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

[Pete T]

So would nobody go for a change to the constitution to ensure fans' protection/say in the club (in a different way to the 24.9% sense), rather than a buy shares free-for-all?

 

Just saying - I think its something worth exploring.

 

Take your point. But look at what happens when we have the internet, passion and the season tickets. We all know that Vale is worth v little without the fans and team being succesful. Go figure?

[Pete T]

Personally i think the 24.9% rule is unworkable and can't believe peiople get so hung up about it$ what many have missed is the propsed Ameriturf investment will give the board and Ameriturf acting in concert circa 55%. What is the difference of this scenario and Mo owning 51%?

 

Er......lots. And you know it you tease.

[Aussie Rules]

Personally i think the 24.9% rule is unworkable and can't believe peiople get so hung up about it$ what many have missed is the propsed Ameriturf investment will give the board and Ameriturf acting in concert circa 55%. What is the difference of this scenario and Mo owning 51%?

 

Ayup Tim, currently with PJ in charge to change the writing on the side of the barn to suit his own agenda it seems to me he couldn't give a rodents posteria what per-centage is needed - he still remains 'Napoleon' :)

 

ps enjoy your weekend :)

[cheshirevaliant]

Great post from V62. Presumably the proxy vote is now in the hands of Dave Felstead (apologies if I've got that wrong)? If so, I trust him more than 99% of others to make the right decision for the future of PVFC. Don't let me down Mr F :)

[NW9Valiant]

Take your point. But look at what happens when we have the internet, passion and the season tickets. We all know that Vale is worth v little without the fans and team being succesful. Go figure?

 

Exactly, I don't know if I'm reading you wrong here - but I think fans ownership of shares needs to be enshrined in the constitution, just not in the same vein as 24.9% or to deter a major investor. A major investor of 50.1% of shares would not want to be at odds with the rest of the shareholders, especially if an elected board of directors involved actual fans, voted by the fans/protected shareholders.

 

Fans voices should be heard, not sold outright or unnoticed by the chairman/majority shareholders.

 

Just my view. I want Mo in don't get me wrong and want change, I don't see anybody else ready to buy the club with what he has set up, his 'vision'. However I would appreciate a gesture of goodwill to allow fans to retain shares for the fans.

 

If LB is reading, this isn't about trust of you/Mo, its about keeping the best interest of Port Vale at heart. That's not to say you don't have that, but fans should still have their say. Is there a limit to Mo's intended shareholding? I know ultimately he wants 51%, either alone or with Mark Sims. But will it stop there? That is the question I think of from those who have genuine concerns. At least its the only one I can think of.

 

I would hope too that the interim board takes this into account. Do forgive me, if this has already been said/put in writing and I've missed it.

[Pete T]

Exactly, I don't know if I'm reading you wrong here - but I think fans ownership of shares needs to be enshrined in the constitution, just not in the same vein as 24.9% or to deter a major investor. A major investor of 50.1% of shares would not want to be at odds with the rest of the shareholders, especially if an elected board of directors involved actual fans, voted by the fans/protected shareholders.

 

Fans voices should be heard, not sold outright or unnoticed by the chairman/majority shareholders.

 

Just my view. I want Mo in don't get me wrong and want change, I don't see anybody else ready to buy the club with what he has set up, his 'vision'. However I would appreciate a gesture of goodwill to allow fans to retain shares for the fans.

 

If LB is reading, this isn't about trust of you/Mo, its about keeping the best interest of Port Vale at heart. That's not to say you don't have that, but fans should still have their say. Is there a limit to Mo's intended shareholding? I know ultimately he wants 51%, either alone or with Mark Sims. But will it stop there? That is the question I think of from those who have genuine concerns. At least its the only one I can think of.

 

I would hope too that the interim board takes this into account. Do forgive me, if this has already been said/put in writing and I've missed it.

 

I am not being a twonk here. Are you a share holder? If you are you would have the constitution and the accounts. All (sorry, most) of the answers are there. If not , then it's all on tinternet for you to read. My (and everyone else's ) small shareholdings are ours for ever. Unless there is liquidation. I hope that there is a "gold rush" to purchase shares now. And Mo and whoever can: buy stacks. Good luck to em. That may even result in a further issue of shares dependant upon valuation of the club. GOOD. Investment is good for the Vale. If the control element (board) starts going off message then you can bet your bottom $, me and 100s of others will be on the case like a shot.

 

VTID

[andy jones]

Valiant62,

 

Your views are well presented and have been noted.

 

Many thanks for taking the time to express them.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dave

[NW9Valiant]

No, I'm not a shareholder.

 

I have a understanding from most of what I've read and what I know already. I know that extra shares can be issued/bought, thus diluting the shares of minority shareholders and increasing the shareholding of the one purchasing. Robbie bought 24.9% at the time but it's not 24.9% now.

 

So what's to stop a more serious investment/shareholding from occurring from the person(s) actually pumping even more money in and alienating minority shareholders? Some want to be 'heard', feel a part of the running of the club, even if they can't take on much investment themselves.

 

I can forsee quite a few people buying in or buying more of the unsold shares, that's all good. I'm just saying that shareholding percentage of some number should be absolutely protected, rather than a free-for-all for anyone to buy, or for someone to decide who buys in.

 

Anyone should be allowed shares in my opinion (I know the private company shares makes this a different reality at present/in the past). I'm saying some reserved number at the very least should ensure fans are heard at AGMs, and ideally on the board as a fans voice. Investors can still invest with the end of 24.9%. I would not want a repeat of V2001 doing what they please at AGMs.

 

In short, I'm not saying 24.9% should be the limit for a shareholder. Absolutely not. Or necessarily 51% - just a guarantee fans can, and will have a say.

 

Rather than the stuff Glenn used to come out with, I was very nearly swayed by him over PMs into buying shares when I joined OVF, but I thought better of it.

 

Will I buy shares now? Tempted, but I'd like to know a) what I'm getting into, b) how will things be different to V2001 and c) that it's not a worthless investment of cash (as V2001 made many shares virtually worthless, if I'm to believe what I read).

 

Hope you understand my points/arguments, sorry this is long!

[Pete T]

No, I'm not a shareholder.

 

I have a understanding from most of what I've read and what I know already. I know that extra shares can be issued/bought, thus diluting the shares of minority shareholders and increasing the shareholding of the one purchasing. Robbie bought 24.9% at the time but it's not 24.9% now.

 

So what's to stop a more serious investment/shareholding from occurring from the person(s) actually pumping even more money in and alienating minority shareholders? Some want to be 'heard', feel a part of the running of the club, even if they can't take on much investment themselves.

 

I can forsee quite a few people buying in or buying more of the unsold shares, that's all good. I'm just saying that shareholding percentage of some number should be absolutely protected, rather than a free-for-all for anyone to buy, or for someone to decide who buys in.

 

Anyone should be allowed shares in my opinion (I know the private company shares makes this a different reality at present/in the past). I'm saying some reserved number at the very least should ensure fans are heard at AGMs, and ideally on the board as a fans voice. Investors can still invest with the end of 24.9%. I would not want a repeat of V2001 doing what they please at AGMs.

 

In short, I'm not saying 24.9% should be the limit for a shareholder. Absolutely not. Or necessarily 51% - just a guarantee fans can, and will have a say.*

 

Rather than the stuff Glenn used to come out with, I was very nearly swayed by him over PMs into buying shares when I joined OVF, but I thought better of it.

 

Will I buy shares now? Tempted, but I'd like to know a) what I'm getting into, b) how will things be different to V2001 and c) that it's not a worthless investment of cash (as V2001 made many shares virtually worthless, if I'm to believe what I read).

 

Hope you understand my points/arguments, sorry this is long!

 

We live in a capitalist society. Ever notice that? Glenn wanted the best of both. Aint gonna happen. More money goes in via shares the higher the ante for the gread heads. We who want the best for Vale and our results, days out etc etc (glory ....one day.... before I die please?).

 

a) bottomless pit of destroyed money, better give to charity really.

b) can't be any worse. And I know where they live.

c) still worth what's printed on the share cert mate. And you get as many votes as you can afford to buy. That's capitalism.

 

It's not perfect but I refer you to my previous obs about NLV, B&G, SeO, people power etc. It is ONLY money and pride that got us here. And them out, (hopefully?)

 

VTID

[geosname]

What a refreshing thread to read.... debate, point and counter point, reasonable, civilized.... this is the way problems can be resolved to achieve the best possible outcome.

[Pete T]

What a refreshing thread to read.... debate, point and counter point, reasonable, civilized.... this is the way problems can be resolved to achieve the best possible outcome.

 

Cheers. We should all meet up at the Bull's Head Boslem, about 3pm 01/06/11

 

It's on me. 1st round at least...........

[Tone]

Personally i think the 24.9% rule is unworkable and can't believe peiople get so hung up about it$ what many have missed is the propsed Ameriturf investment will give the board and Ameriturf acting in concert circa 55%. What is the difference of this scenario and Mo owning 51%?

 

You are absolutely right, no question.

 

But equally, a new investor with 24.9% reduces the (current) board's shareholding to roughly 21% (someone can do the precise maths, I am sure).

[Pete T]

You are absolutely right, no question.

 

But equally, a new investor with 24.9% reduces the (current) board's shareholding to roughly 21% (someone can do the precise maths, I am sure).

 

Say the board have 28%:

 

Some one invests 24.9%

 

The board have 28%/1.249 = 22.4%

 

In reality other amounts have gone into shares in the interim, so, yes 21% is about right soon.

 

My Mum would be proud of my maths when tired, excited and overly refreshed.

[Aussie Rules]

Say the board have 28%:

 

Some one invests 24.9%

 

The board have 28%/1.249 = 22.4%

 

In reality other amounts have gone into shares in the interim, so, yes 21% is about right soon.

 

My Mum would be proud of my maths when tired, excited and overly refreshed.

 

As long as you're not keeping you Miles Green neighbours awake it's orayte ah kid :D

[Pete T]

As long as you're not keeping you Miles Green neighbours awake it's orayte ah kid :D

 

Bless you. They been dead here since 1066. Middle a no where duck. Taxi to boslem is £7.50. That's how far from Porthill my misspent life has dragged me.