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

[Burslem Academicals]

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%?

 

Excellent post....also if Coates could only invest 24.9% in Stoke City they would more likely be in League 1 than the Premiership.

Anyway read the terms of the Robbie Williams Proxy it's intended as a vote against the Board to neutralise the Boards shareholding on the Poll Vote and in the name of democracy give the fans and shareholders a voice....also it

is not about a vote at the supporters club meeting it is based on the wishes of the fans and the facts and numbers over the last six months...there is no way on earth that Sir Dave can cast the proxy as anything other than a vote against the Board....that is a given.

[MagicFlask]

Just wanted to add my recommendation for the OP - sums up my thoughts too.

 

The maths of maintaining a 51% controlling shareholding in person is a bit complicated though - it would seem to suggest that (if you don't have a fixed amount of issued shares) every time someone else buys shares, then Mo Chaudry would have to increase his shareholding to keep that 51%. Some posters think that's what will happen.

 

Personally, I don't see that as a likely goer....it could work out ridiculously expensive....and implies bottomless pockets. That's not being negative in any way about this.

I suspect that there will be a ceiling on the "issued share capital" so that the only way someone can buy into the club as a shareholder is by buying shares off an existing shareholder. That isn't what a lot of posters on here are suggesting - but I think it's the more likely outcome if someone has to retain a controlling level of shares as a single person.

That would mean that the level of fan-owned shares could potentially go down - which is a scenario I suspect some folk here would be less happy with.

 

What impact that has on potential investment isn't clear - if you can't buy shares, the only other options are loans or donations - and that does raise questions of whether a loan is with the intention of it being repaid or whether it's a loan in name only, and also the status of the person making the loan. That raises an issue about assets and liabilities - and the club's value and dependency on loans not being called in.

 

Not sure if the Uefa rules about levels of indebtedness will ever apply at this level, but it's an interesting issue....

 

Looking forward to more constructive debate, and so pleased that we will be getting the first stage of the change we need over with a lot less painfully than I thought it would be a few days back.

 

I would also agree with the recommendation that Mr F is an interim director - and that would mean there's no need to reduce the number to 3 as well.....which means one less issue to vote on.

[Guest kenny chuckle]

: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.

[MagicFlask]

I agree with V62....I do wish Mo's political views were more like Peter Coates.....I was seriously impressed that (in spite of him funding the "enemy") he's labour through and through.....but we have what we have......

[Edge81]

I dont go along with fan run clubs, rule by comittee etc,too much room for division and jealousy, I prefer the club to be run by one person, it makes decision making easier,and gets things moving,we have seen how long it takes getting everything done at the moment.

 

This does NOT mean I dont want other people on the board to keep the checks and balances, but if its your money you are spending you are going to be more circumspect about the way the club is managed.

 

I dont agree with this "For the People" it always seems to end up messy somehow ===

 

Sorry if that does not go with the popular view

 

It amazes me that our club is owned by 800+ fans, and the board are so resistant for one man to run it as their own when technically those 5 are doing exactly that! I know this is not the place to debate Mo v V2001 but I want to put this out there:

 

Would you prefer the club ran by one man with money, or one man with no money?

 

Mo has a lot more to lose than V2001.

[Mr Carter]

I agree with V62....I do wish Mo's political views were more like Peter Coates.....I was seriously impressed that (in spite of him funding the "enemy") he's labour through and through.....but we have what we have......

 

Yeah and with Gordon Brown as chairman we would be paying the debts off for the next 60 years

[Valiant62]

I would also agree with the recommendation that Mr F is an interim director - and that would mean there's no need to reduce the number to 3 as well.....which means one less issue to vote on.

 

I realise my posting on this thread constitutes blithely committing a few people to do stuff they may not have the inclination or capacity to do, but if being on the interim board precludes being on a substantive future board - I don't want to see Simms or Felstead on the interim board!

[Valiant62]

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 :)

 

Thanks, without wanting to get oversophisticated, I don't think Dave has a decision to make - I think his job is to gather and represent a consensus ... that's likely to result in the same vote, but I'm hoping there could be a future role for the supporter club in a new structure in which case it becomes an important distinction and one that the supporters club needs to check its processes against.

[NW9Valiant]

To the idea of fan owned shares/1 share, one vote. It could be done and I feel there's precedent with Robbie's proxy given to Dave.

 

Robbie wants the fans to be heard, and I'm sure Dave will do that in the best way he can - listening to views today, the NLV poll. But there's a better way to ensure the fans views are listened to.

 

Others could still invest to the amount they want - the likes of Mo/Phil/whoever wants a 'controlling' share, but at least the fans are able to buy in (in some form or other).

 

It's about balancing risk and reward so we're not going for broke; potentially left with a single owner, stuck by a 24.9% rule, hindered by investment or actual fans not being heard.

 

There's always risks involved (I'm aware, capitalism and all that!) and I'm looking forward to the investment by Mo. I just can't help but think there's some opportunity being missed which is why I'm offering suggestions. I'd rather see a compromise with those that are concerned, than simply the majority getting their way.

 

Dave if you are reading this I think it would be a good idea with regards to Robbie's shares, if his proxy in future will only be used with a polling and approval of club supporters. Perhaps setting up a trust in his name or something so he goes with what fans want, rather than being lobbied in future if things go wrong. Should something be established like this in future I think people will feel better for it.

 

Or maybe I'm too idealistic?

[valetillidye]

I honestly dont know what I want

 

We've tried the fan own thing and its failed miserably

 

Having one person in charge though makes me nervous as well

 

I'm just glad I'm not the one deciding !

[tubthumped]

Personally, I don't care. Both can work, both can fail. It's proven all over the country. The important thing is that the person steering the ship has the knowledge and drive to take the club and business forward. I believe that Mo has that. If he is in charge with 25%, 51% or 100% is irrelevant to me.

[valetillidye]

Personally, I don't care. Both can work, both can fail. It's proven all over the country. The important thing is that the person steering the ship has the knowledge and drive to take the club and business forward. I believe that Mo has that. If he is in charge with 25%, 51% or 100% is irrelevant to me.

 

thats how I feel, I think

[davehartshill]

Im not able to attend the meeting. But i want you to use robbies vote against the board.

[carpetman123]

look its simple the fan owned thing has not worked at all too many cooks in my opinion so its back to the one owner and like tubthumped has said you have to trust in someone sometime, I also believe that Mo is that man and his team he brings to the table, he's local ,has his business's here and I dont think for a minute he's gonna **** us over, the only thing i,m wary of is if it does go **** up then what we need is an exit strategy in place so we dont have to go through all this again say in 7-8 years time.

 

Like I say when you go on holiday you,ve got to trust the pilot to do his job!!!

[CambridgeDon]

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.

 

That proportion of shareholding would, for me, provide the kind of checks and balances we need to ensure long-term stability and accountability while, at the same time, providing a sustainable economic model including the substantial investment we need to get out of our current predicament. The interim board, assuming it's in place after the vote, have a challenging task to address and many difficult issues to resolve. They deserve our fullest support.