onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


Suggested new structure for PVFC


Valiant62

Recommended Posts

Guest TommyMac
... but there are different types of business e.g. social enterprises, CICs etc.

The biggest investor in the above would have massive influence as well as the accountability he needs to demonstrate for his own purposes and an exit strategy that doesn't involve what BB or BB have had to go through.

 

I put it to you that Bill Bratt has chosen the exit strategy he will have to go through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

I put it to you that Bill Bratt has chosen the exit strategy he will have to go through.

 

but if the structure had been right to prevent what Jackson did (with Meigh) he would have attracted more timely scrutiny had not had that choice. I'm not feeling sorry for him, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TommyMac

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic but surely the man who invests the most money into PVFC has the most to lose if the club ultimately fails. Why would he not want a very significant input into the running of it?

 

At the meeting on Saturday Chaudry stated he would be willing to purchase 24.9% of shares as he has confidence the new board will have mutual goals.

 

The current board have 28% of the issued shares, yes that percentage will be diluted when there is further investment but still not an insignificant voice, particularly when added to existing supporter shareholdings.

 

In short, I can understand why Chaudry would want overall control and I personally hope he gets it but with 24.9% he can be comfortably voted down by the current board and existing shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but the structure above puts a lower limit, not a higher limit on director investment, together with the article Jean linked there seems to be scope for negotiation. Surely it's a good thing to generate ideas and meet the interests of people like me who want "a ring on our finger" before we make mad passionate love.

 

as above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he wants the level of influence corresponding to his investment. That isn't an unusual stance in any way shape or from. I don't see it as an unreasonable request.

 

Indeed, I can only really see at Port Vale some bizarre logical assertion that people should investment millions but accept nominal influence in return for it.

 

The rest of the real world doesn't work that way so why should our club?

 

And as has been pointed out a number of times, if Mo were to buy 51% based on the current shareholding, there is nothing to stop others continuing to invest and to thus change his position unless Mo continues to match the investment. Which I can only really see upside to as the more money comes into the club the better.

 

It is about time we moved away from this small time mentality and actually started to think like a proper business, and most in this climate would love to have something willing to invest £1.2 million for 51% of a business that is arguably worth a considerable sum less than the investment amount.

 

Absolutely, if Mo is going to invest up to £5M then I'm sure he'll want the final say on what happens in the boardroom, I know I would, which is why I think he'll only be happy with 24.9% short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current board have 28% of the issued shares, yes that percentage will be diluted when there is further investment but still not an insignificant voice, particularly when added to existing supporter shareholdings.

 

A 24.9% investment would reduce the boards holding to around 21%.

 

If Ameriturf bought 24.9% then the boards total holding would only be 46%, not the 53% or 55% that has been widely quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will happen to the existing directors shares? If they are sold no problem, but if they remain as a rump and united could they be a problem? All depends on how many new shares are issued, lets hope they become a small and insignificant group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, this is an idea put together by an amateur and my intention is for others to develop it or come up with other ideas that might meet my (I would argue our) interests.

Technically in this structure, the present directors could band together but only get one seat on the board. In that scenario, you'd have to also look at their historical relationship with the other three and ask the question how could they get anything passed that the other three didn't like, also on the negative side, how could they block things without engaging with another 2 directors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will happen to the existing directors shares? If they are sold no problem, but if they remain as a rump and united could they be a problem? All depends on how many new shares are issued, lets hope they become a small and insignificant group.

 

If Mo puts in his originally promised £1.2m then the existing directors' share would be as low as 14%. Even lower if other investors come on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valiant62 - I like your ideas in theory and its similar to what I have been saying to a few others and in my recent posts.

 

I think of board of 4 (which includes a supporters' rep and the CEO) would be good.

 

The other two directors would be a mixture I imagine of current shareholdings, and what they can bring to the table. If Mo has a fair few people lined up I could see them being non-executive directors or acting as advisors.

 

Supporters Rep will and should hopefully have the support of a percentage of shareholders with a proxy (RW?). I would then like this supporters rep to be elected to the board by minority shareholders and fans only. I would hope for such a position on the board Mo would abstain from backing a certain representative.

 

The more people buying shares the better but we need to protect ordinary supporters and minority shareholders who are fans and hold shares because they are fans rather than investors. Supporters' Rep should do this, and possibly a rejig of the constitution articles if it can work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk
  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...