Investment - Share Issue

[ian1964 10,724]

As we all know we badly need investment for us to move forward and make a serious challenge for the title, is a share issue being held up until the Bastard CW is dealt with in court?,I need reminding on what is exactly holding this up,cheers.

 

Not having a go at the board here just wondering what plans they have in place for investment?.

[der Berliner 3,749]

I would assume that the board has invested not solely in players, but also in the infrastructure and "hardware" of the club (stadium et al). Money which is probably not openly visible to everyone. Then again, they could come out and say what they have done thus far, so their commitment becomes clear for everyone. Not that it would stop from those who want to hold King & Co. to ransom about his 30m remark.

 

It would be interesting to know whether there was something in the rumour about Brian Kennedy being back and willing to invest ... but likewise, this won't see any publicity up until it is done and dusted.

Edited October 24, 2016 by der Berliner

[jhunter 0]

was a share issue not stymied by that whole special resolution failure to acquire 75% of the voting result at last year's agm?

 

i.e. if you owned shares say 10% and this went ahead and you didn't invest more cash your holding was diluted?

[gisabeer 409]

The Ashley easdale and their gang hold 26% of the shares. That's the hold up.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

was a share issue not stymied by that whole special resolution failure to acquire 75% of the voting result at last year's agm?

 

i.e. if you owned shares say 10% and this went ahead and you didn't invest more cash your holding was diluted?

That was permission to swap the debt owed to king etc into shares.

 

I think.

[forlanssister 3,114]

The Ashley easdale and their gang hold 26% of the shares. That's the hold up.

 

They don't, and not all the shares which are in what was known as the 'Easdale Bloc' are eligible to vote and it's 75% of the eligible votes cast that count not 75% of potential votes.

 

Last year the resolution to dis-apply pre-emption rights got (iirc) 73.8% of votes cast and that was despite what I consider a relatively weak push by the Board , I suspect any similar resolution this time round would receive a greater push from the Board and would be passed.

[chilledbear 16]

They don't, and not all the shares which are in what was known as the 'Easdale Bloc' are eligible to vote and it's 75% of the eligible votes cast that count not 75% of potential votes.

 

Last year the resolution to dis-apply pre-emption rights got (iirc) 73.8% of votes cast and that was despite what I consider a relatively weak push by the Board , I suspect any similar resolution this time round would receive a greater push from the Board and would be passed.

 

Was there a reason it wasn't pushed?

 

I remember at the time there were a few saying how important it was, yet there didn't seem to be any urgency from the top.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Was there a reason it wasn't pushed?

 

I remember at the time there were a few saying how important it was, yet there didn't seem to be any urgency from the top.

 

Thought it strange at the time but I suppose they had their reasons, heard murmurings at the time the feeling was Ashley would challenge it via the Courts.

[gaspard 562]

They don't, and not all the shares which are in what was known as the 'Easdale Bloc' are eligible to vote and it's 75% of the eligible votes cast that count not 75% of potential votes.

 

Last year the resolution to dis-apply pre-emption rights got (iirc) 73.8% of votes cast and that was despite what I consider a relatively weak push by the Board , I suspect any similar resolution this time round would receive a greater push from the Board and would be passed.

 

forgive my ignorance cos I'm pretty thick, but what would be the point of getting this passed unless the board has either an appetite to reinvest or has new investors willing to put money into a business with little hope of an investment return.

and wouldn't the kind chaps who have given us loans not be first in the list to receive equity for what they have already given before investing many more.

Simply cannot see where the level of new capital we urgently require (for both playing staff and fabric maint) is going to come from.

 

In the past whenever we needed dosh DM simply got Lloyds to loan it of the back of MIH whilst perpetuating the myth that he was personally investing -most fans couldn't care less where the money comes from but all loans will eventually require settlement in some form be they soft or hard.

Do we all need to re-evaluate our expectations and settle for what we currently have, because frankly I cannot see any source of new funding or realistic chance of the current board/shareholders stumping up anything other than keeping our heads above water finance.

[craig 5,199]

forgive my ignorance cos I'm pretty thick, but what would be the point of getting this passed unless the board has either an appetite to reinvest or has new investors willing to put money into a business with little hope of an investment return.

and wouldn't the kind chaps who have given us loans not be first in the list to receive equity for what they have already given before investing many more.

Simply cannot see where the level of new capital we urgently require (for both playing staff and fabric maint) is going to come from.

 

In the past whenever we needed dosh DM simply got Lloyds to loan it of the back of MIH whilst perpetuating the myth that he was personally investing -most fans couldn't care less where the money comes from but all loans will eventually require settlement in some form be they soft or hard.

Do we all need to re-evaluate our expectations and settle for what we currently have, because frankly I cannot see any source of new funding or realistic chance of the current board/shareholders stumping up anything other than keeping our heads above water finance.

 

Loans don't need to be repaid. They can be waived if so desired by the person providing the loan. There would be a potential tax consequence but the capital doesn't need to be repaid.