An open letter to Mr Foulger

[gazzathegreat 0]

Purple

Indeed I have stated this, and I will be going along to Barratt and Cooke''s, where you can buy shares in NCFC, as soon as my next salary goes in the bank, ie end of June! I can call it a birthday present to myself as well.

My rebate is £73.20. My son will get the same rebate, as will an awful lot of fans who are year on year ST holders in the Barclay. I am sure I can forgo a couple of nights out to find the additional money needed to make it £120.

I have looked into the Supporters'' Trust and LQ has supplied info on them for me, but at this moment I prefer to buy my own shares.

[JuanVelasco 27]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"] Until then I will buy shares, which at present doesn''t dent the 66% majority shareholding, but does give us a chance to become shareholders/and increase the shareholding base amongst ordinary supporters. The AGM is a good night out as well! lol[/quote]

It wont make much of a dent, but there are lots available. How many are in issue? surely that would knock a couple of percent off at least?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

There are (or were) 33,333 shares available. If all were bought by fans that would reduce Smith and Jones''s majority shareholding by 3.7 percentage points, from 61.2 per cent to 57.5 per cent.

[Metatron 0]

Gazza, I respect your use of the rebate.

Just as a point of info, I think someone else said that you can buy shares simply by calling/writing to the Club and asking them for a form, ie you don''t need to go to Barratt and Cooke (in case they charge a commission).

[JuanVelasco 27]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]There are (or were) 33,333 shares available. If all were bought by fans that would reduce Smith and Jones''s majority shareholding by 3.7 percentage points, from 61.2 per cent to 57.5 per cent.[/quote]

Thanks. Thats a start!

[gazzathegreat 0]

Metatron, I have been advised by someone who deals with shares that approaching Barratt and Cooke would be my best option.

Although I might ask in passing tomorrow when I hand in my rebate form.

[Desert Fox 0]

[quote user="Bobert"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Bobert,

Creating shares is not related to the debt. In theory an infinite number of shares can be created so long as this is approved by a AGM or EGM. Of course, this question is academic given that the majority of shares are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. If the Wynn-Jones approve it, Foulger can convet his invetsment into fresh equity, but they expect the fans to just gift their contribution.

[/quote]

No its not like that because NCFC is a Public Limited Company ...........also I think the FA have rules about ratios. I remeber Neil Doncaster giving an explanation a couple of years ago.

[/quote]

Bobert,

PLC status is irrelavent. The key issue is what the Articles of Association state. Even if thsi contsrains the number of shares in issue, there is nothing to stop a makority of shareholders voting to amend the Aof A. Put simply, with our currnet ownership structure they can print as many shares as they like.I

[JuanVelasco 27]

[quote user="Desert Fox"][quote user="Bobert"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Bobert,

Creating shares is not related to the debt. In theory an infinite number of shares can be created so long as this is approved by a AGM or EGM. Of course, this question is academic given that the majority of shares are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. If the Wynn-Jones approve it, Foulger can convet his invetsment into fresh equity, but they expect the fans to just gift their contribution.

[/quote]

No its not like that because NCFC is a Public Limited Company ...........also I think the FA have rules about ratios. I remeber Neil Doncaster giving an explanation a couple of years ago.

[/quote]

Bobert,

PLC status is irrelavent. The key issue is what the Articles of Association state. Even if thsi contsrains the number of shares in issue, there is nothing to stop a makority of shareholders voting to amend the Aof A. Put simply, with our currnet ownership structure they can print as many shares as they like.I

[/quote]

In fairness Delia has always put her money where her mouth is with share issues, that is to say....... the last one did cost her a lot of money. Still want her out, but credit where its due.

[Desert Fox 0]

Ryan,

Its called protecting your investment. Sometimes you ahve to keep pumping more in to avoiud the risk of losing everything.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

You are totally missing the point USACanary. Season Ticket holders have a contract with Norwich City FC plc, who a now trying to back out of that contract by the use of emotional blackmail. The contract I entered into with Norwich City FC plc also had a condition in that stated I would have to pay more for my season ticket if the club gained promotion to the Premiership, what do you suppose the answer would be if I wrote to them tyring to back out of that particular contract?. I am not even sure where the £1M figure comes from, this would mean an average season ticket price of £270 and that every one of the 18,300 renewals are eligible to the full 20% rebate.

I am with CA on this, the fans have done their bit by renewing in the numbers they have, we are constantly being told that the board members are true fans, love the club and that they are always on the look out for additional revenue, it would appear that one of their number is able to invest some money, so why not just invest it in the club, why the emotional blackmail?

[Badger 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]There are (or were) 33,333 shares available. If all were bought by fans that would reduce Smith and Jones''s majority shareholding by 3.7 percentage points, from 61.2 per cent to 57.5 per cent.[/quote]How much do they sell for? Is it the £30 figure? If so, that''s £1,000,000!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]There are (or were) 33,333 shares available. If all were bought by fans that would reduce Smith and Jones''s majority shareholding by 3.7 percentage points, from 61.2 per cent to 57.5 per cent.[/quote]How much do they sell for? Is it the £30 figure? If so, that''s £1,000,000![/quote]Well you COULD offer more...But seriously, the answers are yes and yes. Of course, it is not impossible the incoming director/directors (since we need at least one) has/have already snaffled some or all. But that was the amount available at the time of the last accounts.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]There are (or were) 33,333 shares available. If all were bought by fans that would reduce Smith and Jones''s majority shareholding by 3.7 percentage points, from 61.2 per cent to 57.5 per cent.[/quote]How much do they sell for? Is it the £30 figure? If so, that''s £1,000,000![/quote]Well you COULD offer more...But seriously, the answers are yes and yes. Of course, it is not impossible the incoming director/directors (since we need at least one) has/have already snaffled some or all. But that was the amount available at the time of the last accounts.[/quote]The arithmetic works out quite well with regards the rebate issue though. If those fans that who did not feel able to just give the club their money were more comfortable with buying shares, there are plenty of shares available. If Mr Foulger agreed to back this in the same way he did those fans waiving their rebate, we are likely therefore to raise more money for the playing budget than is likely to be the case from the rebate alone. You raise the issue of incoming directors – if they were to buy shares, they would either do so by buying existing shares or buying new ones. Either would dilute the ownership of the current board and the latter would raise more money still. It would seem to me therefore, that this way we meet two objectives satisfying most fans:-1. We could raise extra money for the playing squad to maximise our chances of getting out of League One as quickly as possible2. We could significantly dilute the share ownership of the current board, to the extent that the Smith’s shares could cease to be a majority stake if new directors bought significant numbers of either new or existing shares. I have to be honest and admit that the former is my main priority but the latter seems to me to be a genuine prospect, which could provide incentive for those fans that are desperate to weaken the influence of Delia and her husband.

[McNallyindahouse 0]

The question of the unallocated shares was discussed herehttp://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1697039/ShowPost.aspx

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]There are (or were) 33,333 shares available. If all were bought by fans that would reduce Smith and Jones''s majority shareholding by 3.7 percentage points, from 61.2 per cent to 57.5 per cent.[/quote]How much do they sell for? Is it the £30 figure? If so, that''s £1,000,000![/quote]Well you COULD offer more...But seriously, the answers are yes and yes. Of course, it is not impossible the incoming director/directors (since we need at least one) has/have already snaffled some or all. But that was the amount available at the time of the last accounts.[/quote]The arithmetic works out quite well with regards the rebate issue though. If those fans that who did not feel able to just give the club their money were more comfortable with buying shares, there are plenty of shares available. If Mr Foulger agreed to back this in the same way he did those fans waiving their rebate, we are likely therefore to raise more money for the playing budget than is likely to be the case from the rebate alone. You raise the issue of incoming directors – if they were to buy shares, they would either do so by buying existing shares or buying new ones. Either would dilute the ownership of the current board and the latter would raise more money still. It would seem to me therefore, that this way we meet two objectives satisfying most fans:-1. We could raise extra money for the playing squad to maximise our chances of getting out of League One as quickly as possible2. We could significantly dilute the share ownership of the current board, to the extent that the Smith’s shares could cease to be a majority stake if new directors bought significant numbers of either new or existing shares. I have to be honest and admit that the former is my main priority but the latter seems to me to be a genuine prospect, which could provide incentive for those fans that are desperate to weaken the influence of Delia and her husband. [/quote].Badger, I know some fans believe Smith and Jones should agree to dilute

their shareholding so it becomes a minority stake, but I doubt there is

much chance of that happening. For at least a couple of reasons, and

not because they have no intention of selling.

1. Having a plc without majority control is a recipe for corporate

chaos. I know Chase didn''t have a majority of the shares (although I

suspect he could normally count on allies to win a vote) but times have changed.

Ashley has most if not all the shares at Newcastle; Evans has 87.5 per

cent of the Ipswich shares; Peter Cullum wanted to take over as

majority shareholder.

2. It would, ironically, make it harder to sell the club. At the moment

the decision is effectively in the hands of Smith and Jones, who think

as one. So you only have to convince them to sell, and you only have to

convince them that you are the person to whom to sell.

Reduce their stake below 50 per cent and you then have to convince them

AND other shareholders to sell, and you have to convince them AND other

shareholders that you are the person to whom to sell.

And having achieved those feats of persuasion, you then actually have

to get Smith and Jones AND other shareholders to sell to you, because

you (whether you''re Peter Cullum or anyone else) are only interested in paying good money if you can get back to the position where there is majority control.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]There are (or were) 33,333 shares available. If all were bought by fans that would reduce Smith and Jones''s majority shareholding by 3.7 percentage points, from 61.2 per cent to 57.5 per cent.[/quote]

How much do they sell for? Is it the £30 figure? If so, that''s £1,000,000!
[/quote]

Well you COULD offer more...

But seriously, the answers are yes and yes. Of course, it is not impossible the incoming director/directors (since we need at least one) has/have already snaffled some or all. But that was the amount available at the time of the last accounts.
[/quote]


The arithmetic works out quite well with regards the rebate issue though.

If those fans that who did not feel able to just give the club their money were more comfortable with buying shares, there are plenty of shares available. If Mr Foulger agreed to back this in the same way he did those fans waiving their rebate, we are likely therefore to raise more money for the playing budget than is likely to be the case from the rebate alone.

You raise the issue of incoming directors – if they were to buy shares, they would either do so by buying existing shares or buying new ones. Either would dilute the ownership of the current board and the latter would raise more money still.

It would seem to me therefore, that this way we meet two objectives satisfying most fans:-

1. We could raise extra money for the playing squad to maximise our chances of getting out of League One as quickly as possible

2. We could significantly dilute the share ownership of the current board, to the extent that the Smith’s shares could cease to be a majority stake if new directors bought significant numbers of either new or existing shares.

I have to be honest and admit that the former is my main priority but the latter seems to me to be a genuine prospect, which could provide incentive for those fans that are desperate to weaken the influence of Delia and her husband.

[/quote]

.

Badger, I know some fans believe Smith and Jones should agree to dilute their shareholding so it becomes a minority stake, but I doubt there is much chance of that happening. For at least a couple of reasons, and not because they have no intention of selling.

1. Having a plc without majority control is a recipe for corporate chaos. I know Chase didn''t have a majority of the shares (although I suspect he could normally count on allies to win a vote) but times have changed. Ashley has most if not all the shares at Newcastle; Evans has 87.5 per cent of the Ipswich shares; Peter Cullum wanted to take over as majority shareholder.

2. It would, ironically, make it harder to sell the club. At the moment the decision is effectively in the hands of Smith and Jones, who think as one. So you only have to convince them to sell, and you only have to convince them that you are the person to whom to sell.

Reduce their stake below 50 per cent and you then have to convince them AND other shareholders to sell, and you have to convince them AND other shareholders that you are the person to whom to sell.

And having achieved those feats of persuasion, you then actually have to get Smith and Jones AND other shareholders to sell to you, because you (whether you''re Peter Cullum or anyone else) are only interested in paying good money if you can get back to the position where there is majority control.[/quote]

I thought they had made torture illegal in the UK!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="The Butler"]

I thought they had made torture illegal in the UK!

[/quote]How would you define this last season if not as torture!

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Butler"]

I thought they had made torture illegal in the UK!

[/quote]

How would you define this last season if not as torture!
[/quote]

Akin to having your testicles tickled with a blow lamp[:D]

Good point, again not what we saw anything of last season.

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Sorry if I am being stupid here but how does re-investing the money into small pockets of shares hit the current board in the way people wish to? Yes it means that people can still benefit the club financially whilst making the symbolic gesture of claiming their rebate but at the end of the day it will mean that the board still gets the money, the fans still have no control over what they do with it and we end up wiuth a few more minority shareholders with no say whatsoever on how the club is run? So far as I can see it is therefore no different to simply allowing them to keep the rebate or am I missing something?

The only way i could see that it would have an impact and the fans retain some control over how it is spent is if people were prepared to take their rebates and pay them into a specially set up account which could be made available to the board in the event that they come to the fans group with a proposal to buy a player -i.e. an extension of the Norwich City kitty idea. I don''t see this as being any different to what happened with Carl Moore funding Leroy Lita last season. We could, for example, agree to fund (or help fund) the purchase of Alan Lee this summer but would not release the money until a deal was in place. If that was a possibility i for one would pay my rebate into such a fund.

[JuanVelasco 27]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Sorry if I am being stupid here but how does re-investing the money into small pockets of shares hit the current board in the way people wish to? Yes it means that people can still benefit the club financially whilst making the symbolic gesture of claiming their rebate but at the end of the day it will mean that the board still gets the money, the fans still have no control over what they do with it and we end up wiuth a few more minority shareholders with no say whatsoever on how the club is run? So far as I can see it is therefore no different to simply allowing them to keep the rebate or am I missing something?

The only way i could see that it would have an impact and the fans retain some control over how it is spent is if people were prepared to take their rebates and pay them into a specially set up account which could be made available to the board in the event that they come to the fans group with a proposal to buy a player -i.e. an extension of the Norwich City kitty idea. I don''t see this as being any different to what happened with Carl Moore funding Leroy Lita last season. We could, for example, agree to fund (or help fund) the purchase of Alan Lee this summer but would not release the money until a deal was in place. If that was a possibility i for one would pay my rebate into such a fund.

[/quote]

It is different from simple giving them the rebate. In exactly the same way that Peter Cullum wouldnt just ''give'' Norwich money, and exactly the same way that Duncan Bannatyne wouldnt just ''give'' money to somebody on the Dragons Den.

The board get their shareholding ever so slightly diluted, a few percent if all shares were taken up, meaning that they must pay money if they wish to regain that equity share. Just giving money in any form is like saying that we agree with the clubs investments, e.g. spending the transfer budget on land.

If somebody came along and wanted to try and force a takeover, you know like stirring it up, announcing it to the press and actually making an offer........ fans selling him/her their shares sends a strong message about what the fans think is best for the club.

I think its a far better idea if fans bought shares and the board of directors matched that with their own share purchase, that could well be what Foulger does, he might be promising 600k to the club but he might be giving it in the form of equity investment.

Do you want to see 600k given to the club for free, and then see Foulger spending his 600k on shares? Hence increasing the current trios stranglehold over the club, or would you prefer to see any new board equity matched by the men on the street?

 

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

Sorry if I am being stupid here but how does re-investing the money into small pockets of shares hit the current board in the way people wish to? Yes it means that people can still benefit the club financially whilst making the symbolic gesture of claiming their rebate but at the end of the day it will mean that the board still gets the money, the fans still have no control over what they do with it and we end up wiuth a few more minority shareholders with no say whatsoever on how the club is run? So far as I can see it is therefore no different to simply allowing them to keep the rebate or am I missing something?

The only way i could see that it would have an impact and the fans retain some control over how it is spent is if people were prepared to take their rebates and pay them into a specially set up account which could be made available to the board in the event that they come to the fans group with a proposal to buy a player -i.e. an extension of the Norwich City kitty idea. I don''t see this as being any different to what happened with Carl Moore funding Leroy Lita last season. We could, for example, agree to fund (or help fund) the purchase of Alan Lee this summer but would not release the money until a deal was in place. If that was a possibility i for one would pay my rebate into such a fund.

[/quote]

It is different from simple giving them the rebate. In exactly the same way that Peter Cullum wouldnt just ''give'' Norwich money, and exactly the same way that Duncan Bannatyne wouldnt just ''give'' money to somebody on the Dragons Den.

The board get their shareholding ever so slightly diluted, a few percent if all shares were taken up, meaning that they must pay money if they wish to regain that equity share. Just giving money in any form is like saying that we agree with the clubs investments, e.g. spending the transfer budget on land.

If somebody came along and wanted to try and force a takeover, you know like stirring it up, announcing it to the press and actually making an offer........ fans selling him/her their shares sends a strong message about what the fans think is best for the club.

I think its a far better idea if fans bought shares and the board of directors matched that with their own share purchase, that could well be what Foulger does, he might be promising 600k to the club but he might be giving it in the form of equity investment.

Do you want to see 600k given to the club for free, and then see Foulger spending his 600k on shares? Hence increasing the current trios stranglehold over the club, or would you prefer to see any new board equity matched by the men on the street?

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Sorry but even if all £600K was invested into shares by fans it would make f**k all difference and Delia and MWJ would still have complete control over the club.

[JuanVelasco 27]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

Sorry if I am being stupid here but how does re-investing the money into small pockets of shares hit the current board in the way people wish to? Yes it means that people can still benefit the club financially whilst making the symbolic gesture of claiming their rebate but at the end of the day it will mean that the board still gets the money, the fans still have no control over what they do with it and we end up wiuth a few more minority shareholders with no say whatsoever on how the club is run? So far as I can see it is therefore no different to simply allowing them to keep the rebate or am I missing something?

The only way i could see that it would have an impact and the fans retain some control over how it is spent is if people were prepared to take their rebates and pay them into a specially set up account which could be made available to the board in the event that they come to the fans group with a proposal to buy a player -i.e. an extension of the Norwich City kitty idea. I don''t see this as being any different to what happened with Carl Moore funding Leroy Lita last season. We could, for example, agree to fund (or help fund) the purchase of Alan Lee this summer but would not release the money until a deal was in place. If that was a possibility i for one would pay my rebate into such a fund.

[/quote]

It is different from simple giving them the rebate. In exactly the same way that Peter Cullum wouldnt just ''give'' Norwich money, and exactly the same way that Duncan Bannatyne wouldnt just ''give'' money to somebody on the Dragons Den.

The board get their shareholding ever so slightly diluted, a few percent if all shares were taken up, meaning that they must pay money if they wish to regain that equity share. Just giving money in any form is like saying that we agree with the clubs investments, e.g. spending the transfer budget on land.

If somebody came along and wanted to try and force a takeover, you know like stirring it up, announcing it to the press and actually making an offer........ fans selling him/her their shares sends a strong message about what the fans think is best for the club.

I think its a far better idea if fans bought shares and the board of directors matched that with their own share purchase, that could well be what Foulger does, he might be promising 600k to the club but he might be giving it in the form of equity investment.

Do you want to see 600k given to the club for free, and then see Foulger spending his 600k on shares? Hence increasing the current trios stranglehold over the club, or would you prefer to see any new board equity matched by the men on the street?

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Sorry but even if all £600K was invested into shares by fans it would make f**k all difference and Delia and MWJ would still have complete control over the club.

[/quote]

It wouldnt make any difference, but its a better option in my personal opinion than simply gifting the money to the club.

I personally am taking my rebate, as a matter of principle and to send a message, and then giving the money to the club in exchange for shares. Any of the clubs shares that are not owned by current board is a big bonus in my opinion. Thats what the Supporters Trust does, and plenty of people support them.

You are of course willing to do whatever you wish with your rebate, I am choosing to spend it on shares, each to their own I couldnt care less what you do with yours so I cant see why you give a sh*t about what others do with theres. Its not your money, so dont try and tell people what to do with it.

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

Sorry if I am being stupid here but how does re-investing the money into small pockets of shares hit the current board in the way people wish to? Yes it means that people can still benefit the club financially whilst making the symbolic gesture of claiming their rebate but at the end of the day it will mean that the board still gets the money, the fans still have no control over what they do with it and we end up wiuth a few more minority shareholders with no say whatsoever on how the club is run? So far as I can see it is therefore no different to simply allowing them to keep the rebate or am I missing something?

The only way i could see that it would have an impact and the fans retain some control over how it is spent is if people were prepared to take their rebates and pay them into a specially set up account which could be made available to the board in the event that they come to the fans group with a proposal to buy a player -i.e. an extension of the Norwich City kitty idea. I don''t see this as being any different to what happened with Carl Moore funding Leroy Lita last season. We could, for example, agree to fund (or help fund) the purchase of Alan Lee this summer but would not release the money until a deal was in place. If that was a possibility i for one would pay my rebate into such a fund.

[/quote]

It is different from simple giving them the rebate. In exactly the same way that Peter Cullum wouldnt just ''give'' Norwich money, and exactly the same way that Duncan Bannatyne wouldnt just ''give'' money to somebody on the Dragons Den.

The board get their shareholding ever so slightly diluted, a few percent if all shares were taken up, meaning that they must pay money if they wish to regain that equity share. Just giving money in any form is like saying that we agree with the clubs investments, e.g. spending the transfer budget on land.

If somebody came along and wanted to try and force a takeover, you know like stirring it up, announcing it to the press and actually making an offer........ fans selling him/her their shares sends a strong message about what the fans think is best for the club.

I think its a far better idea if fans bought shares and the board of directors matched that with their own share purchase, that could well be what Foulger does, he might be promising 600k to the club but he might be giving it in the form of equity investment.

Do you want to see 600k given to the club for free, and then see Foulger spending his 600k on shares? Hence increasing the current trios stranglehold over the club, or would you prefer to see any new board equity matched by the men on the street?

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Sorry but even if all £600K was invested into shares by fans it would make f**k all difference and Delia and MWJ would still have complete control over the club.

[/quote]

It wouldnt make any difference, but its a better option in my personal opinion than simply gifting the money to the club.

I personally am taking my rebate, as a matter of principle and to send a message, and then giving the money to the club in exchange for shares. Any of the clubs shares that are not owned by current board is a big bonus in my opinion. Thats what the Supporters Trust does, and plenty of people support them.

You are of course willing to do whatever you wish with your rebate, I am choosing to spend it on shares, each to their own I couldnt care less what you do with yours so I cant see why you give a sh*t about what others do with theres. Its not your money, so dont try and tell people what to do with it.

 

 

[/quote]

 

I''m not telling anyone what to do with their money. I was just pointing out that if you do what you are proposing then the net result is basically the same - the club gets to keep the rebate money and can do what they like with it so you haven''t really made a point at all. If you are happy with that then fine but if your main driver is, as you suggest, to make a point to the board then this is not really the way to go about it. It may be different if all the money went to the trust who could then say to the club we will only invest this in return for a fan getting a seat on the board but they can''t do that. In effect you will have 3 worthless shares and the board will still have your £75 to do with as they see fit.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]. In effect you will have 3 worthless shares and the board will still have your £75 to do with as they see fit.[/quote]Yeah !  They gonna buy PIES with your money !!!!!!!  Anda conservatory !!!!!! mwa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa !!!!!!Errhem...

[JuanVelasco 27]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

Sorry if I am being stupid here but how does re-investing the money into small pockets of shares hit the current board in the way people wish to? Yes it means that people can still benefit the club financially whilst making the symbolic gesture of claiming their rebate but at the end of the day it will mean that the board still gets the money, the fans still have no control over what they do with it and we end up wiuth a few more minority shareholders with no say whatsoever on how the club is run? So far as I can see it is therefore no different to simply allowing them to keep the rebate or am I missing something?

The only way i could see that it would have an impact and the fans retain some control over how it is spent is if people were prepared to take their rebates and pay them into a specially set up account which could be made available to the board in the event that they come to the fans group with a proposal to buy a player -i.e. an extension of the Norwich City kitty idea. I don''t see this as being any different to what happened with Carl Moore funding Leroy Lita last season. We could, for example, agree to fund (or help fund) the purchase of Alan Lee this summer but would not release the money until a deal was in place. If that was a possibility i for one would pay my rebate into such a fund.

[/quote]

It is different from simple giving them the rebate. In exactly the same way that Peter Cullum wouldnt just ''give'' Norwich money, and exactly the same way that Duncan Bannatyne wouldnt just ''give'' money to somebody on the Dragons Den.

The board get their shareholding ever so slightly diluted, a few percent if all shares were taken up, meaning that they must pay money if they wish to regain that equity share. Just giving money in any form is like saying that we agree with the clubs investments, e.g. spending the transfer budget on land.

If somebody came along and wanted to try and force a takeover, you know like stirring it up, announcing it to the press and actually making an offer........ fans selling him/her their shares sends a strong message about what the fans think is best for the club.

I think its a far better idea if fans bought shares and the board of directors matched that with their own share purchase, that could well be what Foulger does, he might be promising 600k to the club but he might be giving it in the form of equity investment.

Do you want to see 600k given to the club for free, and then see Foulger spending his 600k on shares? Hence increasing the current trios stranglehold over the club, or would you prefer to see any new board equity matched by the men on the street?

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Sorry but even if all £600K was invested into shares by fans it would make f**k all difference and Delia and MWJ would still have complete control over the club.

[/quote]

It wouldnt make any difference, but its a better option in my personal opinion than simply gifting the money to the club.

I personally am taking my rebate, as a matter of principle and to send a message, and then giving the money to the club in exchange for shares. Any of the clubs shares that are not owned by current board is a big bonus in my opinion. Thats what the Supporters Trust does, and plenty of people support them.

You are of course willing to do whatever you wish with your rebate, I am choosing to spend it on shares, each to their own I couldnt care less what you do with yours so I cant see why you give a sh*t about what others do with theres. Its not your money, so dont try and tell people what to do with it.

 

 

[/quote]

 

I''m not telling anyone what to do with their money. I was just pointing out that if you do what you are proposing then the net result is basically the same - the club gets to keep the rebate money and can do what they like with it so you haven''t really made a point at all. If you are happy with that then fine but if your main driver is, as you suggest, to make a point to the board then this is not really the way to go about it. It may be different if all the money went to the trust who could then say to the club we will only invest this in return for a fan getting a seat on the board but they can''t do that. In effect you will have 3 worthless shares and the board will still have your £75 to do with as they see fit.

[/quote]

Actually they are £30 each, and a minimum purchase of 4. I just disagree with you, as simple as. There is a strong difference between giving money to the club as a gift and giving money to the club in exchange for equity, irrespective of the size of that holding. No other business other than a football club would get away with asking for donations, which is effectively what they are doing. If you had a business and needed money to operate then you would have three options 1) Get a bank loan  2) Sell equity  3) Sell assets.  Nobody is going to give you money. I am telling the club that they can have my money to help towards the goals of not having to choose option 1, and not having to choose option 3, but they have to raise funds from me in a conventional manner which is by doing number 2.

I am fully aware that £30 a share is lost money and that the shares are probably worth more like £1.50, but if I was making an investment for capital gain I would be looking on the FTSE or the AIM, which I do most days. The simple fact is that I do not agree with a business model that makes poor investments, at the expense of the business revenue, which is basically buying the LSE land and getting relegated as a result of not having a transfer budget.

Nobody would give your business money for nothing if you made a bad investment, and the club is not a charity, so gifting money in my opinion is not an acceptable proposal.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

Sorry if I am being stupid here but how does re-investing the money into small pockets of shares hit the current board in the way people wish to? Yes it means that people can still benefit the club financially whilst making the symbolic gesture of claiming their rebate but at the end of the day it will mean that the board still gets the money, the fans still have no control over what they do with it and we end up wiuth a few more minority shareholders with no say whatsoever on how the club is run? So far as I can see it is therefore no different to simply allowing them to keep the rebate or am I missing something?

The only way i could see that it would have an impact and the fans retain some control over how it is spent is if people were prepared to take their rebates and pay them into a specially set up account which could be made available to the board in the event that they come to the fans group with a proposal to buy a player -i.e. an extension of the Norwich City kitty idea. I don''t see this as being any different to what happened with Carl Moore funding Leroy Lita last season. We could, for example, agree to fund (or help fund) the purchase of Alan Lee this summer but would not release the money until a deal was in place. If that was a possibility i for one would pay my rebate into such a fund.

[/quote]

It is different from simple giving them the rebate. In exactly the same way that Peter Cullum wouldnt just ''give'' Norwich money, and exactly the same way that Duncan Bannatyne wouldnt just ''give'' money to somebody on the Dragons Den.

The board get their shareholding ever so slightly diluted, a few percent if all shares were taken up, meaning that they must pay money if they wish to regain that equity share. Just giving money in any form is like saying that we agree with the clubs investments, e.g. spending the transfer budget on land.

If somebody came along and wanted to try and force a takeover, you know like stirring it up, announcing it to the press and actually making an offer........ fans selling him/her their shares sends a strong message about what the fans think is best for the club.

I think its a far better idea if fans bought shares and the board of directors matched that with their own share purchase, that could well be what Foulger does, he might be promising 600k to the club but he might be giving it in the form of equity investment.

Do you want to see 600k given to the club for free, and then see Foulger spending his 600k on shares? Hence increasing the current trios stranglehold over the club, or would you prefer to see any new board equity matched by the men on the street?

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Sorry but even if all £600K was invested into shares by fans it would make f**k all difference and Delia and MWJ would still have complete control over the club.

[/quote]

It wouldnt make any difference, but its a better option in my personal opinion than simply gifting the money to the club.

I personally am taking my rebate, as a matter of principle and to send a message, and then giving the money to the club in exchange for shares. Any of the clubs shares that are not owned by current board is a big bonus in my opinion. Thats what the Supporters Trust does, and plenty of people support them.

You are of course willing to do whatever you wish with your rebate, I am choosing to spend it on shares, each to their own I couldnt care less what you do with yours so I cant see why you give a sh*t about what others do with theres. Its not your money, so dont try and tell people what to do with it.

 

 

[/quote]

 

I''m not telling anyone what to do with their money. I was just pointing out that if you do what you are proposing then the net result is basically the same - the club gets to keep the rebate money and can do what they like with it so you haven''t really made a point at all. If you are happy with that then fine but if your main driver is, as you suggest, to make a point to the board then this is not really the way to go about it. It may be different if all the money went to the trust who could then say to the club we will only invest this in return for a fan getting a seat on the board but they can''t do that. In effect you will have 3 worthless shares and the board will still have your £75 to do with as they see fit.

[/quote]

Actually they are £30 each, and a minimum purchase of 4. I just disagree with you, as simple as. There is a strong difference between giving money to the club as a gift and giving money to the club in exchange for equity, irrespective of the size of that holding. No other business other than a football club would get away with asking for donations, which is effectively what they are doing. If you had a business and needed money to operate then you would have three options 1) Get a bank loan  2) Sell equity  3) Sell assets.  Nobody is going to give you money. I am telling the club that they can have my money to help towards the goals of not having to choose option 1, and not having to choose option 3, but they have to raise funds from me in a conventional manner which is by doing number 2.

I am fully aware that £30 a share is lost money and that the shares are probably worth more like £1.50, but if I was making an investment for capital gain I would be looking on the FTSE or the AIM, which I do most days. The simple fact is that I do not agree with a business model that makes poor investments, at the expense of the business revenue, which is basically buying the LSE land and getting relegated as a result of not having a transfer budget.

Nobody would give your business money for nothing if you made a bad investment, and the club is not a charity, so gifting money in my opinion is not an acceptable proposal.

[/quote]

Yes but that is effectively what you are doing isn''t it if you buy 3 shares worth £1.50 each for £30 each. You are giving the directors of the business a new injection of capital. The same directors whose business model you say you so vehemently disagree with? I get your point that it is a way of putting money into the club whilst still symbolically taking the rebate but at the end of the day its hardly teaching Delia & Co a lesson as they will be getting the money from you anyway. If everyone did the same the would be £600K better off and simply have a few more minority shareholders who have no say whatsoever in practice, In fact the club will be worse off because Foulger is not offering to match share purchases whereas if you left the money in by not claiming the rebate he would have to match it!