Today's Sentinel

[Howjy04]

So they'll be our largest shareholder - yes ?

 

RW purchased 24.9% x years ago, say for arguments sake that's 24.9% of £1,000,000 worth, he owns £249,000

 

Since then "new shares" have been issued, now total value £1,500,000. So Blue Sky = 24.9% of £1,500,000 = £373,500 giving them 50% more shares than RW.

 

Yes ?

 

If they are buying 24.9% ,then yes you are correct ,they will be the largest shareholder.RW % will automatically go down.

[Birdy]

I said all this yesterday on a another thread

 

It all depends on how many shares have been issued by the club. It was around 1.2m before. If that has been increased or is about to be increased, 24.9% of 1m is £249k. 24.9% of 5m is £1.25m which is more than all of the other shareholders put together including the board so in essence owning 50%+ of the company, skipping down the loophole of the 24.9% ruling. As the club issue shares at their discretion, this is wonderful way of gaining control whilst staying within the AOA. I am unsure what the limits are on the company raising the share issue?

 

I know this very much speculation but this is what happens when we still have a club that lacks clarity or honesty.

[cplowe1]

i have just tried to post on another thread that has been deleted it seems just as i was posting, it was my opinion as to why we will never no the details of what goes on at boardroom level at the club and the reason we cannot accept it

 

sorry in advance for posting it on here can't be arsed to start yet another thread

 

my take on this we will never no the final details of what is going on at boardroom level just won't and for reasons of good practice can't

 

the fallout of this was mainly glenn olivers fault in my eyes he encouraged many on here to join v2001 and buy shares proclaiming they would have a voice in how the club was run, for us all, lets be totally honest it was a sham it never was going to happen

 

but when football is involved you feel emotionally connected to the club and when promised things which don't happen, when you feel you own the club as much as the board members because that was what you were promised, this is where the ***** hits the pan

 

for example i own a small number of shares in the company i work for i get my invite to the agm my proxy form and a nice glossy book with the report in etc

 

they have just announced some redundancies and working practice changes

 

it wasn't in the book, i didn't get told, i'm a shareholder, you get my drift

 

Absolutely, shareholders cannot know everything, for commercial reasons, and are not entitled to voice an opinion on most things. For example the colour of the bog roll in the Bycars bogs (if they extend to such luxury). And when you do get a say, you get a say in proportion to your shareholding, so if Hank and Deakin wanted plain bog roll and I wanted triple thick with flowers on, plain it would be. It's a matter of trust and being consulted on the big issues. I think our board has been a bit lacking on both in the recent past. Let's hope it's changing.

[Birdy]

Absolutely, shareholders cannot know everything, for commercial reasons, and are not entitled to voice an opinion on most things. For example the colour of the bog roll in the Bycars bogs (if they extend to such luxury). And when you do get a say, you get a say in proportion to your shareholding, so if Hank and Deakin wanted plain bog roll and I wanted triple thick with flowers on, plain it would be. It's a matter of trust and being consulted on the big issues. I think our board has been a bit lacking on both in the recent past. Let's hope it's changing.

 

This issue is we are being told irrelevant information like the colour of tissue, wipeabilty and finger poking up ass ratio of toilet roles and not valid important key answers that would I am sure stop all this speculation and move the fan base forward to start uniting. The current secretive policy will not work to unite the fan base, surely everyone can see this?

[the old bycars tea bar]

I said all this yesterday on a another thread

 

It all depends on how many shares have been issued by the club. It was around 1.2m before. If that has been increased or is about to be increased, 24.9% of 1m is £249k. 24.9% of 5m is £1.25m which is more than all of the other shareholders put together including the board so in essence owning 50%+ of the company, skipping down the loophole of the 24.9% ruling. As the club issue shares at their discretion, this is wonderful way of gaining control whilst staying within the AOA. I am unsure what the limits are on the company raising the share issue?

 

I know this very much speculation but this is what happens when we still have a club that lacks clarity or honesty.

 

that is very intresting birdy mate and has explained alot to me

 

to answer your last sentence mate i don't think we ever have had a club that acted with clarity and true honesty

 

the problem arrised 8 years ago when v2001 proclaimed that it would act with clarity and honesty

[cplowe1]

Agree, Birdy. I should have said trust, transparency and being consulted on the big issues. It's no wonder so many conspiracy theories run rife.

[upthevale]

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Port-Vale-Deakin-confirms-pound-100-000-purchase/story-13427764-detail/story.html

 

"Deakin also confirmed that new U.S-based investors Blue Sky International will buy the maximum 24.9 per cent stake they are permitted to acquire under club rules as part of an £8 million cash injection.

 

However, it is understood the cost of the shares has yet to be calculated because of the issuing of new stock"

 

'will buy'..... I thought he said the deal was done!

 

Something is very strange with this deal...... I think we should start digging deeper

[andy jones]

Perhaps its just a normal commercial deal between two companies.

i.e. its detail is not made public knowledge.

 

What used to annoy me about Bratt and Oliver was that they continued to spout the V2001 ethos and then did something different. At least Jackson at a SC meeting spoke the truth - its my money and I'll make the decisions.

 

What is probably happening here is you are seeing the end of V2001 Board and the end of the V2001 ethos.

 

Before asked I have no inside knowledge on this its just staringly obvious to me thats all.

 

I happen to believe that V2001 foundered from day one when not enough fans bought shares and the only way forward is to get rid of the 24.9% rule and move on. So I am disappointed that ML keeps hiding behind it in the same way Bratt did.

 

24.9% limit is not in the best interest of Port Vale IMHO.

[tonyh]

Where's he got his £100k from?

[werstayinup]

Perhaps its just a normal commercial deal between two companies.

i.e. its detail is not made public knowledge.

 

What used to annoy me about Bratt and Oliver was that they continued to spout the V2001 ethos and then did something different. At least Jackson at a SC meeting spoke the truth - its my money and I'll make the decisions.

 

What is probably happening here is you are seeing the end of V2001 Board and the end of the V2001 ethos.

 

Before asked I have no inside knowledge on this its just staringly obvious to me thats all.

 

I happen to believe that V2001 foundered from day one when not enough fans bought shares and the only way forward is to get rid of the 24.9% rule and move on. So I am disappointed that ML keeps hiding behind it in the same way Bratt did.

 

24.9% limit is not in the best interest of Port Vale IMHO.

 

I honestly think that if it was put to a fans vote then the majority would happily ditch the 24.9% rule.as this has held us back for many years now.

[Fosse69]

I said all this yesterday on a another thread

 

It all depends on how many shares have been issued by the club. It was around 1.2m before. If that has been increased or is about to be increased, 24.9% of 1m is £249k. 24.9% of 5m is £1.25m which is more than all of the other shareholders put together including the board so in essence owning 50%+ of the company, skipping down the loophole of the 24.9% ruling. As the club issue shares at their discretion, this is wonderful way of gaining control whilst staying within the AOA. I am unsure what the limits are on the company raising the share issue?

 

I know this very much speculation but this is what happens when we still have a club that lacks clarity or honesty.

 

But this could always happen, we could have 3 shareholders with £!.2M each, all shareholders at the EGM would hold the rest, this is within the rules, the Jackson crowd had control for a much smaller stake. We have to rely on the major shareholders doing what is best for the club, which could well be the best for them. How the deal is structured will be just as important in allaying peoples fears. It is also interesting why PD took up £100k of shares instead of £50k for his seat on the board.

[Tone]

It doesn't matter how many shares they get.

 

They will still be committed to £8 million going into the club.

 

They will only get a maximum of 24.9% of the equity.

 

I think we are on a wild-goose chase wasting our energy trying to establish the precise number of shares. It only mattered when the potential bids of others were structured the other way around and we wanted to know how much money was being invested.

[tisdeano]

They will still be committed to £8 million going into the club.

 

 

All their own money or some via grants/JV's

[the old bycars tea bar]

Perhaps its just a normal commercial deal between two companies.

i.e. its detail is not made public knowledge.

 

What used to annoy me about Bratt and Oliver was that they continued to spout the V2001 ethos and then did something different. At least Jackson at a SC meeting spoke the truth - its my money and I'll make the decisions.

 

What is probably happening here is you are seeing the end of V2001 Board and the end of the V2001 ethos.

 

Before asked I have no inside knowledge on this its just staringly obvious to me thats all.

 

I happen to believe that V2001 foundered from day one when not enough fans bought shares and the only way forward is to get rid of the 24.9% rule and move on. So I am disappointed that ML keeps hiding behind it in the same way Bratt did.

 

24.9% limit is not in the best interest of Port Vale IMHO.

 

good post dave

 

the ethos of v2001 was dead before the ink had dried in my opinion and was why i never signed up

 

if these people end up owning the club so be it

 

maybe all the small shareholders if they wish could pool all their shares in one group maybe with RW's shares and elect a rep to either be the coundiut between the board and themselves or if required a seat on the board

 

or they can hold on to the shares themselves but must accept the ethos they signed upto is/was dead and buried and they have litttle say in the running of the club

[Sandyford_Lion]

I said all this yesterday on a another thread

 

It all depends on how many shares have been issued by the club. It was around 1.2m before. If that has been increased or is about to be increased, 24.9% of 1m is £249k. 24.9% of 5m is £1.25m which is more than all of the other shareholders put together including the board so in essence owning 50%+ of the company, skipping down the loophole of the 24.9% ruling. As the club issue shares at their discretion, this is wonderful way of gaining control whilst staying within the AOA. I am unsure what the limits are on the company raising the share issue?

 

I know this very much speculation but this is what happens when we still have a club that lacks clarity or honesty.

 

Birdy

They cannot buy 1.25m [ 24.9% ] of 5 million

We have not sold 5 million worth of shares.

Unless you know who else has purchased 2.5 million worth or am i wrong.