Shareholders Must Decide on any Deal

[Aussie Rules]

Now I know I'm getting on in years, and the old grey matter wasn't upto much in my Halcyon days, but I still don't see what the new investors gain from this deal?

After all, to become Directors then they take on responsibility for the current debts and are guarantors for loans etc, which surely add upto to quite an amount?So exactly what do they hope to benefit from?

 

Yes, this is the same question we could pose to any 'Investor', but local guys with local connections I can understand, Multimillionaires with cash to throw away I can understand, groups of dedicated fans with enough cash to save us from the brink I can understand.

But Americans with a supposed interest in Plastic Pitches.It just doesn't stack up.......or is it just me?

 

Unless of course Fred, the deal does not include picking up such financial responsibilities.

 

We all know the barn wall of words have faded and/or changed over time from the early days of V2001 and, sadly to say, it could well happen again to provide a different mechanism to pursuade potential investors.

 

Then again, we do walk upside down 'Downunder :)

[Burslem Academicals]

Not true in the slightest and you know it.

 

They even announced they had formed the 'Port Vale Consortium' in order to buy there shares. You can't get much more 'connected' than that.

 

It is not true it is a myth and you know it....Mo Chaudry and Mark Sims are two seperate individuals and have no business or company connections are not related and have not married via a civil ceremony.

Bratt used the term "English Consortium" and there was of course the "Texan Consortium"....the use of the phrase "Port Vale Consortium" was in scare quotes and intended as a bit tongue in cheek.....just by using the phrase does not make Mr Chaudry and Mr Sims "connected" under the articles....the offer by each to invest 24.9% was within the constitution....it was record investment and rejected without any reason.

If the two Ameriturf persons invest 24.9% each they however are "connected"

as business partners so unless it is somebody other than Ameriturf the investment can only be 400k which is not 1.2 million and an offer the shareholders should get to vote for at an EGM before any deals are signed.

[cplowe1]

"Together with an investment for equity and seats on the board, but of course that is subject to approval by the shareholders.

 

Which implies a fuller presentation, in due course, to the shareholders and all supporters of all that AGS are bringing to our Club."

Extract from an e-mail from a board member to me vis Ameriturf investment June.

[CAVALIER]

"Together with an investment for equity and seats on the board, but of course that is subject to approval by the shareholders.

 

Which implies a fuller presentation, in due course, to the shareholders and all supporters of all that AGS are bringing to our Club."

Extract from an e-mail from a board member to me vis Ameriturf investment June.

This will be interesting then.what chance of that happening?

[For Us All]

To use their own words it's a cartel and puts to bed any notion of a fan owned club, that died years ago anyway.

 

There is a lot of people with their fingers in the fees and add ons here and the club will be sold down the river to unscrupulous folk who can pee off back to the US when they've had their moneys worth. At least if MC did screw up, it's in his back yard.

 

That's very true,they always say 'don't 5h1t in your own backyard'?

[Sandyford_Lion]

B H F

 

What if the 'ex directors' re-appear and continue to guarantee as required.

 

There has to be something in this deal for A G S

 

Selling their plastic pitches will be their ony concern i would imagine

 

Our board would continue in FULL control

[NLVMalc]

"Together with an investment for equity and seats on the board, but of course that is subject to approval by the shareholders.

 

Which implies a fuller presentation, in due course, to the shareholders and all supporters of all that AGS are bringing to our Club."

Extract from an e-mail from a board member to me vis Ameriturf investment June.

 

That would be fine so long as those new shares are not used to secure the place on the board otherwise it is all a fait accompli

 

The words from ML/PD at the BGWMC meeting were nothing but a sham...

[andy jones]

cplowe1

 

Thanks for that extract from a Board member - as it uses the word seats (i.e. plural) on the Board. Therefore 2 people or more working in collusion to get past the 24.9% rule - Mmm thought that was not allowed?

[NLVMalc]

cplowe1

 

Thanks for that extract from a Board member - as it uses the word seats (i.e. plural) on the Board. Therefore 2 people or more working in collusion to get past the 24.9% rule - Mmm thought that was not allowed?

 

So long as your name isn't Mark Sims...

 

Otherwise the board seem happy to change the rules whenever it suits their own agenda.

[Tone]

So long as your name isn't Mark Sims...

 

Otherwise the board seem happy to change the rules whenever it suits their own agenda.

 

That is not really a surprise to you, is it? ;)

[cplowe1]

cplowe1

 

Thanks for that extract from a Board member - as it uses the word seats (i.e. plural) on the Board. Therefore 2 people or more working in collusion to get past the 24.9% rule - Mmm thought that was not allowed?

Well, it's not new, it's just confirming what the sentinel said at the time http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Port-Vale-Ameriturf-share-deal-hold-committed/story-12739924-detail/story.html

I was just surprised by Mr Lloyd's statement that the "new" deal definitely would not go to shareholders given that the old one would have done.

[NLVMalc]

Well, it's not new, it's just confirming what the sentinel said at the time http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Port-Vale-Ameriturf-share-deal-hold-committed/story-12739924-detail/story.html

I was just surprised by Mr Lloyd's statement that the "new" deal definitely would not go to shareholders given that the old one would have done.

 

Sadly, I am not surprised...

 

All this talk about being open, transparent and honest is just that, TALK.

 

Any agreement should be put to the shareholders, unless of course Mr 5%, Mike Lloyd, knows better than everyone else...

[melv]

Sadly, I am not surprised...

 

All this talk about being open, transparent and honest is just that, TALK.

 

Any agreement should be put to the shareholders, unless of course Mr 5%, Mike Lloyd, knows better than everyone else...

 

Involving shareholders wouldn't fit in with the plan's:ohmy:/idea's:ohmy:/agenda of the self preservation society.