ChaddySmoker

13 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Aye. From the drivel you're spouting. Why can't you just accept someone has done something decent without picking apart everything? You're only here for the negativity. 

Or the truth, why on earth does that bother you so much? ???

1 hour ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Plenty of gestures are significant

Ffs Tumbleweed. 

6 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

I have. I'm not sure why it matters how much. I'm sure it's the gesture that counts

It seems to matter to you a lot more than to me. Tracey was listing all the items of 'significant' expenditure. I queried 2 of that list. 

Gestures do not = significance. 

Come on Coventry

5 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

What's your point? 

Try following the conversation ?

11 hours ago, underdog said:

I can't remember the technical/legal bit of it all, but it was to document again who owned what in shares when the transfer of ownership was done in January, solicitors/correct legal paperwork and the change correctly documented at companies house. They are cat B shares.

 

it does go a bit whoosh over my head...tbh. Maybe Jorvik and LL will come along and clarify it better than me

 

Its the clubs own articles of association that was written with regards to voting at boardroom level it's a equal parity vote one vote per board member. Hence when the legality process of the removal of a director was sought, paperwork issued and an EGM called, there were only 3 people who could vote, Al, Brooke and Corney. I think it's safe to say it was a 2:1 vote for removal.

Not much cost there then really. 

2 hours ago, underdog said:

Al paid for the Trusts legal part of the shares to be honoured in the change of ownership, paid the bill that took us to court in April from ex owner paid for the removal of ex owner.

If the Trust had a 3% non voting shareholding before the change of ownership and the same after why were legal fees incurred. (I am not saying that there were no legal fees.) Why?

On 10/05/2018 at 3:10 PM, ChaddySmoker said:

Terminated actually

 

[Removed]

49 minutes ago, singe said:

It says on Companies House submission that Simon Corney resigned... 

Terminated actually

On 08/05/2018 at 4:59 PM, jorvik_latic said:

 

There is no secrecy? It is stated in black and white on the website that AL owns 97% of the club (fulfilling Football League regulation 105) - it's also been mentioned on different articles. Like I've said in the past - I don't know why he did it that way but he owns the club. 

 

There is absolutely no ambiguity from the Trust, the ambiguity comes from ChaddySmoker who keeps bringing it up (which I have no problem with normally but he's wrong this time). How many times do I have to say that AL owns the full 97%?

I have said quite clearly weeks or months ago that when the information is changed at Companies House, I will change my view and probably agree with you.

Until then when you keep bringing it up, I will keep pointing out my reasoning for differing.

The are many ways that legal agreements can be scheduled for certain aspects to prevail at certain points in time and perhaps things have changed since the end of the season/ since relegation/since 3 months have passed etc. Third party information sometimes does not reflect those changes/clauses/ alterations.

We have all got used to the smoke and mirrors at Boundary Park so perhaps there is nothing untoward. I will withhold my judgment.

1 minute ago, Fervid said:

If Fane is such a bad guy why have they offered him a deal.

perhaps they are hoping that we have found his level next season- 1970/71 the last year we were in the 4th division

http://thefootballattic.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-ford-sporting-league-197071.html

20 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

Well he doesn't.

I think that we need an independent third party organisation that shows the up to date details of share ownership of Companies to solve this disagreement.

If only there was an organisation in England and Wales like Companies House to settle the discussion! 

Just now, deyres42 said:

What about the 48.5% that he owns?

3 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

And there you have it.... You have to give notice on it though.

      In OAFC terms it will be Yet Another Draw.

23 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

Lemsagam, we are told, owns 97% of the shares and all of the votes.  It wouldn't be difficult to call an EGM and vote him out.

Do you believe everything that you are told on owtb? He owns 48.5% when I last looked which is actually 50% of the voting rights. He cannot sack Corney and Corney cannot sack him as far as I understand it

3 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Wow. You've written a post that basically bigs up SC. It's been liked by ChaddySmoker as well. What next, BB80 along to tell us he's asked SC to be best man at his wedding?

 

Plenty of people on here said better the devil you know regarding Corney. Plenty then said they'd rather take their chances, wouldn't mind if we were relegated, anything would be nore exciting than staying in league 1 with him in charge etc.

 

Now those same people coming out announcing AL is the the anti-christ.

 

I'm not saying AL is good or bad because nobody really knows yet. As usual a few rumours on here have become gospel. Scare mongering even from trust reps which doesn't help.

 

 

I was agreeing with the bit about AL. When I was single I went out with a fat girl then a ginger. Because I sacked the ginger doesn't mean that I liked or like fat girls

31 minutes ago, leeslover said:

Is he travelling down in a DeLorean?

Let it go

3 minutes ago, Flemboy said:

Clint Hill?

Fanny Hill

I was going to edit it but if you need it editing, I cant be arsed

8 hours ago, Sparkleking said:

Guys, this may be controversial and it is just a suggestion, but can we give the team and Wellens all the support we can this week?  Surely any talk about a new manager can wait until next week, but for the moment it must surely be about getting behind the club and hopefully seeing us over that finishing line.

You lost my support at 'Guys'

3 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said:

I don't fancy us to stay up at all. Rochdale have their talisman and main goal threat back for the game and Keith Hill will have them really pumped up...

It doesn't matter when we win

1 minute ago, yarddog73 said:

Play Nepo, Moimbe can't be trusted. Defence yesterday kept a clean sheet so why change it? 

Because we need someone further up the pitch who can put a cross in. Both. 

11 minutes ago, daniel said:

I don’t dispute what you are saying, as you are usually correct, but it seems stupid that he would know, surely that is a negative for us. Whilst I think it’s the correct decision, I would like to think he’s the sort of bloke who won’t just think oh fuck it and not be arsed. He’ll want to stay involved in the game and having a relagation on your CV is never good.

We hope

6 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said:

He is off. Wouldn't surprise me if we announce his sacking straight after the Northampton game, regardless of the result...

If you know that perhaps he knows it too so his team selection and substitutions now make a lot more sense

10 minutes ago, OldhamAthlete said:

I don't require instruction from an arsehole like you.

Fight, fight, fight!

50 minutes ago, LaticMark said:

 

Should make it a Fiver for tomorrow