| Trust meeting 22:52 - Sep 5 with 4049 views | jackrmee |
Attended my first Trust meeting tonight.
Extremely interesting and it answered a lot of questions I had about the takeover and the issue the Trust has with the board etc.
Also helped me work out a bit about how shareholding works (I think). Glad I went.
Left me with a lot of questions though. More than I had in the first place probably haha.
I always thought that it would make business sense to buy more shares in order to increase your stake in a business/club, but realised tonight that it means the same if you have 5% or if you have 21.1%. Mad that.
That leads me to my first question...
Is there any point in keeping the 21% if the trust were offered a fair price for them, or is 5-7% basically the same?
Question 2)
What is the best case scenario from the Trust's point of view?, that they get a good price for their shares and they can sell them and keep 5-7% in order to keep a person on the board?
Or is the board position so pathetic and meaningless that they may as well sell the whole fcking shamonka?
Question 3)
Seems that we have 2 hopes...
a) We hope the club does well and have to put up with the Yanks stay as profiteering owners.
b) We hope the club goes downhill and the club's value falls enough for the Trust to buy more of a stake with the money they get from selling the shares, if/when the Yanks decide to cut their losses.
Is that sickeningly the case? |  |
| |  |
| Trust meeting on 22:57 - Sep 5 with 4019 views | omarjack |
So you just wasted your time listening to the same old recycled sh!t. The trust is like the Roman parliament in the old times, cowering their heads in shame at the mention of the Emperor who controls all, keeping an illusion of "democracy". |  |
| |
| Trust meeting on 23:00 - Sep 5 with 3999 views | jack2jack |
Funnily enough, I've been asking Jackanuck, about shares etc,bit of a minefield tbh. |  | | |
| Trust meeting on 23:08 - Sep 5 with 3961 views | jackrmee |
| Trust meeting on 22:57 - Sep 5 by omarjack |
So you just wasted your time listening to the same old recycled sh!t. The trust is like the Roman parliament in the old times, cowering their heads in shame at the mention of the Emperor who controls all, keeping an illusion of "democracy". |
Impression i got was they're not cowering their heads...
But I definitely see the illusion of democracy haha. Sounds to me that The Trust have absolutely no say or respect of the owners whtsoever. But surely that's not right. I also have the feeling that these Yanks are clever fckers and have already covered their tracks for any legal action and will just fvck us off in the end without so much as a by or leave | |
| |
| Trust meeting on 14:00 - Sep 6 with 3685 views | Catullus |
5-7% isn't equal to 21% in voting rights though both are irrelevant if someone holds 51%.
Given the lack of influence, banking a decent sum now doesn't seem like a bad shout though on question 3, I'd rather the Americans stayed if we were succesful under them, it's not really a hard choice, if they are taking profit but we are still moving upwards it's a price worth paying. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting on 14:13 - Sep 6 with 3655 views | Nookiejack |
If the club is truly broke then the Trust will simply be diluted Away when the Yanks next I next equity into the club - the Trust being continually warned that this would happen in downward spiral scenario. Yet they faffed around for last 3 years since Yanks v1.0.
However if Yanks have truly asset stripped Club and have built up £50m with additional parachute payments to come - then Trust should receive 21% of this. Key thing then is to ensure management fees are not paid offshore to Kaplan and Levein”s offshore Delaware vehicle. | | | |
| Trust meeting on 15:56 - Sep 6 with 3564 views | BLAZE |
Just a few days ago you started a condescending thread telling others to 'stop going on about the board'. Glad to see you've grasped that they weren't doing so out of boredom, but because it's an important issue that affects the future of our football club.
Backing the team and confronting the regime aren't mutually exclusive. We can do both. |  | | |
| Trust meeting on 16:06 - Sep 6 with 3545 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting on 15:56 - Sep 6 by BLAZE |
Just a few days ago you started a condescending thread telling others to 'stop going on about the board'. Glad to see you've grasped that they weren't doing so out of boredom, but because it's an important issue that affects the future of our football club.
Backing the team and confronting the regime aren't mutually exclusive. We can do both. |
One thing is for certain, a lot of skeletons will come out of closets soon |  |
| |
| Trust meeting on 17:05 - Sep 6 with 3444 views | longlostjack |
| Trust meeting on 14:00 - Sep 6 by Catullus |
5-7% isn't equal to 21% in voting rights though both are irrelevant if someone holds 51%.
Given the lack of influence, banking a decent sum now doesn't seem like a bad shout though on question 3, I'd rather the Americans stayed if we were succesful under them, it's not really a hard choice, if they are taking profit but we are still moving upwards it's a price worth paying. |
If the Trust owned less than 10% of the shares I believe that the majority shareholder could force them to sell their shares if they make them a “reasonable “ offer. [Post edited 6 Sep 2018 17:13]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting on 07:47 - Sep 7 with 3132 views | swanforthemoney |
| Trust meeting on 16:06 - Sep 6 by waynekerr55 |
One thing is for certain, a lot of skeletons will come out of closets soon |
Are you suggesting we have some closet gay skeletons? |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Trust meeting on 10:53 - Sep 8 with 2935 views | jackrmee |
| Trust meeting on 15:56 - Sep 6 by BLAZE |
Just a few days ago you started a condescending thread telling others to 'stop going on about the board'. Glad to see you've grasped that they weren't doing so out of boredom, but because it's an important issue that affects the future of our football club.
Backing the team and confronting the regime aren't mutually exclusive. We can do both. |
Pardon me, but I don't think it was condescending at all. Do you even know what that means? How on earth was I ptronising, or thinking I'm superior??!
It was simply an idea I think will benefit our playing squad and the positivity around the club and fans in general.
I fully agree that the board are not good, but was simply imploring people to stop going on and on about past issues and concentrate on things in the present. Hence the trust meeting, the performances on the pitch, the playing style and the things they are starting to get under way now.
I wasn't accusing people of doing so out of boredom, just that moaning is not helping at all.
Past is the past. Stop dwelling on it.
Does that patronise you mate?
If you want to do something then do it, don't type | |
| |
| Trust meeting on 11:05 - Sep 8 with 2916 views | wobbly |
| Trust meeting on 14:00 - Sep 6 by Catullus |
5-7% isn't equal to 21% in voting rights though both are irrelevant if someone holds 51%.
Given the lack of influence, banking a decent sum now doesn't seem like a bad shout though on question 3, I'd rather the Americans stayed if we were succesful under them, it's not really a hard choice, if they are taking profit but we are still moving upwards it's a price worth paying. |
And 21% is even more irrelevant if the other party has 75.1%. Which remember the Americans do. Although they only own 68% of the shares, remember Martin Morgan and Huw Jenkins also handed over a few more of their voting rights for the money they took, just to ensure the Americans could do absolutely whatever they want at the expense of the minority shareholders. Which includes of course all of us as supporters.
Just in case anyone forgot quite what bast*rds Martin And Huw were when they did that deal on the quiet. |  | | |
| Trust meeting on 12:25 - Sep 8 with 2869 views | jackrmee |
| Trust meeting on 11:05 - Sep 8 by wobbly |
And 21% is even more irrelevant if the other party has 75.1%. Which remember the Americans do. Although they only own 68% of the shares, remember Martin Morgan and Huw Jenkins also handed over a few more of their voting rights for the money they took, just to ensure the Americans could do absolutely whatever they want at the expense of the minority shareholders. Which includes of course all of us as supporters.
Just in case anyone forgot quite what bast*rds Martin And Huw were when they did that deal on the quiet. |
If they only own 68%, what does the 75.1% mean?
How much would the Trust need to increase to to no longer be "irrelevant"? | |
| |
| Trust meeting on 12:27 - Sep 8 with 2867 views | jasfan |
I thought the Trust meeting this week was very informative about the mediation process and the work being done behind the scenes by the legal team. Based on that it wouldn't suprise me if the American owners are only just realising the strength of the Trust's case, hence them contacting the Trust's legal team after the mediation deadline.
I feel there are some very positive things happening on the pitch at present and I am throroughly enjoying many aspects of the team's performances. Ideally the American owners will recognise that the progress being made by the manager and the current mediation efforts taking place provide an ideal opportunity to bring the Football Club back together in a unified effort to regain its status as a successful Premier League Club.
Although I have criticised the Trust in the past I am much more positive about its current direction, focus, handling of the forum meeting and attempts to improve communication. I would urge fans to get behind the Trust in the weeks ahead and show their confidence in the elected board members to ensure that it is successful in pursuing its aims as described on its website.
Jack army! [Post edited 8 Sep 2018 12:40]
| | | |
| Trust meeting on 14:05 - Sep 8 with 2769 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting on 12:25 - Sep 8 by jackrmee |
If they only own 68%, what does the 75.1% mean?
How much would the Trust need to increase to to no longer be "irrelevant"? |
They have 75.1% of voting rights as the 'by fans for fans brigade signed over their voting rights from their residual shareholding | |
| |
| Trust meeting on 14:27 - Sep 8 with 2741 views | jack_lord |
| Trust meeting on 14:05 - Sep 8 by waynekerr55 |
They have 75.1% of voting rights as the 'by fans for fans brigade signed over their voting rights from their residual shareholding |
I'd love to put them in a room, with a camera, and get them to explain why they did that.
Would the club have been able to build itself without the trust all those years ago? |  |
| |
| Trust meeting on 14:48 - Sep 8 with 2720 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting on 14:27 - Sep 8 by jack_lord |
I'd love to put them in a room, with a camera, and get them to explain why they did that.
Would the club have been able to build itself without the trust all those years ago? |
They'd only let you do that if you signed the rights over to Mal Pope.
On a serious note nobody could blame them, if they were may a tiny bit more honest rather than playing the' by fans for fans ' bôllocks then it would have been more palatable IMO | |
| |
| Trust meeting on 15:36 - Sep 8 with 2663 views | Badlands |
Do well with shareholders who take a slice of the profit or,
become Wrexham?
Is that a serious option? |  |
| |
| Trust meeting on 17:09 - Sep 8 with 2572 views | jasfan |
| Trust meeting on 15:36 - Sep 8 by Badlands |
Do well with shareholders who take a slice of the profit or,
become Wrexham?
Is that a serious option? |
Those are false choices.
There are a range of ownership models and a given model does not necessarily guarantee success. | | | |
| Trust meeting on 19:13 - Sep 8 with 2478 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting on 15:36 - Sep 8 by Badlands |
Do well with shareholders who take a slice of the profit or,
become Wrexham?
Is that a serious option? |
 | |
| |
| Trust meeting on 19:14 - Sep 8 with 2477 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting on 17:09 - Sep 8 by jasfan |
Those are false choices.
There are a range of ownership models and a given model does not necessarily guarantee success. |
Don't feed the troll mun.
He just needs to accept that they've been a tad sneaky. That's why people are hacked off, not because they've cashed in | |
| |
| Trust meeting on 19:59 - Sep 8 with 2443 views | BLAZE |
| Trust meeting on 10:53 - Sep 8 by jackrmee |
Pardon me, but I don't think it was condescending at all. Do you even know what that means? How on earth was I ptronising, or thinking I'm superior??!
It was simply an idea I think will benefit our playing squad and the positivity around the club and fans in general.
I fully agree that the board are not good, but was simply imploring people to stop going on and on about past issues and concentrate on things in the present. Hence the trust meeting, the performances on the pitch, the playing style and the things they are starting to get under way now.
I wasn't accusing people of doing so out of boredom, just that moaning is not helping at all.
Past is the past. Stop dwelling on it.
Does that patronise you mate?
If you want to do something then do it, don't type |
I just don't believe you should tell people what they should and shouldn't do (i.e. 'stop going on about the board!!'), when - as implied by this thread at least - you weren't in possession of all the facts to begin with. Social media is full of uninformed* voices shouting down those wanting to do something about the off-field issues, we don't need them here too.
* people who have no interest in how the club is run and will shout down those that do under some belief that it will affect results [Post edited 8 Sep 2018 20:03]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
