Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater – a message for Dave Felstead

[AVIM]

At most, Mo wants 74% of the club and has for example stated that any vote to sell or remove Port Vale from the ground should only be done with at least 75% fo the shares in order to protect this position

 

So what does his 3.8m in convertibles give him, once converted to shares? Honest question, I havent done the math. But I would have thought it would be greater than 75%.

[geosname]

As its been explained several times... and again above... the EGM [GM] is NOT about Mo... It may open the door....

Its for the EGM to decide if the % rule is scrapped... then go on to take charge in a temporary capacity.... what goes on after that is up for discussion.... if your happy with Mark you should be happy to accept his recommendations.... when they are made

I thought it was the responsibility of the supporters club to vote for what the fans want, not what the supporters club wants, and in doing so must take into account the 1500 coffin dodgers, 1000+ B&G, the SeO petition the RW petition and the NLV poll.... not to mention the fans who post on fan websites.

I trust Dave to do what he has been entrusted to do.

Today is not about ousting the board [thats june 1st] Its about the voice of the fans being heard... it that respect it is a resounding victory.

 

A tree has fallen in the forest and this time the board can not pretend they didnt hear it

[Valiant62]

A fair post mate! I agree on the joint chaudry/sims bid to a point. For me that was bratt and the boards ultimate last chance unfortunately they blew it with lies, bull**** and hypocrisy in their response. This is why I'm totally against any of the principles v2001stand 4 fullstop, as the current board have abused them beyond belief! I don't want my club in this situation ever again!

 

I suppose where I differ is in that I don't equate (or maybe just don't want to equate) the board's abuse of the principles with the idea that they must be fundamentally unworkable.

I agree that the argument "it doesn't work" has its strengths - probably the change away from one shareholder = one vote was prompted by an inability to get investment in on that basis rather than some Machiavellian plot to gain control. However, there are some models out there that seem give a lot of power to supporters and seem to be working. I'd like the interim board to be looking at those and seeing what they can negotiate with Chaudry.

Re the egm being solely about getting rid of the board - that's officially true but things like the B&G campaign's explicit backing of Chaudry give the 51% option a lot of momentum and I maintain there's a danger of missing an opportunity to explore all options if the egm results in change.

[Smallthorne Dog]

Im on the mobile, and cant quote the intial post, but its a fine example of how i believe a silent minority of the clubs supporters feel.

 

With regards to the question posed. I cant see the breaks being put on and all avenues explored and i dont think Mo Chaudry will settle for anything other than total control. The best hope for Mo sceptics is a significant investment from Mark Sims that will see him act as a gaudian against our Chaudry fears.

[Shropshire_Valiant]

The ethos of V2001 is just like the purest form of socialism.

 

A utopia. One that in practice is corrupted all too easily by the personal ambitions of men.

 

I see the future as a combination of a wealthy investor and fan ownership. Mo has the financial clout and acumen and the contacts the club requires. The fans still have the opportunity to continue buying shares - something I would certainly be up for doing.

 

What V2001 has shown is that the utopia is a house built on sand. It will do the job for a period, but ultimately it will come crashing down on itself.

 

Excellent post sv, sums it up perfectly!

[Guest TommyMac]

I suppose where I differ is in that I don't equate (or maybe just don't want to equate) the board's abuse of the principles with the idea that they must be fundamentally unworkable.

I agree that the argument "it doesn't work" has its strengths - probably the change away from one shareholder = one vote was prompted by an inability to get investment in on that basis rather than some Machiavellian plot to gain control. However, there are some models out there that seem give a lot of power to supporters and seem to be working. I'd like the interim board to be looking at those and seeing what they can negotiate with Chaudry.

Re the egm being solely about getting rid of the board - that's officially true but things like the B&G campaign's explicit backing of Chaudry give the 51% option a lot of momentum and I maintain there's a danger of missing an opportunity to explore all options if the egm results in change.

 

I hear what you're saying but where is the investment that one vote per share has brought in. I believe this rule has been the greatest barrier to significant investment in our club.

[AVIM]

Im on the mobile, and cant quote the intial post, but its a fine example of how i believe a silent minority of the clubs supporters feel.

 

With regards to the question posed. I cant see the breaks being put on and all avenues explored and i dont think Mo Chaudry will settle for anything other than total control. The best hope for Mo sceptics is a significant investment from Mark Sims that will see him act as a gaudian against our Chaudry fears.

 

But against 5m? Mark would have to put in a lot to have any kind of meaningful say.

[Macc Lad]

Well said, Valiant 62. At last someone has put into words the niggling concerns I have felt about those on OVF who have wholeheartedly swallowed just one approach to the future of the club. I'm still really not happy about one person having so much control and just because the V2001 model did not work out with the current board, it doesn't mean that something along similar lines or a hybrid could not succeed.

 

Like you I hope minds are open to different models of running our club and not just one narrow option.

[saintvaliant]

But against 5m? Mark would have to put in a lot to have any kind of meaningful say.

 

VFIM. Mark would have to put a lot in I agree. But who is to say that there aren't others out there who wouldn't invest under the current regime but under a new beginning would do so?

 

Sims is potentially the tip of the iceberg. How many ordinary rank and file fans have stopped buying shares under V2001? I know I'm one. I know of countless others who have. Individually we may not be big amounts, but collectively we could be huge.

 

If on Wednesday we get our club back, the sky really is the limit IMHO. For too long we have been held back by inertia and the self motivation of a select few and I for one am sick to the back teeth of accepting our place as 'little' or 'cash strapped' Port Vale.

 

We are on the brink of a new dawn. It won't be easy, and I dare say at times it'll be downright seat of the pants scary.

 

But it has to be better than what we've been through?

 

This club isn't the board's. It's not Mo's. It is OURS. It is time to stand up for that and to pick the club off the canvas.

 

Our time is now.

[Trentham Lakes Valiant]

So what does his 3.8m in convertibles give him, once converted to shares? Honest question, I havent done the math. But I would have thought it would be greater than 75%.

 

Total available share capital is £5m of which app £1.2m is already owned. When Mo makes his first payment, that will rise to c£2.4m. I am now most interested in what restrictions, if any, will be put on other individuals wishing to buy shares/increase their holding. eg. If I buy £100 of shares and another 100 people do the same, Mo would have to match that to keep his 51%.

If no such restrictions are made, then I can see a large cash injection into the Club in a short space of time.

Having said all that, I'm quite happy to let the dust settle for a week or two before I start to pursue the matter:)

[Valiant62]

The ethos of V2001 is just like the purest form of socialism.

A utopia. One that in practice is corrupted all too easily by the personal ambitions of men.

I see the future as a combination of a wealthy investor and fan ownership. Mo has the financial clout and acumen and the contacts the club requires. The fans still have the opportunity to continue buying shares - something I would certainly be up for doing.

What V2001 has shown is that the utopia is a house built on sand. It will do the job for a period, but ultimately it will come crashing down on itself.

 

Interesting political analogy and a useful argument, I think.

As with the current wider economic crisis I think we've seen socialism fail, but we've also seen the unfettered free market fail. People are looking to the Keynesian type stuff about private ownership with tight outside regulation. Getting back to your "combination" idea, that's basically what I'm proposing as my ideal solution - 24.9% proxied (assuming Robbie's willingness to do that longer term) to an accountable fan's organisation, 24.9% to a successful Vale fan / businessman (Simms) 24.9% to a particularly wealthy entrepreneur with deep pockets and something to prove, 25.3% to others. That gives a much smaller, more mobile and accountable board (say three people) as well as protecting "the community" from unregulated / unsafe business practice. Problem is... could we sell that idea to Chaudry?

I think we should at the very least be pausing to negotiate, and I'm anxious that a new interim board might act in haste without doing so. I happen to think getting the structure right is more important than getting every last penny we can out of Chaudry.

[leek.Valiant]

The availability of Robbie's proxy to the supporters club is clearly a game changer. Dave's (aka Andy Jones?) views are pretty well documented, but I believe his responsibility is to only represent them in his own vote if he has shares and to make genuine attempts to start from scratch in getting a consensus from those who make their voices heard tomorrow, and vote with that majority whether he likes it personally or not. We're all assuming an outcome of that meeting but I think Dave should suspend that assumption.

If the vote does go in the direction of change, again, from a personal point of view, I'd like us to make the most of this golden opportunity.

I still subscribe to the general principles of V2001 and would like any interim board to explore the best way of reconstructing the club structure to re-establish some of those values. When the Mo =24.9, Mark = 24.9 offer was on the table, that was the outcome I most liked the look of. Chaudry has money and has been a net success, but like any entrepreneur has some failures in amongst that. The going will get tough at some point and entrepreneurs do often walk away at that point. I hear all the assurances but if he's successful in getting in it will take a while for me to build trust and that trust will come when he responds to a crisis, not when things are going well. Mark Simms' pockets aren't as deep, but for me he carries the credibility of having supported the club in an altruistic manner in the past. I'd like Robbie to maintain a 24.9% interest with his proxy given to the supporters club. There would be issues to guard against in that scenario around the supporters' club's representiveness and accountability and I think that may involve revisiting the checks and balances in how that is assured, but the outcome of that sort of model would give us the “old V2001” (if it ever existed) back.

The question is, would people settle for less money from Chaudry and would he settle for less than 51% control.

I reckon this time next week, we'll have an interim board. If that happens, I really want to see them put the brakes on and have a wide ranging discussion / negotiation about the way forward. It will be a great opportunity - if we hand over 51% to Chaudry, that's a pretty final sale of the family silver (admittedly for the greatest short term investment) and might not be the best long term sustainable deal we can get. I hope we don't rush into bed with him without getting a ring on our finger.

 

That is a very good post my friend. My hunch would be to go with Chaudry but at the same time we need to seriously think about the safest way to go forward. Some involvement with Mark Simms would be best as far as I'm concerned due to his long time association with the club but Mo is offering us an opportunity we can't afford to miss.

[Macc Lad]

So, Valiant62, does that make Mo and Mike Newton examples of the neo-cons of the beautiful game?

[NW9Valiant]

Forgive me if I'm being a bit simplistic in the suggestion, but wouldn't it be worth floating the idea to adopt the German model of ownership (iirc its 49% shares protected to the fans of the club) to the constitution, rather than the 24.9% rule in place?

 

Would that allay the fears of people that are genuinely worried about Mo?

[Valiant62]

So, Valiant62, does that make Mo and Mike Newton examples of the neo-cons of the beautiful game?

 

:D I can't deny a little bit of prejudice about the fact that Mo's a Toryboy.

Seriously, though, 49% I'm entirely comfortable with, 51% and I start getting nervous. If it was the only deal we could negotiate so be it, but I think that's a weaker position.

By the same token, I do like the idea of two or three people having 24.9% of the shares (or even Chaudry having 49.9%) because I don't think a cast of thousands would run (has run) the club well.