Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 11:13:21 GMT
For the avoidance of doubt, the offer I made was/is as follows; I will make available to non-shareholders some preferential shares (face value and also current true value £0.25) up to a number matched by Eddie and Ronnie, the only 2 members on the BOD with significant shares. The sole idea was to allow the true ARFC supporters i.e. season ticket holders, trust members and well known long term supporters to have a say at AGM's and the like. I paid £3.00 for these shares, but I don't want anything for them. Any money raised from this offer would not go to me, but would be donated to the club to assist in some small way in its present plight. If somebody wanted to be able to attend an AGM and was willing to pay a reasonable amount, say £3.00 upwards for each share, then the club benefits. Eddie and Ronnie have not responded on the forum, or directly to me face to face or by phone. I have to presume that they are not interested! To set the record straight, several years ago Eddie Haggerty turned down the opportunity to buy 499 shares which became available. I asked Eddie to take up the offer, which I then paid some £1500 for and asked him to spread them amongst those ARFC supporters who he thought were worthy. They were split into 10 batches of 49/50. There are those who frequent this forum who bought and paid for a bundle at that time and will verify this. Coming up with innovative ideas to raise funds for the club is where this board have fallen short. Any initiative/project should have been identified and scoped long ago. Financial savings were imposed by the bank not carried out by strategic choice. Hence why you haven't been contacted, your seen as threat not a solution ?
|
|
|
Post by stewmelrover on Sept 19, 2018 12:30:23 GMT
One initiative by the board on widening the shares was blocked/halted/voted down by a 'small number of major shareholders' at a recent AGM. (Or does that initiative not count?)
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Sept 19, 2018 13:06:20 GMT
What Robert Watt has suggested was NOT voted down by ANYONE. As has been said by others it needs to be ascertained exactly what appetite there is for either a new share issue or a re-issue of those whose current ownership is unknown. Either way there will significant legal costs involved which would have to be covered by `sales` before any benefit to the club could be accrued.
|
|
|
Post by stewmelrover on Sept 19, 2018 13:13:45 GMT
But 'allowing the board to investigate' the whole share issue absolutely was, without any ambiguity whatsoever, voted down by 'major shareholders'. I repeat, does this now 'not count'?
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Sept 19, 2018 13:17:49 GMT
Dunno, David, that was two years ago....maybe that person`s view has changed...but of that I have no idea. The ARFC of 2016 and the ARFC of 2018 are very different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 13:19:59 GMT
One initiative by the board on widening the shares was blocked/halted/voted down by a 'small number of major shareholders' at a recent AGM. (Or does that initiative not count?) That's how business works? You can't change the legalities of a shareholding business model, I'm not sure why there is so much issues around this??? Costly Example www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-44161807
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Sept 19, 2018 13:28:47 GMT
With the benefit of hindsight maybe it was a mistake to create a Limited Company back in 1919 but the club needed money to pay for the new ground, especially the stand. I believe Wiliam Bain & Co who supplied the structural steelwork were at least partly paid in shares. I wonder what happened to those shares, was a substantial block if I recall from seeing a share register back in the 70s. They are not showing on the current register.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 17:34:04 GMT
I cannot be described as a "diehard" as I do not have a track record to be justified of such a merit but fairplay, not many (if any) would have done what you have done Robert. Respect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
With the benefit of hindsight maybe it was a mistake to create a Limited Company back in 1919 but the club needed money to pay for the new ground, especially the stand. I believe Wiliam Bain & Co who supplied the structural steelwork were at least partly paid in shares. I wonder what happened to those shares, was a substantial block if I recall from seeing a share register back in the 70s. They are not showing on the current register. "dead shares".......I wonder...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 19:02:08 GMT
Grant, the William Bain Ltd shares were the batch that I referred to above.
The then chair of William Bain Ltd, Mr Jimmy Greenhalge, was one of the 5 big shareholders brought together at a meeting with the aim of defeating the proposed move to Airdrie. Mrs Fagan attended as well as David and Jimmy Shanks, John Hughes representing the Reilly family and Jimmy and Hugh Munro, who went on to replace the previous BOD.
His holding was 3499 from memory and as he wanted to step down from the BOD and offload his shares he offered them to the new BOD. These were then split 7 ways including to me and Eddie Haggerty, both of us by that time had been appointed to the BOD. Eddie initially declined to buy those offered to him but I then paid for his bundle and asked him to spread them amongst the supporters.
Robert
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Sept 19, 2018 19:06:34 GMT
Grant, the William Bain Ltd shares were the batch that I referred to above. The then chair of William Bain Ltd, Mr Jimmy Greenhalge, was one of the 5 big shareholders brought together at a meeting with the aim of defeating the proposed move to Airdrie. Mrs Fagan attended as well as David and Jimmy Shanks, John Hughes representing the Reilly family and Jimmy and Hugh Munro, who went on to replace the previous BOD. His holding was 3499 from memory and as he wanted to step down from the BOD and offload his shares he offered them to the new BOD. These were then split 7 ways including to me and Eddie Haggerty, both of us by that time had been appointed to the BOD. Eddie initially declined to buy those offered to him but I then paid for his bundle and asked him to spread them amongst the supporters. Robert Thank you for that concise explanation Robert which completely clears that up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 19:19:19 GMT
Where did the other 3000 shares go, may I ask.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 19:27:50 GMT
As I said, 3499 were split 7 ways amongst the BOD members, Eddie's share of 499 was then distributed amongst the supporters.
|
|