Why buy OLD shares and not players?

[billbee33]

What is baffalling me is why should any investor want to buy other shareholders shares, when we are 4 million in debt, I should have thought they would want to buy new shares to reduce the debt.

[ancient mariner]

Why are they so desperate to cling on to power.......... Do you think that they could have done illegal things perhaps:shifty:

 

You can't put a price on liberty mate.

Would suggest their are a few squeaky bums about.

[pjg1876]

Why are they so desperate to cling on to power.......... Do you think that they could have done illegal things perhaps:shifty:

 

I'm sure that they would have told us if they had done anything illegal. That way, they'd think that we wouldn't believe them so they must be legit !!!!! What a dodgy lot they are.

[Howjy04]

Surely the shares belong to Deakin, Miller, and possibly Hank, although they have not bought them. only they can decide whether to use the votes or not, or to give out the proxies. In thier position I would hand them to the SC in order to get rid of the leeches that conned them into believing that they would be welcome at a thriving football club. ============

 

I dont think we'll hear from Miller or Hank again.Pezza seems to be hanging on for a payoff ,maybe he can do a bit more squealing before he goes and votes with the SC.

[Andyregs]

I dont think we'll hear from Miller or Hank again.Pezza seems to be hanging on for a payoff ,maybe he can do a bit more squealing before he goes and votes with the SC.

 

Then why are deakin and Oliver standing down at the AGM, and not miller? This suggests that the plan is for miller to continue on the board of directors with lloyd. Right now, nothing adds up about what's going on.

[melv]

I dont think we'll hear from Miller or Hank again.Pezza seems to be hanging on for a payoff ,maybe he can do a bit more squealing before he goes and votes with the SC.

 

I think that Deakin has already either had his pay off or sorted it.

[Burslem Academicals]

When they puchased the Broxap shareholding on the eve of the EGM

which changed hands and in the word of Rob Lee were paid for "immediately" not only were newly purchased old shares used in the vote when ineligible being after the cut off date but also....they were a "group buy" such that the V2001 Directors became quite clearly"connected parties" and they could only buy the shares with the agreement of 75% of the shareholders as set out in the articles

under the 25% rule.

[Howjy04]

Then why are deakin and Oliver standing down at the AGM, and not miller? This suggests that the plan is for miller to continue on the board of directors with lloyd. Right now, nothing adds up about what's going on.

 

I think ,like the phantom shares ,we now have a phantom director.Pezza probably can't wait to go but wants his money.I think that Lloyd and Oliver will be left on their own after the AGM,which may mean someone else is about to appear on the scene.

[Loggerheads Sage]

When they puchased the Broxap shareholding on the eve of the EGM

which changed hands and in the word of Rob Lee were paid for "immediately" not only were newly purchased old shares used in the vote when ineligible being after the cut off date but also....they were a "group buy" such that the V2001 Directors became quite clearly"connected parties" and they could only buy the shares with the agreement of 75% of the shareholders as set out in the articles

under the 25% rule.

 

Interesting point this. By agreeing to purchase the shares between them, they MUST be considereed as "connected parties" - and they then ( I'm almost sure - can't check as I'm at work) owned over 24.9% after buying Judas's shares, they voted with these shares - so surely this was in breach of our Articles? I wonder if the SC have taken this point up with their solicitors. Maybe it will crop up tonight? Unfortunatly I can't attend.

[Bede]

I've just roughly figured it out in my head and I think the acquisition may have just been within the 24.9% by the four that split the purchase. You can't include the whole board. They already had 28% at the time of the EGM between them.

 

I've just explained this a little deeper in another thread.

[Burslem Academicals]

I've just roughly figured it out in my head and I think the acquisition may have just been within the 24.9% by the four that split the purchase. You can't include the whole board. They already had 28% at the time of the EGM between them.

 

I've just explained this a little deeper in another thread.

 

Four of them...there were five acting together in a group buy and as such at this point become "connected parties"...they already had 28% between them at the time of the EGM but this "group purchase" made them "connected parties" and the Broxap share purchase under the articles would have to be put to the shareholders and need 75% agreement.

Whether or not the "connected parties" have fallen out since or if one of their number refuses to pay after the fact they acted together as "connected parties" and contrived to go behind the shareholders back and broke the articles inorder to purchase and use ineligible shares to stay in power....which is the same as to say to the detriment of ordinary shareholders.....there is a big question of company law and the rights of shareholders under the articles of association and

both this breach of the company articles and the "nil paid" shares

need to be looked at by a legal team.

[Andyregs]

I think ,like the phantom shares ,we now have a phantom director.Pezza probably can't wait to go but wants his money.I think that Lloyd and Oliver will be left on their own after the AGM,which may mean someone else is about to appear on the scene.

 

Oliver is standing down with deakin, which leaves miller and and Lloyd and whoever else they have in mind (who, i don't know, but as I've said, nothing makes sense).

[Howjy04]

Oliver is standing down with deakin, which leaves miller and and Lloyd and whoever else they have in mind (who, i don't know, but as I've said, nothing makes sense).

 

Oliver is supposed to be standing down at the AGM,whats the betting he is suddenly asked by Snakey to stay on.By putting off the AGM just gives them a bit more time to get someone else in or just to put off the inevitable.Any odds on another postponement of the AGM?I've said before The EGM is the big one whether it's before or after the AGM.Having said that can you see them just sitting back and let it all happen?these barstrides will go to any lengths to stay in,as they are already doing by trying to buy 'old' shares.Even at the EGM they could use the nil paid shares,then probably cancel them, or try to ,the day after.As has been said,what price freedom?

[Student of the game]

The question to ask is " if using nil paid shares to vote yourself onto a board is an illegal practice under corporate law, then is that enough evidence to enable shareholders to contact the police to investigate the club and the books more closely"?