What if we don't go into Admin?

[hardlypotter]

As pointed out the 24.9% rule in the articles prevents any real investment

 

and agreed by who?

[fairportnick]

At the SC meeting, this was mentioned. If the club goes into admin, I'm unsure as to whether the shareholders can bring a case personally. I think it was said that the administrators could. I'm not 100% sure on that though.

 

A shareholder is perfectly free to take whatever action he wishes, What it would cost and whether he has a chance of winning would need to be considered first though.

[Burslem Academicals]

and agreed by who?

 

The "closed shop" articles were all seemingly drawn up after the man in the briefcase arrived..... Peter (why use your own money when you can use someone else's) Jackson and Jackson's solicitor became the club solicitor.

It also changed from the original one-shareholder-one-vote to a situation that the "cartel" could out vote the wishes of the majority

despite 97% wanting them gone...the clever bit was the 75% needed to change the article being impossible as the "cartel" had 28%.

It was all done with "smoke" and mirrors......

[Yukon]

(1) - That is pure speculation.

 

(2) - Port Vale is a limited compay and therefore how can the creditors and shareholders go after the directors for any outstanding moneis? Surely the administrators will seek to recover the outstanding payment for the nil paid shares from the directors to then assist in servicing the debt. Also, if agreement is reached between the creditors and the administrator for x amount in the pound, then the debt has been settled in any event.

 

(2) if the directors gave personal guarantees, then they could be liable. Let's hope Oliver's messiah complex extended as far as his caravan

[cheeky]

(2) if the directors gave personal guarantees, then they could be liable. Let's hope Oliver's messiah complex extended as far as his caravan

 

The guarantees were to the bank for the overdraft facility I thought. Not individual creditors, although I stand to be corrected.

[Andyregs]

If the position at the start of the season was as bad as deakin suggests then it makes a mockery of the way they acted at the EGM. The shareholders may consider that they have a case. What would it cost to pursue it though?

 

It also makes you wonder about the intelligence of deakin mocking an patronising the fans at the start of season SC meeting about season ticket sales being excellent (and proving it to RS) and telling fans they 'missed a great game'.

[WEMBLEY OF THE NORTH]

It also makes you wonder about the intelligence of deakin mocking an patronising the fans at the start of season SC meeting about season ticket sales being excellent (and proving it to RS) and telling fans they 'missed a great game'.

 

Yes, he is a self serving twonk, who hopefully will find it ever difficult to get another job.

[mbycars]

Yes, he is a self serving twonk, who hopefully will find it ever difficult to get another job.

 

I'd employ him to clean the Railway and Bycars bogs for the rest of his life in order for him to pay off his nil paid shares.

[WEMBLEY OF THE NORTH]

I'd employ him to clean the Railway and Bycars bogs for the rest of his life in order for him to pay off his nil paid shares.

 

Good idea:D. I would also chain him up guarded by a rottweiler so he couldn't escape. All without pay of course:yes:

[Ruislip_Valiant]

The guarantees were to the bank for the overdraft facility I thought. Not individual creditors, although I stand to be corrected.

 

I'm no expert, but I thought the general concensus was that if we went into admin, after the board had turned down a very genuine offer from Mo Chaudry, that they could be sued for neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.