Jump to content

Pidge

OWTB Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Pidge

  • Rank
    Brian Talbot

Profile Fields

  • Supported Team
    Oldham Athletic

Recent Profile Visitors

99 profile views
  1. Have you forgotten that he is playing with the worry of a fall or awkward movement dislocating a shoulder. He was one of the only players playing with passion yesterday.
  2. Has anyone heard that Oldham Athletic have lost control of the Darlington gravel car park near the RRE. All the staff/players etc are moved to the hospital. The Darlington car park will be pay and display. I wonder who owns that land. If it’s Blitz, maybe he is getting awkward.
  3. So do we think Mr Alam is suitably qualified? i'm told by a charted Accountant, that CIPFA is more a qualification suitable for government sector departments, not private companies. Obviously Mr Alam would be cheaper to employ then a Chartered Accountant. BTW we aren't even sure he is qualified to use CIPFA, and no way of checking if he couldn't be bothered to stay registered. (Oh sorry, he is on Linked in. So it must be OK.)
  4. LoL. So are you saying he probably hasn't joined because he doesn't even have 3 GCSEs?
  5. Is there a way of checking if he has passed CIPFA. I have just tried searching in the CIPFA members section and searching on his name gives no results. Surely someone who passes that exam would see the benefit of membership.
  6. True Gary, but the point is that this manager is the wrong one to stick with and give time. He is one of the worst coaches for a while. And he has no clue about man management. His tactical knowledge and decision making is also lacking as plenty of others on here have written about.
  7. Chris don't you argue against Maouche being "all that", if 99 times out of 100 he makes a bad pass? I know what you are saying, that he does try to play the ball in behind, but he needs to pay that ball when someone is moving. The manager is the one who needs to get the front line looking for the ball in behind. That is just not happening. I have no time for his frustrations BTW. When it goes wrong, re-engage! Don't stand there looking to the heavens while the opposition leaves you and you never manage to get defensive shape back.
  8. You are not wrong "Duckegg", but you are talking about the poor performance as a whole, which is what I am blaming on the manager. If you take each individual and look at their past record and individual performances, I think they are good enough for league 2. Your comparison with what we had before is fair, and certainly present strikers have been poor compared to Surridge and Lang, but they still should be enough. Take each person we have individually and think about their past record. You will see what I mean. The issue of poor recruitment for this season is a separate one where I really agree with you
  9. If you analyse the regular match starters plus the better new additions, Ave some have done in this thread, they should all manage well at league 2. So what is wrong? Well, a manager who arrives at the club and publicly announces there are only 4 or 5 in the squad he thinks are good enough, is immediately going to struggle to get the last 10% of effort (when it gets painful) from them. He has thrashed them in the training to the point where muscles injuries become more likely, and jaded performances also more likely. Players are not enjoying training, and hence the job becomes a chore. He digs out players publicly to the point that no one wants to take risks. Players can’t stick up for themselves without falling out of favour. Results of all this - some of the worst overall team performances that I have seen in 30 plus years! I’m not sure we should stick with this manager ,(and I’m one who usually wants a manager given time)
  10. Being a referee is not easy. Having ref ed just for fun a few times, you are constantly doubting yourself as to what you actually saw. Someone who does it professionally doesn't see better then me, He is just prepared to act confident that what he thinks happened actually did happen. That necessary confidence is what we see as arrogance when the decision was wrong. The fact is in rapidly moving situations, we miss some of what happens, and out brain fills in the gap. It is what magicians use. There is a little known fact, that the eye cannot see anything as it moves from one subject point to the next. It has to be still to see.
  11. I Agree with this. Darren from the trust quoted the shares as being of nominal value. Then said AL had put money into the club, and this directors loan had been converted into shares. Surely that doesn’t make sense. So I’m wondering how the discussion in the board meeting went. AL says, I have put £200,000 per month into the club, ie £5million. I want 19,300 shares for this directors loan at £260 per share. And Darren I will just give you 597 shares for the trust at a value of about £155,000 just for free. (Obviously B shares are worth a bit less). Darren just says, thank you Mr AL, you didn’t have to do that. You have my vote, that will take you over 75% of directors votes.
  12. Interesting, so these directors loans must equal to roughly 100 times the value AL originally paid for the club. Because he has given himself over 19,000 shares extra above the roughly 100 he originally purchased. Does anyone smell a rat, or is it just me? Surely Darren needs to think more about what is being done in that board room.
  13. Thank you for that Dave, but clearly from your own posting, your answer that “It’s bog standard for small companies as I’ve posted numerous times” is a huge simplification, so don’t get irritated by someone trying to understand it. It is clear from your link, that statutory pre-emotion rights apply here. Hence it would have required the directors to vote a special resolution. (Something the Trust should be able to comment on, even if they were out voted) The last paragraph of the article you linked is “Generally, both a time limit and a limit on the amount (or value) of shares that can be issued unconditionally will be imposed by the resolution – this balances the need for the directors to have freedom to allot new shares with the members’ need to retain some control over the number of shares that are issued.” So my question is, was increasing share numbers from 100 to 20,000 a reasonable extra share issue?
  14. I read that under the companies Act, shareholders typically benefit from pre-emotion rights. This means that they must be given first refusal on any issue of new private company shares, in proportion to their existing share holding. However a private company’s articles of association can exclude pre-emotion rights. Shareholders can pass a special resolution, by majority of 75% or more of the vote cast, not to apply pre-emotion right. So it looks like AL’s 75% of the shares gave him just enough to issue without SC getting the option on more shares. 1:0 to AL, BO et al
  15. Extract from the Q&A A – SA advised that Simon Corney holds 0.1% of shares in the club, holding just 22 shares. SA didn’t know why he wanted 22 shares and said it maybe Simon Corney’s “lucky number”. When probed on the issuing of more shares, SA advised that this is solely down to whether the majority shareholder wants to do this. The supporter then questioned, whether the share percentage would increase as Simon Corney would have owned 22 shares of a much lower number of shares thus giving him a higher share percentage, SA once more confirmed that it was 22 shares that Simon Corney owned and not 22%. SA advised that a confirmation will be issued to Companies House to reflect that. PTB understands that the confirmation statement has now been submitted and published on Companies House. SA went onto say that it is easily confused between 22 shares and 22% but to an accountant it’s a big difference. SA said that everything is “above board” at this club now and insists there is nothing to hide. So if I started a company with a partner. I owned 22 out of 100 shares and my partner owned the majority. If my partner was just allowed by the law to increase the share number to 20,000 taking the majority himself and cutting my shareholding from 22% of any dividends or control to 0.1% I would think that is grossly unfair. I cannot believe the laws of this land would allow that. I understand the articles of the company may allow this, but surely The three amigos were not stupid enough to write that in.
×
×
  • Create New...