Its here the investment
Re: Its here the investment
Come on Spyman. A return to the days of Hodgy's dodgy foreigners. How could you not want that?
Re: its here
My point is that none of these "protections" offer any real protection and they certinaly offer no certainty or security of our continued control of the football club once we open the door. They can all be cirumvented, say, by splitting the club into distinct and legally seperate spheres (as was done previously) without damaging or impacting on the assets of the CBS becuase what, exactly, does the CBS own? We need to be clear about that and understand the risks in agreeing to any changes in legal structures or outside investment.Maurice_Peddelty wrote: As you say Rule 96 allows a change in construct. However, there is the matter of the Community Shares to think about - they are unique to a CBS. So if DFCSG was to change into something other than a CBS, I would assume the Community Shares would become immediately repayable. Also there is the not so small matter that it would require a minimum of a 50% turn-out in membership and a 75% majority in favour of a conversion to something else. In the case of a dissolution, there is a similar voting requirement and all of the assets and would have to be transferred to a charitable organisation within the community.
Mr Singh may only have the most noble of motives in wanting to get invovled in our club but I can not see past his actions ( as seen from the outside looking in) leading up to peugeot day.
Re: Its here the investment
They can't though Mk Darlo because the CBS are the majority shareholder they couldn't resolve to split the company up legally as it would damage their interest in the club.
Any resolution which would reduce their control over assets (which is basically the club and everything it has) must always be maintained.
Any resolution which would reduce their control over assets (which is basically the club and everything it has) must always be maintained.
Re: Its here the investment
Can anyone gaurentee 100% that cant be changed, altered or broken over time? The CBS are only the majority shareholder in the club at this time. That can change as we sell more 15% parcels and cant find the money to buy up any additonal share capital issued comensurate withour current standing.lo36789 wrote:They can't though Mk Darlo because the CBS are the majority shareholder they couldn't resolve to split the company up legally as it would damage their interest in the club.
Any resolution which would reduce their control over assets (which is basically the club and everything it has) must always be maintained.
If we understand and have transparency of all risks and benefits and decide to go ahead fine, but lets not jump into something that we cant undo. Act in haste, repent at leasure and all that.
Re: Its here the investment
Yes. Because the CBS can't legally vote to enable a share issue which takes them below 75%. You see the latest comms are doing everything to maintain that share. They want 75% as that allows the Supporters Group to have full control over the Articles. Having a shareholding above 75% doesn't give you any further power as you can force anything through with 75% of vote.
As Mr Tibbs has called out yes we could make a decision to close the CBS but that would require an over 50% vote with 75% of the membership being in attendance. It would also probably come with a lot of nasty consequences in terms of the Community Shares.
As Mr Tibbs has called out yes we could make a decision to close the CBS but that would require an over 50% vote with 75% of the membership being in attendance. It would also probably come with a lot of nasty consequences in terms of the Community Shares.
Re: Its here the investment
So doing a bit of basic maths if 40,000 is 15%, then 100% is 266667. What does this £ 266667 equity consist of? Also, that means that 51% would be 135,000, so less than a 100k extra investment would mean over 51%.
Re: Its here the investment
No idea if this link will work.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docu ... 3qLNyAU%3D
So you have...
251,614 ordinary shares
70,000 ordinary A shares (worth 2 x voting rights)
1 golden share (worth 10% of voting rights)
At the last accounts DFCSG had 1 x golden share, 37,900 Ordinary A shares and 123,755 Ordinary Shares
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ory?page=1
8th March and 5th April contain the documents which give the best indicator of what our share capital is made up of and who owns the shares.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docu ... 3qLNyAU%3D
So you have...
251,614 ordinary shares
70,000 ordinary A shares (worth 2 x voting rights)
1 golden share (worth 10% of voting rights)
At the last accounts DFCSG had 1 x golden share, 37,900 Ordinary A shares and 123,755 Ordinary Shares
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ory?page=1
8th March and 5th April contain the documents which give the best indicator of what our share capital is made up of and who owns the shares.
Re: Its here the investment
So shares appear to make up £321,685. So £40,000 is actually only 12% then.
Re: Its here the investment
Yeh and if you read the statement all it says is that it will be within the current articles as it won't be greater than 15%.Vodka_Vic wrote:So shares appear to make up £321,685. So £40,000 is actually only 12% then.
Re: Its here the investment
So if ignore the fact it's RS for a minute, can we put something in place legally that any loans to the club must be done through the dfcsg and only the dfcsg can scrap that rule (even if we don't own 51% of the club) that way we can't get into the same situation again.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
- Mr_Tibbs
- Posts: 3293
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
- Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
- Location: Gruzia
- Contact:
Re: Its here the investment
I think we should cut off the serpent's head and completely remove the risk of getting into the same mess again.shawry wrote:So if ignore the fact it's RS for a minute, can we put something in place legally that any loans to the club must be done through the dfcsg and only the dfcsg can scrap that rule (even if we don't own 51% of the club) that way we can't get into the same me as again.
We don't need this £40k and the DFCSG members shouldn't be asked to vote on a resolution which requires the CBS to timeshift money to keep everything within the rules because of it.
Short term gain = long term pain.
I'd love to know what the other shareholders in DFC think of all this - any of you out there?
Join - Shop - Collect
Collect free donations for your club every time you shop the easyfundraising way:
www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dfcsg
Collect free donations for your club every time you shop the easyfundraising way:
www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dfcsg
Re: Its here the investment
As I said before my problem is that RS has been shown to let anger / annoyance / spite override professionalism.. I cannot and will not vote for him..Mr_Tibbs wrote:I think we should cut off the serpent's head and completely remove the risk of getting into the same mess again.shawry wrote:So if ignore the fact it's RS for a minute, can we put something in place legally that any loans to the club must be done through the dfcsg and only the dfcsg can scrap that rule (even if we don't own 51% of the club) that way we can't get into the same me as again.
We don't need this £40k and the DFCSG members shouldn't be asked to vote on a resolution which requires the CBS to timeshift money to keep everything within the rules because of it.
Short term gain = long term pain.
I'd love to know what the other shareholders in DFC think of all this - any of you out there?
-
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:50 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Its here the investment
Has anybody taken into consideration the fact that at least some of the people who have committed funds to the latest 3 appeals (Pitch, Seating Phase 1 and Boost The Budget) might have second thoughts if a decision is made to allow Raj Singh to acquire shares in the club?
I suspect that some might feel strongly enough about this to withdraw their offers / commitment to contribute if RS once more becomes a shareholder.
The £40,000 will obviously be less attractive if it causes the club to lose other pledged funds.
As far as the shareholdings and percentages are concerned I think it would be helpful if the club posted a full list of all shareholders and their shareholdings so that we can all see exactly what is held and by whom.
I suspect that some might feel strongly enough about this to withdraw their offers / commitment to contribute if RS once more becomes a shareholder.
The £40,000 will obviously be less attractive if it causes the club to lose other pledged funds.
As far as the shareholdings and percentages are concerned I think it would be helpful if the club posted a full list of all shareholders and their shareholdings so that we can all see exactly what is held and by whom.
Re: Its here the investment
Fairly sure there's one on companies houseDarlo Dodger wrote:
As far as the shareholdings and percentages are concerned I think it would be helpful if the club posted a full list of all shareholders and their shareholdings so that we can all see exactly what is held and by whom.
-
- Posts: 5995
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Its here the investment
Yes there is, I have a downloaded copy.al_quaker wrote:Fairly sure there's one on companies houseDarlo Dodger wrote:
As far as the shareholdings and percentages are concerned I think it would be helpful if the club posted a full list of all shareholders and their shareholdings so that we can all see exactly what is held and by whom.
It doesn't break it down in terms of percentages though, you could write them all out and work it out I guess.
- Mr_Tibbs
- Posts: 3293
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:55 pm
- Team Supported: The Almighty Darlo
- Location: Gruzia
- Contact:
Re: Its here the investment
I think the one for the seats would fail completely, then we'd be bombarded with all sort of crap saying that we need to accept Singh's proposal of further involvement in the club.Darlo Dodger wrote:Has anybody taken into consideration the fact that at least some of the people who have committed funds to the latest 3 appeals (Pitch, Seating Phase 1 and Boost The Budget) might have second thoughts if a decision is made to allow Raj Singh to acquire shares in the club?
I suspect that some might feel strongly enough about this to withdraw their offers / commitment to contribute if RS once more becomes a shareholder.
The £40,000 will obviously be less attractive if it causes the club to lose other pledged funds.
As far as the shareholdings and percentages are concerned I think it would be helpful if the club posted a full list of all shareholders and their shareholdings so that we can all see exactly what is held and by whom.
There's the rub of taking his £40k now.
Vote No!
Join - Shop - Collect
Collect free donations for your club every time you shop the easyfundraising way:
www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dfcsg
Collect free donations for your club every time you shop the easyfundraising way:
www.easyfundraising.org.uk/causes/dfcsg
-
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:50 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Its here the investment
You are both right. thanks for the reply.
05 Apr 2016 Annual return made up to 31 March 2016 with full list of shareholders
Statement of capital on 2016-04-05
• GBP 291,615 View PDF ( Annual return made up to 31 March 2016 with full list of shareholders
Statement of capital on 2016-04-05
• GBP 291,615
- link opens in a new window ) (22 pages)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history
Cheers.
05 Apr 2016 Annual return made up to 31 March 2016 with full list of shareholders
Statement of capital on 2016-04-05
• GBP 291,615 View PDF ( Annual return made up to 31 March 2016 with full list of shareholders
Statement of capital on 2016-04-05
• GBP 291,615
- link opens in a new window ) (22 pages)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history
Cheers.
-
- Posts: 5995
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Its here the investment
Some different docs if you look around.
Shareholding as of 28th Feb 2017 was 321,615
As someone mentioned before
1 Golden Share = 10% (Held by DFCSG)
70,000 A Shares = 2 votes per share (57,400 owned by DFCSG)
251,614 ordinary Shares = 1 vote per share (191,389 owned by DFCSG)
Which leaves 12,600 A Shares and 60,225 Standard shares with the other shareholders.
Shareholding as of 28th Feb 2017 was 321,615
As someone mentioned before
1 Golden Share = 10% (Held by DFCSG)
70,000 A Shares = 2 votes per share (57,400 owned by DFCSG)
251,614 ordinary Shares = 1 vote per share (191,389 owned by DFCSG)
Which leaves 12,600 A Shares and 60,225 Standard shares with the other shareholders.
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Its here the investment
RS seems to be fronting the proposal to buy into the club, and it is only he who will be answering questions on Friday. If there are other investors coming in with him to share the liabilities and possibly place a more acceptable, football, face in the frame, wouldn't it have been better tactics for RS to have had that person or persons approach the club with £40,000, rather than do it himself? This would have avoided the expected mayhem caused by the mere mention of the Singh name. The fact that RS has put himself forward as face behind the bid suggest that he is deluded into thinking that we can get over what happened in 2012 for a mess of potage, and that there is no consortium of football people standing with him so that he has to present this offer himself as there isn't anyone else
Re: Its here the investment
Or, if it is a consortium, RS might have decided to get the "worst bit" out of the way first?en passant wrote:RS seems to be fronting the proposal to buy into the club, and it is only he who will be answering questions on Friday. If there are other investors coming in with him to share the liabilities and possibly place a more acceptable, football, face in the frame, wouldn't it have been better tactics for RS to have had that person or persons approach the club with £40,000, rather than do it himself? This would have avoided the expected mayhem caused by the mere mention of the Singh name. The fact that RS has put himself forward as face behind the bid suggest that he is deluded into thinking that we can get over what happened in 2012 for a mess of potage, and that there is no consortium of football people standing with him so that he has to present this offer himself as there isn't anyone else
If it is a consortium and they start investment talks, and everyone gets interested - THEN it comes out that RS is part of it, a lot of people would say that his name was deliberately witheld until we were on the hook so to speak.
-
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Its here the investment
Yes can certainly see why that might have been bad news for closing the investment but by then we would have swallowed the bait and maybe that would be enough to swing it. Of course the early rumours of a few noted football people being involved to front this bid is the sort of thing that seemed to be turning a few heads when it was first mooted that an investment was in the offing. I still think that a group investment that seemed to be heavily weighted towards local experienced football people would have been a more acceptable bid, even with RS travelling on the shirttails. The current way that they have tried to sell this to us seems to be doomed to go down in flames and this is all down to RS being the only name out there.Quakerz wrote:Or, if it is a consortium, RS might have decided to get the "worst bit" out of the way first?en passant wrote:RS seems to be fronting the proposal to buy into the club, and it is only he who will be answering questions on Friday. If there are other investors coming in with him to share the liabilities and possibly place a more acceptable, football, face in the frame, wouldn't it have been better tactics for RS to have had that person or persons approach the club with £40,000, rather than do it himself? This would have avoided the expected mayhem caused by the mere mention of the Singh name. The fact that RS has put himself forward as face behind the bid suggest that he is deluded into thinking that we can get over what happened in 2012 for a mess of potage, and that there is no consortium of football people standing with him so that he has to present this offer himself as there isn't anyone else
If it is a consortium and they start investment talks, and everyone gets interested - THEN it comes out that RS is part of it, a lot of people would say that his name was deliberately witheld until we were on the hook so to speak.