Why 24.9%?

[Fosse69]

What would we like the percentages to be?

[Owd 'un]

I suspect that it is to do with company law and the fact that you need 75% of the shareholders to vote in favour of passing a special resolution. By restricting the maximum shareholding to 24.9% it means that potentially there are 75.1% other shareholders who might oppose you and therefore no individual shareholder can block the passing of a special resolution.

 

This is the real reason for the 24.9% rule. I speak as a previous Company Director with personal experience of the consequences of such a rule not being in force. I therefore fully support the continuance of the 24.9% rule at PVFC.

[upthevale]

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?

 

It's simple Jean the figure 24.9% sits nicely below their 28% "cartel"

[Fosse69]

This is the real reason for the 24.9% rule. I speak as a previous Company Director with personal experience of the consequences of such a rule not being in force. I therefore fully support the continuance of the 24.9% rule at PVFC.

 

I think MC has realised this and would need MS as a partner to protect his/thier investment, but one step at a time.

[philpvfc]

Thought when it came out it was a farce, there's nothing to stop 2 or 3 people getting together to buy more than 50%. Stupid rule with no substance at all, but helps to keep the board in place.

[X-Valiant]

Thought when it came out it was a farce, there's nothing to stop 2 or 3 people getting together to buy more than 50%. Stupid rule with no substance at all, but helps to keep the board in place.

 

Bratt turned down Mark buying 24.9% and Mo from buying 24.9%

[philpvfc]

Bratt turned down Mark buying 24.9% and Mo from buying 24.9%

 

Bratt would turn anyone down buying 24.9%...Robbie, Sultan of Brunei, anyone who might take away his empire.

[Mr Carter]

Thought when it came out it was a farce, there's nothing to stop 2 or 3 people getting together to buy more than 50%. Stupid rule with no substance at all, but helps to keep the board in place.

 

The board are very selective who buys the shares, any risk to their grip and guess what ....................It don't happen

[philpvfc]

Bratt turned down Mark buying 24.9% and Mo from buying 24.9%

 

That also shows the 24.9% rule is a farce...As Mo and Simms have teamed up....you might as well say that was Mo giving a bid of 49.8%, could have asked me as well for 24.9%, then we could have had 74.7%.

[Owd 'un]

That also shows the 24.9% rule is a farce...As Mo and Simms have teamed up....you might as well say that was Mo giving a bid of 49.8%, could have asked me as well for 24.9%, then we could have had 74.7%.

 

Not possible.

 

With the maximum shareholding for an individual (or more than one individual acting in concert) limited to 24.9% it is not possible for more than one individual (or group acting together) to acquire 24.9% simultaneously.

 

Imagine that A and B both want to buy 24.9% separately. A concludes his transaction and owns 24.9%. When B then subsequently buys 24.9% this has the effect of diluting A's shareholding. If A then buys more to top up his holding it similarly diultes B's holding. Ad infinitum.

 

If A and B act together to purchase at the same time they will be considered to be acting in concert and the total purchase will be limited to 24.9% between them.

[valiantms]

So one individual cant own more than 24.9%, to stop them having a block vote at EGMs. Yet the board can buy 28% of shares as a group and act/vote as one? Where is the difference?

 

The thing that really twists the knife for me is that they can refuse to sell shares to people. Not only do they limit investment with the 24.9% rule, they can turn down anyone who might challenge their position. They basically want fans to go and give their hard earned, yet relatively small amount of savings, instead of letting someone invest some real money.

[zaza123]

If you look at the accounts over the years they give the shareholding of the directors and how the shareholding of the directors changes over time.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that rather than investing in the club by increasing shareholdings significantly, they have bought the odd small block to maintain the required percentage to enforce the stranglehold on the club. How does this help the club? It is discouraging investment if anything.

 

Ask yourself if it is a coincidence that in the same year as the only major investment was made (Robbie Williams), Mike Lloyd (a random Walsall fan with a history of failed businesses) was invited on to the board. This diluted RW's holding enough to maintain the death grip.

[Twitters]

Both wrong to take control it is 70%, to have a controlling interest you need 51%.

So someone with a maximum if 24.9% (curent rules) to take control of the club they would need at least two other directors at 24.9% to do this.

 

This was always a failsafe to stop individuals from totally takeing over the club in the aftermath of a previous chairman.:rolleyes:

No names could be sued.

 

Actually you're wrong. Myself and Nick are right. Under UK law if the company is publically owned, then 29.99% and 90% are the key thresholds.

 

70% has no relevance. 51% gives you a controlling interest, but the reason for the 24.9% rule is not because of that. It is because under the articles of association, special resolutions require a 75% majority. So setting 24.9% prevents one person from being able to veto that.

[Burslem Academicals]

Actually you're wrong. Myself and Nick are right. Under UK law if the company is publically owned, then 29.99% and 90% are the key thresholds.

 

70% has no relevance. 51% gives you a controlling interest, but the reason for the 24.9% rule is not because of that. It is because under the articles of association, special resolutions require a 75% majority. So setting 24.9% prevents one person from being able to veto that.

 

Yet a 28% Cartel that has set up the closed shop means that 75% against is impossible inorder to change anything and against their 28% death grip a 24.9% investment is simply a donation.

[Owd 'un]

Yet a 28% Cartel that has set up the closed shop means that 75% against is impossible inorder to change anything and against their 28% death grip a 24.9% investment is simply a donation.

 

The answer here is for more people to buy shares thereby diluting the Board's percentage.