Harlequin Loan Transferred to Shares?

[rayzer]

If this happens then when we go into administration and all the creditors get say 10p in the pound then Harlequin won't even get the last thirteen thousand pounds in the bank. Serves them right if they fall for this stunt. If they have any sense they would ask for their loan back.

[Princey]

Serious question, are you happy with the massive rift in our club as you seem to be ?

 

Serious answer !!!

Firstly, i dont think its "massive", its just a rift and no rift is a good thing in any walk of life..... Grown men should no better than to let personal grievances cloud the bigger issues..

This is just football and come August we should all be pulling in one direction....And thats support across the board (pardon the pun) and onwards to promotion.

I will be, but some of us wont be i guess..

[nodge]

The squad isn't good enough to win promotion.

 

It needs a serious injection of quality. There isn't enough goals in the team from all over the pitch.

 

An injury to Marc Richards and we're shagged.

 

What funds do the board have to back Adams? Or have they already been spent?

[Princey]

The squad isn't good enough to win promotion.

 

It needs a serious injection of quality. There isn't enough goals in the team from all over the pitch.

 

An injury to Marc Richards and we're shagged.

 

What funds do the board have to back Adams? Or have they already been spent?

 

History shows that many teams who appeared not good enough for glory actually did just that.

And teams put together, or bought together for a tidy sum just for glory have failed miserably..

Only time will tell....

[JmaccPVFC]

History shows that many teams who appeared not good enough for glory actually did just that.

And teams put together, or bought together for a tidy sum just for glory have failed miserably..

Only time will tell....

8 YEARS of history under Valiant 2001 show we'll come no where near getting promotion.

[tisdeano]

History shows that many teams who appeared not good enough for glory actually did just that.

And teams put together, or bought together for a tidy sum just for glory have failed miserably..

Only time will tell....

 

History will show that vile men carried out vile acts under the banner " For us all"

[BIRCHES HEAD WHITES]

after 8 years , history has told us that the current board are lying scum.

 

"for themselves"

[TheLegalBeagle]

I disagree with the dilution not being an issue. Since some of us paid 5 quid a share back years ago we have seen the debts rise and the net asset per share must be worth a packet of Smarties by now. Every new share sold adds more to that process, especially when the board are just pouring the money into a black hole.

 

Hi Tone,

 

I agree.

 

You will be aware that if you convert debt to equity you do not need to do so a par value. So the board can give Harlequin 24.9% for the £130,000. Makes you think. Add to the equation Rob Lee and the other directors / major shareholders buying more shares (watch this space) for themselves and you have a cartel with probably over 50%, having invested for no other reason than to secure their own long term positions...in other words about a dozen people owning over 50% of your club and being untouchable - renders the 24.9% rule meaningless (which of course we said from day 1).

 

This "investment" by the select few to bolster their shares adds no value to PVFC as it is short term cash. It is not meaningful and substantive long term investment (such as say £1.2M new shares and additional funds coupled with a dynamic business strategy).

 

Kind Regards.

[Guest Sandyfordvalefan]

Yeah it can definatly not be termed investment, more like writing off money they would never have got back anyway.

[Jimmy]

Hi Tone,

 

I agree.

 

You will be aware that if you convert debt to equity you do not need to do so a par value. So the board can give Harlequin 24.9% for the £130,000. Makes you think. Add to the equation Rob Lee and the other directors / major shareholders buying more shares (watch this space) for themselves and you have a cartel with probably over 50%, having invested for no other reason than to secure their own long term positions...in other words about a dozen people owning over 50% of your club and being untouchable - renders the 24.9% rule meaningless (which of course we said from day 1).

 

This "investment" by the select few to bolster their shares adds no value to PVFC as it is short term cash. It is not meaningful and substantive long term investment (such as say £1.2M new shares and additional funds coupled with a dynamic business strategy).

 

Kind Regards.

 

Great business plan that, give a 1/4 of the Club away to pay for a 130k debt to solidify your standing and at the same time turning your nose up at CASH investment for those same shares from a different sourses. genius.NOT...:rolleyes:

[werstayinup]

If they stay, I feel like throwing the towel in for good. I've really hit that point

 

We're going nowhere but down under them. Tinpot outlook, with tinpot ambition and that's what we'll be; a tinpot outfit.

 

Dangerous game they're playing, once people stop coming, they find other things to do with their Saturday afternoons.

 

This city should be buzzing on the back of Stoke's success. They've put football on everyone's lips, and if we were innovative and attractive to support, we could tap into the renewed interest and get some new supporters.

 

These clowns would rather sit back and play boardroom chess instead.

 

Best for the club, don't make me laugh. I haven't seen a positive, innovative move down there since Mike Aldridge launched the 5000 campaign and even he bailed out.

 

V2001 you're old, dated and out of touch. Do the right thing and pack your bags.

 

Spot on Nodge and just how i feel

[HappyClapper]

Hi Tone,

 

I agree.

You will be aware that if you convert debt to equity you do not need to do so a par value. So the board can give Harlequin 24.9% for the £130,000. Makes you think. Add to the equation Rob Lee and the other directors / major shareholders buying more shares (watch this space) for themselves and you have a cartel with probably over 50%, having invested for no other reason than to secure their own long term positions...in other words about a dozen people owning over 50% of your club and being untouchable - renders the 24.9% rule meaningless (which of course we said from day 1).

 

This "investment" by the select few to bolster their shares adds no value to PVFC as it is short term cash. It is not meaningful and substantive long term investment (such as say £1.2M new shares and additional funds coupled with a dynamic business strategy).

 

Kind Regards.

 

Wouldn't this be against company articles?

 

Shares can't be sold for less than £5 a share if I remember correctly.

 

I guess my point is that Peter Jackson allegedly wanted to buy shares at a significant discount. If what you have said is true, why wouldn't he just make a loan to the club then have the loan converted to whatever %age he desired (bit simplistic but you get my point I hope).

[Jimmy]

Wouldn't this be against company articles?

 

Shares can't be sold for less than £5 a share if I remember correctly.

 

I guess my point is that Peter Jackson allegedly wanted to buy shares at a significant discount. If what you have said is true, why wouldn't he just make a loan to the club then have the loan converted to whatever %age he desired (bit simplistic but you get my point I hope).

 

Exactly.................

 

And maybe Jackson and Meigh step in to buy Harlequins unwanted share for maybe 150/200k at the same time aquiring a 24·9% stake in the Club.........Game, set and match.

[PVTony]

The board can't reject the appointment of Mark Sims.

 

Providing that he wants to become a director.

 

Has he gained access to the books yet???

[tisdeano]

Providing that he wants to become a director.

 

Has he gained access to the books yet???

 

In a word, no