|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 10, 2008 9:47:18 GMT
Will you change the constitution to allow a "Sugar Daddy" or consortium to buy enough shares to buy the Club ?
|
|
|
|
Post by gobby cow on Nov 10, 2008 10:46:36 GMT
I would have thought you would know the present boards thinking on that Jimbo. I have asked the question of several directors over the years and received the same answer every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 10, 2008 11:04:21 GMT
Yes I do Alison, and disagree strongly with that point of view. However, if it's going to be the present board the prospective new directors will be a majority & may hold different views & I do not know the policies of those trying to take over.
|
|
|
|
Post by gobby cow on Nov 10, 2008 13:10:26 GMT
I cant remember if it came up at the Shag meeting, I know I wanted to ask it, but I know I forgot to ask one important question and I think it was that one.
Sadly it seems that rich business men in the counties are more interested in rugby, I think it is their private school upbringing. Even in Herefordshire I know of them giving money to the Warriors.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 10, 2008 14:20:45 GMT
More a case of those with money being more sensible about where it is used - you don't need to be a Mensa member to work out that giving money to WCFC is about as effective as withdrawing it from the bank in wads of notes and then setting fire to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 10, 2008 19:35:25 GMT
Tim, the point I'm trying to make is that a "mega investor" could clear the debts & finance some big transfer deals.
BUT, in the past the feeling was that we would be giving away our only real asset...... The freehold of The Lane !
My opinion has always been that this was a risk well worth taking, because there may just be someone out there that will be genuinely interested in building a massive club which is sadly lacking in this area. C D has helped this happen in rugby, so why don't we look to attract a similar investor.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 10, 2008 20:21:06 GMT
Must admit I'm still not in favour of a mega investor coming in, even Abramovich, but I will equally never understand (besides the obvious determination to keep it as Brian's private plaything) why the level of investment wasn't allowed to rise with inflation etc and keep pace with the times - £3k cap is farcical, £30k or even £50k would allow so much more money into the club without making investment prohibitive for those who wish to invest. Could make such a difference.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Nov 10, 2008 20:47:39 GMT
it has been proven that the current "safeguard" system is not infallible anyway, aren't we already under one persons control? The only difference is he hasn't ploughed the money into the club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2008 11:33:53 GMT
Its not about the amount of investment in money, its about the amount in percentage terms. The board havve consistently spoken about looking for some change in the constitution and have always done nothing!! Sure you can now buy a maximum of 3000 shares, but the share allocation increased from 200,000 to 300,000 so even with 3000 shares you still only get a maximum 1% shareholding.
I am in favour of a change in the constitution allowing an individual investor to own a far greater percentage of the club, say up to 35%. I would be more in favour of community ownership with the Supporters Trust owning a majority share.
Of course shares arent the way to control this present club. There is a way an investor could buy a very safe, secured holding in the club. So anyone with around £750,000 could "buy" control
|
|
