TOPIC: Club statement re trust meeting

I think in part it is similar to some of your proposals Laffy, the major difference being that the "reluctant" custodians are planning to reluctantly keep their levels of holdings or increase them as well as lowering the debt shown on the balance sheet. For the club, in terms of control, your proposal was far superior because of sharing the burden of ownership much more widely.

I wouldn't invest-and £250k is hardly going to scratch the surface with the current regime in my view.

It's like Animal Farm!

Laffy wrote:
Isn't that banned?

Which books are you reading?

Laffy wrote:
Using a socialist dystopia as a get out of jail card?

We know what you meant

Well if you like books about money and power,I commend 'When Money Dies'-classic

Moorlad wrote:
I agree Moorlad youre right we are a long way from Administration.and the only way to speed that up would be a NAPM protest from the fans but that comes at a large risk to any investment in the team somthing its pretty clear even a lot on here wont countenance never mind the happy clapping season ticket buying brigade.

So as a finance professional maybe you could make clear a couple of points from what youve read.in the statement etc.

Do you believe the Trusts golden share prevents Jenkins and co going ahead with this plan without their agreement ?

If it is as most people seem to believe an A and B share plan if they go ahead with it and the Trust dont take part and they dont find any other investors willing to purchase the B shares and Jenkins takes the lot and converts £1m of his debt into B shares. Does the overall control of both the holding company [thru the A shares ] and the 1921 company thru the Holding companys 94% holding remain unchanged ? and if so what would be the advantage to Jenkins personally.

I can see the advantage for the club in that it would remove £1m of debt from the accounts and that it would create a supposedly saleable asset for Jenkins himself but i see no great resale value in B shares being that they would bring no element of control of the company for him to sell and in my opinion he would be just as likely if not more so to get an investor to buy say a million quids worth of his debt for say a couple of hundred grand.because as Laffy says he who owns the debt controls the club.

Let me know if you would disagree with any of the above Moorlad .

In order for this proposal to go through there would need to be an EGM. There are only four shareholders in the holding company. As stated earlier there has to be at least 75% of the shareholdings in favour (i.e. 101 of the 134 shares) As the trust hold 34 shares they can block the offer.
If the above offer could be done without this, do you not think Fred would have done it when he was in charge.
There is no golden share. The Trusts 25.4% holding does the same job. That's maybe why there is some confusion on here.

I think Jenkins and Nixon are starting to get a bit desperate.

One thing it proves is that the 'reluctant custodians' are not bored yet with their power trip and want to carry on for the foreseeable future. They care more about that than the good of the club and they are looking out for themselves.

As has been said a hostile takeover,hounding them out and boycotting their business' is the only way to go now.

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:
Good post Barry, and yes I pretty much agree with all of what you say. However I don't know where the trust's shares stand now, I never really got to the bottom of what they had done when they were prepared to dilute their holding for Laffy's bid and whether they have actually allowed this sort of thing to happen, ie if they've already thrown away the entire golden share thing.

I think for Mr Jenkins personally it would just reinforce his control of the club and would make the debt situation appear more manageable from the point of view of anybody in the future wanting to buy out the club. If they are "B" shares there may even be some sort of dividend guarantee written into them which may be something to watch.

The value - and therefore the control - in the club, I agree entirely with Laffy, is in the debt. This would however make the entire Knighton Holdings company look much more saleable.

Wukkie wrote:
There can be no such thing as a hostile takeover mate. They are unwilling to relinquish their positions of power, and as they are the owners they do not have to sell their shares to anybody, it isn't a PLC, it is a private company and the shares are not traded freely.

So basically we're all waiting until Jenkins kicks the bucket then and the club is fkd in the meantime.

Enough is enough for me. "I'm out".

Has nobody asked them why they want to stay at continue the downward spiral....They really must be deluded if they think they can turn fortunes round. We need to know what the motives are and push for answers..this is where the trust must grow some balls

We as fans are bigger than these lot..contrary to what they think .. so hostile protests to highlight discontent must be used all the time..Time for a us to stop pussy footing about moaning on social media and do something to get our club back ... thats whats wrong with fans now we can all moan on here twitter fb forums etc..Years ago none of it so we vented fury in protests in the flesh!. every other route has been asked.. leaving only 1 choice.. No forums no communication...nothing.....the only place for it is at a match.

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

They need flour and egg bombed at the happy clappers award do for a start.

Flatcap wrote:
As long as the terms of the issue don't change the structure of the capital 50% +1 is enough I think (subject to any golden shares or anything in the articles). The Trust will have to show infringement of their rights or simply frustrate the process, its easy enough done. Check valuation, recheck the valuation, circulate to members, call meetings , request comments by which time the valuation is out of date. Then request a new valuation and start again. Divorce lawyers are experts in this

I agree with you Markovitch-the practical issues should be enough to put this rather crass proposal into the long grass

I have a feeling there may be a phantom on this post......

This is clearly a very clever plan, so surely the first step should be to find out who is advising them. There is no way that any of the 3 have come up with this plan.
The aim of the plan to me is to get the "Trust's investors" to jump ship or fund the Trust. The latter is barmy, but all in the amigos interests.
It also seems clear to me that no money will change hands from the 3 amigos side - whatever cash shortfall there is will see AJs loans converted to shares, with some kind of agreement between the 3 of them on the 134 shares.
A win win for them; lose lose for the Trust (if the amigos can get it through); and no real difference to the club at all as if no money comes in no difference to now, and if it does the debt gets reduced but no cash to the actual club.
All about AJ this I am afraid.

Moorlad wrote:
Moorlad,
It is not a private company. It is a Limited company and must obey company rules, such as publishing accounts and getting them passed by auditors.. It is however not a listed PLC.
Fred would have loved it to be a private company because he could have then ridden all over the Trust without any expensive court cases. That is one of the reasons Storey Construction is still a private company without the hassle of any shareholders.

The big problem with private companies is the owner is responsible for all debts and could end up losing everything including their home iif things go tits up

The Companies Act affords sensible protections to minority shareholdings,further bolstered by the Shareholders Agreement.Beyond that there is the body of public opinion to take into account.

I am sure the Trust will be taking the relevant legal advice.It is simply not possible to railroad a share issue through without detailed proposals so the other three will need to flesh out their plans whether they want to or not

Flatcap wrote:
It is a private company limited by shares, it is not a public limited company. Story Construction Ltd does have issued shares. That whole post really is wrong, do you think Story Construction Ltd is not subject to the Companies Act.

This has confirmed it for me. The "reluctant custodians" are indeed reluctant... Reluctant to give up their position at the club. This is a cynical attempt to discredit those who wants to invest. It's an offer that no one is going to take up and that'll give the reluctant custodians the perfect platform to say how none of the potential investors are serious.

I won't be back at Brunton Park (started my boycott last Saturday, didn't go to the Oxford match purely because of these c*nts) until these f*cking c*nts are dead. I say dead because they won't relinquish control while they are still alive. What a f*cking sorry state of affairs.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

loser wrote:
Firm but fair.

loser wrote:
Stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think.

Completely agree though, and will also be keeping away until the terrible trio are gone.

Thanks for putting me right Moorlad.
As you say they are both private limited companies and not PLC's.
All the shareholders in Storey Construction Limited are owned by the Storey family.

Flatcap wrote:
I think either you meant shares not shareholders or does Story have a load of East Europeans locked in a shed somewhere with a cabinet full if certificates that we dont know about lol

If the bod can't force CUOSC's hand legally with this latest "proposal" I'm now getting round to the idea of doing nothing. AJ will not let the club go into administration so he can just carry on giving, he clearly wants to keep going at the helm. ........as fans we should stop asking what's going on behind the scenes, the media should stop also and just focus on talking football with KC and players . In effect send them to Coventry . Draw a line under all that's gone on , am not saying forget it, just rise above it and support the manager and players.
(Reaches for tin hat)!!!!

Has shaldon hacked your account?

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk