|
|
Post by cloud on Feb 24, 2017 9:12:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Feb 24, 2017 9:15:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Feb 24, 2017 9:19:18 GMT
Well done to all involved. Let's hope we can all move forward now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Feb 24, 2017 9:49:08 GMT
Well done to all involved. Let's hope we can all move forward now. Yes congratulations for getting together, hope the marriage lasts, and we get a full congregation at our next home match,that extra money through the turnstiles could make all the difference to the club |
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on Feb 24, 2017 9:51:31 GMT
Haven't the ancient majority shareholders already voted against this? Just because Hampson has now had a change of heart, why would those with the majority shares no longer involved have a change of heart? Answer is, they won't. Unless they can persuade them to transfer their shares, this unfortunately can never happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Feb 24, 2017 11:07:46 GMT
I assume Hampson has the support of the reluctant shareholders in issuing this statement? If not it's a strange step for him to take.
|
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on Feb 24, 2017 11:31:40 GMT
Never say Never.....if this all happens again then I believe the board can make the shareholders vote either by show of hands or by the amount of shares held.
If show of hands then this would mean those former board members turning up and winning by that show of hands..........if I am correct in my thinking ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Feb 24, 2017 12:50:54 GMT
Yes and no, it can be done by a show of hands, unless 3 shareholders request a full vote, then its down to shares held. I can pretty much guarantee that 3 shareholders will ask for this. Because this is an action which would be calling for constitutional company change, then it requires a 75% majority in favour to pass any motions proposed.
6 months ago, the Board recommended that shareholders reject the motions proposed, and they were defeated. At least this time, the Board have stated publicly that they are in favour of this constitutional change, so they must surely recommend shareholders to vote in favour of the motions proposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 24, 2017 13:46:40 GMT
Somehow I can't see this not happening if the board are supporting the motion. I cannot remember the last time a vote went against the board as they appear to have a massive proxy vote.
However, I'd love to know what has caused this u turn.... is it just that they want to rid themselves of the responsibilities of running the club ?
|
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Feb 24, 2017 13:49:54 GMT
My fear is that some of the current board, and therefore many shareholders, will feel that the ST saw this years before they did, and there will be reluctance to move forward with this because the green eyed monster will rear its ugly head.
Hope I'm wrong in thinking that it is more hot air from the board.
Once again, time- which is fast running out- will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Feb 24, 2017 14:06:45 GMT
Somehow I can't see this not happening if the board are supporting the motion. I cannot remember the last time a vote went against the board as they appear to have a massive proxy vote. However, I'd love to know what has caused this u turn.... is it just that they want to rid themselves of the responsibilities of running the club ? That is my fear Jimbo, serious financial issues don't just clear themselves up like a spot of man-flu. If the patient is beyond recovery, then there will be no ownership change. Shareholders, including the Supporters Trust, or anyone else with an interest in taking this particular patient on, would need to do a full due diligence process first. Its so easy to get emotive about these things, but the truth is, no-one is going to take an unnecessary risk, and it doesn't matter what the ownership structure looks like, no cashflow means no turn around. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Feb 24, 2017 16:42:41 GMT
How can we persuade those major shareholders of past times to come out of their hermit caves, accept the will of the current majority and NOT demand a poll vote?
It will either take a massive face to face persuasion campaign or out-and-out bribery! Otherwise we're all wasting our time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Feb 24, 2017 17:40:24 GMT
Something must have changed for Hampson to be making these comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 24, 2017 18:35:13 GMT
How can we persuade those major shareholders of past times to come out of their hermit caves, accept the will of the current majority and NOT demand a poll vote? It will either take a massive face to face persuasion campaign or out-and-out bribery! Otherwise we're all wasting our time. I think you're probably wrong Tim, over the years the proxy votes have simply been given to the board to do what they wish. |
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Feb 24, 2017 21:25:53 GMT
I just don't get it. Why now? Why not six months ago when this was voted on? Something doesn't feel right about this.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289 
|
Post by dcx on Feb 24, 2017 22:55:08 GMT
I just don't get it. Why now? Why not six months ago when this was voted on? Something doesn't feel right about this. Call me a huge cynic but I think this could be a bit of posturing by Hampson so it looks like he's everyone's friend and saviour during these troubled times. I reality nothing can change without 75% majority, and there are still plenty of (dare I say, corrupt) shareholders who would vote against a community club. So what Hampson says, and what those who are pulling the strings do, are probably two separate things. I'll beleive it when I see it, basically. |
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Feb 25, 2017 8:10:54 GMT
Agree absolutely. You can't,in my humble opinion,be dead against a proposal one minute and then all for it the next, unless you have an ulterior motive.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Feb 25, 2017 9:08:24 GMT
This is part of the agreed joint trust/board statement "The Board of Directors have previously stated that they would consider the move to community ownership when the planning application for Perdiswell was due to be determined. With this now imminent both the Board of Directors and the Supporters Trust can now work together to put in place a plan of action to enable this to happen.". That is the next thing on my to do list...
|
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on Feb 25, 2017 11:44:23 GMT
How imminent?! The statement said April or may. I've lost count at the number of times we have seen a statement saying it's close and a decision is imminent. I bet by the start of the season we still won't have a decision from the planning people. Will believe it when I see it, I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Feb 25, 2017 11:58:16 GMT
Imminent means 'about to happen'. There will have to be a public consultation period of three weeks on revised documents and then, if the planning officer is happy all outstanding issues have been dealt with, the application can be reported to Planning Committee. The April meeting might be too close with consultation still to take place, perhaps May might be more realistic - but with elections the politicians could wish to delay until the summer? Either way thus application needs to be heard, so then the land transfer issue (potentially more difficult than planning) can be thrashed out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Feb 25, 2017 15:53:52 GMT
Agree absolutely. You can't,in my humble opinion,be dead against a proposal one minute and then all for it the next, unless you have an ulterior motive. Haphazard Hampson obviously has an ulterior motive, as he always has: that is the long term future of the club, not that he's achieved anything since becoming chairman. It would be laughable if it were not so serious !! |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Feb 25, 2017 16:35:00 GMT
If there's no money left to keep the club operating, it makes not a jot of difference whether the company changes its constitution or not. No cash, no opex, no business. A CBS can raise capital towards a ground, but if the business has no money for day to day running, its unable to trade. Its a bit like changing the tyres on a car to winter tyres in snow, its a great capital investment, but with no petrol in the tank, they're of little value.
Hampson has got away with putting the whole playing squad up for offer, whilst we are in a relegation battle, with 10 games left till the end of the season, and no-one has challenged him to explain why. That was the kind of move which doesn't seem like its made out of choice, but hey. he's got away with it completely unscathed! On one hand he decimates the team, on the other he says that we will fight hammer and tong until the end of the season, surely the best way to go hammer and tong would have been to keep the squad until the club is safe from relegation? Which could have been just 5 more games!
I'm glad that plenty of rank and file supporters are seeing through this. The Board have had their little fireside chat with representatives of the Supporters Trust, but don't see fit to provide any information to shareholders, or indeed to fans.
Just a thought but, what if the Board are looking to bail out? Not a bad way to go, move the club to community ownership, retire off the scene, then the club finds itself unable to continue a few months later. Who will be blamed for the clubs demise then? No, that can't be it. No, Hampson has suddenly woken up one morning and decided that, despite a career of over 40 years running limited companies, and having a firm belief and understanding of shareholder value and interests, he's discovered his philanthropic side, and now firmly believes in community ownership. Its a good job he is firmly behind this now, as he will be the person still running the show. No-one has ever called for the Board to stand down, just to represent community ownership as opposed to shareholders, so Hampson is effectively committing to continuing as Chairman for the foreseeable future as a community owned club. He surely wouldn't walk away if the constitution changes to one he believes in, would he?
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Feb 25, 2017 19:13:43 GMT
This is part of the agreed joint trust/board statement "The Board of Directors have previously stated that they would consider the move to community ownership when the planning application for Perdiswell was due to be determined. With this now imminent both the Board of Directors and the Supporters Trust can now work together to put in place a plan of action to enable this to happen.". That is the next thing on my to do list... Is it just a coincidence then that this statement has been made in the wake of other recent events? Jem took the words right out of my mouth. Maybe they have driven the club past the point of no return and are now trying to come across all pally pally so they don't catch hell when the inevitable happens. |
|
