What's that smell????

MIjacks

MIjacks

First Teamer
Crojack I think we have the same idea about playing young players and you're right it will be difficult to get to the Premier League like that. I probably am more optimistic than most. However....
CroJack said:
And if we don't get promoted this season then it's going to be more and more difficult in years to come. All senior players will be gone by next summer. Our revenue will drop down next year, and after three years our revenue will be something like £30m
Click to expand...
Which is why I think it's so pertinent that we don't spend big money now and set ourselves up for the future. Chasing things for 1 season at a time got us into this mess. I think we have the right manager for the job to work with youngsters and keep making them better. So keep investing in youth.
CroJack said:
The only way to make money in the Premier League is to have a squad on low wages. I am talking here about small clubs like Swansea. But for how long you can do that?
Click to expand...
Agreed which is what I think they're trying to do. I think our owners want to be a low wage premier league team.
You're right you won't be a perpetual premier league team you'll bounce back and forth. But it's better than becoming a team that stays in the Premier League and is terrible to watch which is what we'd become. Don't think it's terrible to bounce back and forth if you can set it up correctly think the problem comes when all your focus is doing whatever it takes for that season to be in the pl.
CroJack said:
I don't think so. If they wanted to go back up immediately they either wouldn't have sold almost all our senior players or they would have invested in quality replacements. That's how you get promoted. What we are doing right now is a long term project.
Click to expand...
I agree that they aren't desperate to get back up this year and I don't think they should be. Like I said focusing on one year got us into this mess. Think they are hoping top 6 this year and it's a hope. Think next year will be the big push but not sacrificing the future. Like I said they really want to be back in the PL so they can sell the team within 5 seasons.
It's unfortunate they won't actually spend any of their money on the team. However I'd rather have them do what they're doing now then become Sunderland. Will it be easy to get back up no. Will it probably be this year, no. But if the owners are going to actually make some money off this team they need to get it in the Premier League.
 
MIjacks

MIjacks

First Teamer
Yeah that NDA is total bs. It doesn't shock me after reading this
What is the status of the proposed share sale that fell through and what happened?

SK: "There has been a request for mediation. I hope that the Trust, the selling shareholders and ourselves can sit in a room without lawyers and figure out how to do something in the best interests in the club. That is all I can say on that

The owners are shady characters that just want to make money off the club. The Trust needs to find a way to get more ownership of the club so they have more rights, is it 25% or 30% they are guaranteed more rights/power? cause I've seen both numbers. I'm don't really assume it's possible but it'd be nice.
 
Last edited:
Yankee_Jack

Yankee_Jack

Key Player
I don't see why the current owners need to be in the initial or any mediation ... unless their conduct is in dispute. They don't or shouldn't have a dog in this race.

I have always held the belief that the Trust has been damaged by the conduct of the selling shareholders. There should be no mediation initial or otherwise unless they are ready to settle. First, the complaint is filed in court and served. Then ... and only then ... do you get their undivided attention. That is when they realize that shit is going to get thrown into fan and they have a down side. The court has a calendar and events and process must follow in timely fashion. Then you go through discovery. Then you know the full scope and scale of the matter .... and then they will be requesting a settlement "mediation". Then the Trust will know exactly what they can get out of the situation.

It seems to me that unless documents have been destroyed (which I think would work against the selling shareholders) that who did what and when (or failed to do so) is going to be amply covered by discovered documents or their absence. There will not likely need to be a lot of testimony in this case. Either the chairman, the board, and the selling shareholders can demonstrate that they followed the prevailing shareholder agreement, company bye-laws and statute or they didn't. That demonstration will need a paper trail. I don't see that there's much room for ambiguity. I believe that we've already had an in court admission in another proceeding that filings to Companies house were erroneous .... so the hole just deepens and fills with shit from there.

I have also always held that the appropriate remedy in this case is for the selling shareholders to transfer their residual ownership to the Trust plus additional financial compensation, as deemed necessary, to make the Trust whole.

I've never understood why it's taken so long to move on this.
 
CroJack

CroJack

Key Player
MIjacks said:
The Trust needs to find a way to get more ownership of the club so they have more rights, is it 25% or 30% they are guaranteed more rights/power?
Click to expand...
25+ %. 25,1 % is enough to block special resolutions.

Thanks to Jenkins, Morgan and co. who transferred their voting rights (read: sold their voting rights) to the Yanks, the Yanks have more than 75% voting rights while owning only 68% of the shares in the club.

75% voting rights gives them the right to pass special resolutions which means they have absolute control over the club. A special resolution is required for:
  • alteration of the articles
  • change of name
  • reduction of share capital
  • authority for allotment of equity securities by the directors without restriction or subject to modified restrictions
  • re-registration of: an unlimited company as a limited company; a private company or an unlimited company as a public company; or a public company as a private company
  • approval of certain off-market purchasers by a company of its own shares
  • resolution of a company for winding up by the court; or for voluntary winding up
The only restriction to 75% voting rights rule is weighted voting rights unfair prejudice i.e. the court has power to set aside resolutions of members if the members with the majority of the voting power have used their votes for a corrupt purpose.

I have pointed out many times that selling the majority of shares to the Yanks was not a big deal, but giving them the majority of voting rights and absolute control over the club was the worst thing the sellouts did when they sold their shares.
 
Last edited:
MIjacks

MIjacks

First Teamer
Thanks CroJack, didn't know that. Yeah for guys who "love" the club they really screwed us. Being through what they had been through how do you let the owners have complete control. You'd think after seeing their beloved club almost killed by a shit owner they'd at least make it so the trust would end up with 25.1% of the voting rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom