shares is via a private sale.

It’s the same for all, whether a considerable investor or inheritor, and should have taken into account before investing in unlisted shares in the first place. 

The point I am making is that the Club's transferability rules cannot be considered to ever be a Guide that provides unambiguous interpretation.

It isn't the same for an inheritor in their own right as they have had no practical opportunity to acquire any significant interest bearing portion such as Preference Shares.

[TIL 1010 5,242]

[GMF 1,007]

@essex canary the Club hasn’t issued any B-preference shares since 2009, and shareholders voted in favour of resolutions that excluded themselves from the allotment of the recent C-preference issue, together with the pending D & E preference share allotments. Quite why you think that inheritors should therefore be afforded such privileges retrospectively is, frankly, for the birds. 

[essex canary 621]

7 minutes ago, GMF said:

@essex canary the Club hasn’t issued any B-preference shares since 2009, and shareholders voted in favour of resolutions that excluded themselves from the allotment of the recent C-preference issue, together with the pending D & E preference share allotments. Quite why you think that inheritors should therefore be afforded such privileges retrospectively is, frankly, for the birds. 

Around 7% of the shareholders voted for that.

[essex canary 621]

20 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

You started  it,

long long ago my little Gollum. Your campaign has received  much too much tolerance by reasonable posters ( I don't include myself in that).  Yet you exhaust their patience  like a petulant  child but know this.... you will NOT get your way. No matter how low you go , no matter your insinuations,  whataboutery,  ahyesbuttery, and imjustgonnalieaboutthissery , all you have done is steeled the opposition against you. You have handled this all so badly your professional  reputation must be in tatters, if you had one at all. Hard to tell where the truth ends and the untruths start with you. Your complaints,are so numerous and trivial that no wonder you are indeed treated like the boy who cried Wolf! 

 

Morning Baldrick. What thoughts do you have on the 'Club Financial Analysis' thread? Has @wolfie eaten Little Red Riding Hood yet?

 

[wcorkcanary 4,774]

18 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Morning Baldrick. What thoughts do you have on the 'Club Financial Analysis' thread? Has @wolfie eaten Little Red Riding Hood yet?

 

Talking about you not to you. Fool. 

[essex canary 621]

16 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Talking about you not to you. Fool. 

No FT no comment.

[essex canary 621]

On 02/11/2024 at 10:29, GMF said:

Yes, of course they’ve changed, but the original concept was the offer to pay £25,000, for a 1,000 shares, with the benefit of a seat for life, that being the life of the share purchaser, not their beneficiaries. No one in their right mind would offer such an open-ended commitment, effectively in perpetuity, for £25,000.

If the purchaser was unfortunate to pass away a few years later, then, arguably, the seat would have been considered a relatively expensive investment. But we’re now twenty-two seasons later. Like every other seat in the ground, those business seats are more expensive than they were back in 2002, when the shares were acquired.

For those who took up the option, I tip my hat to them.

 

Thanks for the last comment. No fans appear to have offered anything remotely close to £25,000 for fan finance pre 2002. Some who did were the fee paying school Rugby playing types. Others may have done it more from the perspective of ordinary fans.

I met a ST holder who had £25,000 in the 2018 Bond iniative. Easiest money he has ever made he suggests as he walks away after 18 months with enough money to finance an ordinary season ticket for up to 15 years. Fair enough, he was entitled to take up their offer and did so. 

The fact that at the same time they deny appropriate reward to long term shareholder families and younger inheritors whose money is still in shows the outgoing regime in it's true colours.

Note the poorest served inheritor only received value otherwise available to others at £5,000.

Edited November 4 by essex canary