Why 24.9%?

[Jacko51]

I have just read through that Q&A session between Mr Bratt and Steve Shaw from a while back and once again, the issue of 24.9% reared it's head.

 

Apart from the fact that it was never a founding principle of Valiant 2001, despite what the chairman would have us believe, I can't get my head around the choice of figure.

 

If the purpose of it is to avoid one person gaining control of the club why not 49%, why not even 40%?

 

If I was a prospective investor and was looking at Vale, the 24.9% would make me think - I can't put enough money in there to make a real difference.

 

Is it's purpose to prevent dictatorship or simply retain the current dictatorship?

[Timothius]

It's purpose is to prevent anyone getting enough power to oust the comfy ones on the board. It is a millstone around our necks yet people still think it is a good idea, but when asked why they can't give a reasonable answer.

[Devoid]

It's a silly rule. It will only provide a barrier to any significant investment and doom the club to a reliance on crumbs. Oh, and keep board members as, well, board members.

 

I cannot fathom why it was ever introduced.

[BIRCHES HEAD WHITES]

jacko you answered your own question with the last line.

[Howjy04]

Isn't 25% the magic number in takeover deals of companies.The more educated on the subject could perhaps tell us .I think anyone who owns 25% of a company needs to bid for the rest ,not sure.Looking at it a different way for as long as the 24.9% rules the board members don't need to put their hands in their own pockets after a certain level.

[Stone Valiant]

I have just read through that Q&A session between Mr Bratt and Steve Shaw from a while back and once again, the issue of 24.9% reared it's head.

 

Apart from the fact that it was never a founding principle of Valiant 2001, despite what the chairman would have us believe, I can't get my head around the choice of figure.

 

If the purpose of it is to avoid one person gaining control of the club why not 49%, why not even 40%?

 

If I was a prospective investor and was looking at Vale, the 24.9% would make me think - I can't put enough money in there to make a real difference.

 

Is it's purpose to prevent dictatorship or simply retain the current dictatorship?

 

You need to consider this in relation to another ruling in the AoA. There must be a minimum of 4 directors!

 

4x24.9% - 99.6%

 

i.e. the idea that maybe you could prevent 1 person from owning the company, but that over time you could have 4 current incumbents holding everything bar a small minimal amount for the real fans!

 

Just a thought!

[fairportnick]

Isn't 25% the magic number in takeover deals of companies.The more educated on the subject could perhaps tell us .I think anyone who owns 25% of a company needs to bid for the rest ,not sure.

 

Its 90 per cent

[Valiant Haze]

Current board in it's recent former set up, held a combined 28%

 

Amount of votes required to effect change 75%

( we can see the board hold just enough to block vote )

 

Maximum single shareholding permissible 24.9%

 

All share purchases to be sanctioned by current board

 

" Closed "

[Valiant Rising]

I have just read through that Q&A session between Mr Bratt and Steve Shaw from a while back and once again, the issue of 24.9% reared it's head.

 

Apart from the fact that it was never a founding principle of Valiant 2001, despite what the chairman would have us believe, I can't get my head around the choice of figure.

 

If the purpose of it is to avoid one person gaining control of the club why not 49%, why not even 40%?

 

If I was a prospective investor and was looking at Vale, the 24.9% would make me think - I can't put enough money in there to make a real difference.

 

Is it's purpose to prevent dictatorship or simply retain the current dictatorship?

 

I think BHW hit it on the head, your last line covers both angles.

40% would be uncomfortably close to the halfway figure, someone would only need to get a friend with 11% - or a few small shareholders to become the man with the 'power', now Mr Bratt wouldn't want that would he?

[Valiant Rising]

It's purpose is to prevent anyone getting enough power to oust the comfy ones on the board. It is a millstone around our necks yet people still think it is a good idea, but when asked why they can't give a reasonable answer.

 

The original purpose of it probably seemed a good idea Tim, maybe even to you when you trusted the board. I guess the ones who still think its a good idea either trust the board (!!!!!) or hope that whoever finally replaces them will be a decent, trustworthy bunch, who still want a club for the fans.

[Howjy04]

Its 90 per cent

 

I bow to your greater knowledge Nick.Didn't think it was that much.

[Fosse69]

I think it is a smoke screen to give the impression of a club run by individuals, i.e. a fan run club. The original figure was lower, about 16%, just below a 6th, which was more demanding and would need 3 people thinking the same to obtain a majority. The main purpose of 24% today is to deter investment, since an investor could put a large sum in but have no control over it, due to the established cartel within the boardroom. But it all boils down to trust and agreements made by investors at the time, and what the board have to hide. Port Vale should be simple, local people and local investors. Compare to my local team Leicester, changed from Serb ownership, various Chinese and Thai consortiums, finally to one Thai consortium fronted by King Power. Mind you the locals are not happy at losing thier Walkers stadium name.

[For Us All]

I think it is a smoke screen to give the impression of a club run by individuals, i.e. a fan run club. The original figure was lower, about 16%, just below a 6th, which was more demanding and would need 3 people thinking the same to obtain a majority. The main purpose of 24% today is to deter investment, since an investor could put a large sum in but have no control over it, due to the established cartel within the boardroom. But it all boils down to trust and agreements made by investors at the time, and what the board have to hide. Port Vale should be simple, local people and local investors. Compare to my local team Leicester, changed from Serb ownership, various Chinese and Thai consortiums, finally to one Thai consortium fronted by King Power. Mind you the locals are not happy at losing thier Walkers stadium name.

 

Is it now the KP Stadium then?

[tisdeano]

Why 24.9% ?

 

A carefully engineered and manipulated plot to gain control of the club on the cheap, thats exactly why its 24.9%

[Santa]

I bow to your greater knowledge Nick.Didn't think it was that much.

For PLCs I think there's a figure nearer 30% where you have to declare your intent or something. Can't remember.