North Stand Construction Thread

[Theoutsider]

26 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

What do you think? 

Yes, probably 10%

[lookersstandandy]

I’m gonna have to change my name by deed poll....

[laticsmarra]

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

Come on.... It was a member of the FLG asking the appropriate question of Blitz.  Brooke answered half of them himself and Blitz just kept say “correct”.   
 

Its not really a criticism, but I had to laugh when Brooke kept sayIng “they” and “them”, before eventually saying “I’m one of them”.

 

It was like matey FM.  I laughed again when one of the podcast crew said “you grilled him”.  .  I’d have to listen again, but I don’t recall any challenging questions about his tenure or the perceived asset stripping by some fans. 

If you are so interested why didnt you go to the meeting and ask such questions?Blitz asked at the meeting to be challenged and I am sure you would have been able to oblige.

[yarddog73]

1 hour ago, Theoutsider said:

On which note; 

 

What an absolute cock

[sjk2008]

I reckon Blitz will agree something that will get him a future windfall* on the basis he sells the stadium and land for a ‘cut-price’ fee.

 

If we achieve any modicum of success of course.

[kowenicki]

12 minutes ago, laticsmarra said:

If you are so interested why didnt you go to the meeting and ask such questions?Blitz asked at the meeting to be challenged and I am sure you would have been able to oblige.

I’m personally not arsed what he’s done. I doubt he’s broken the law and as the owner can do as he pleases.  Feel like a dramatic turnaround for some here from their previous views of the original three amigos though. Latics fans have always been fickle I suppose. 

[laticsmarra]

19 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

I’m personally not arsed what he’s done. I doubt he’s broken the law and as the owner can do as he pleases.  Feel like a dramatic turnaround for some here from their previous views of the original three amigos though. Latics fans have always been fickle I suppose. 

I suppose some views may have been formed from idle speculation. Perhaps having it explained by Blitz may have resulted in some change of opinion. I have been neutral in my views on Blitz pros and cons,after hearing his explanation more pro than con now.

[Stainrod]

Actually thought that podcast clarified matters re timings, ownership etc. What is contentious still? Sounds like he has invested a hell of a lot in our club, why does he get flack? Genuine question before I get any abuse.

[Theoutsider]

46 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

What an absolute cock

 
Here’s an even better one, from Stephen Partington who would like to award Abdallah a medal; 

 

I will second all these comments. Time people started listening instead of protesting. How many Chairman of any Club would participate with supporters more than Abdallah has since he came to the Club. He deserves a medal in doing so after all the insults and discrediting he and his members of staff have received. He deserves more backing than he does receive at present and instead of wasting his precious time talking to people that don't believe, and don't want to believe, what he states, he should now cancel any further forums and just, when he feels necessary, speak through the media and focus on his aims for OAFC, and make it his sole priority.

[LightDN123]

43 minutes ago, Theoutsider said:

 
Here’s an even better one, from Stephen Partington who would like to award Abdallah a medal; 

 

I will second all these comments. Time people started listening instead of protesting. How many Chairman of any Club would participate with supporters more than Abdallah has since he came to the Club. He deserves a medal in doing so after all the insults and discrediting he and his members of staff have received. He deserves more backing than he does receive at present and instead of wasting his precious time talking to people that don't believe, and don't want to believe, what he states, he should now cancel any further forums and just, when he feels necessary, speak through the media and focus on his aims for OAFC, and make it his sole priority.

If he had any clear aims he would have no need to speak out. The mans clueless 

[yarddog73]

46 minutes ago, Theoutsider said:

 
Here’s an even better one, from Stephen Partington who would like to award Abdallah a medal; 

 

I will second all these comments. Time people started listening instead of protesting. How many Chairman of any Club would participate with supporters more than Abdallah has since he came to the Club. He deserves a medal in doing so after all the insults and discrediting he and his members of staff have received. He deserves more backing than he does receive at present and instead of wasting his precious time talking to people that don't believe, and don't want to believe, what he states, he should now cancel any further forums and just, when he feels necessary, speak through the media and focus on his aims for OAFC, and make it his sole priority.

Another bellend, it's not a fucking cult for fuck sake.

[singe]

1 hour ago, Stainrod said:

Actually thought that podcast clarified matters re timings, ownership etc. What is contentious still? Sounds like he has invested a hell of a lot in our club, why does he get flack? Genuine question before I get any abuse.

It's a relief that you have woken up from your two and a half year coma.

[Canada_latic]

Did anybody go to the Abdullah Q&A session? What were questions asked along with the answers? Seen a lot about Blitz Q&A but nothing regarding Abdullah's Q&A.

[singe]

2 minutes ago, Canada_latic said:

Did anybody go to the Abdullah Q&A session? What were questions asked along with the answers? Seen a lot about Blitz Q&A but nothing regarding Abdullah's Q&A.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1214622695134040064.html

That's not everything, some tweets were deleted losing some of the threads.

[sjk2008]

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

I’m personally not arsed what he’s done. I doubt he’s broken the law and as the owner can do as he pleases.  Feel like a dramatic turnaround for some here from their previous views of the original three amigos though. Latics fans have always been fickle I suppose. 

How about answering the question? Why didn’t you attend?

 

You seem to be very vocal on here with your opinions, yet any time a fans forum, Q&A, Trust & Fans meeting pops up, you’re nowhere to be seen.

 

You’d probably get a bit more credibility on here too whether you’re after that or not - instead, unsurprisingly, you just come across as a moaning, must-be-contrary bastard.

[mcfluff1985]

So this 22% Corney owns... is bollocks.

 

He owns 22 shares. Compared to the 19,572 shares owned by AL.

 

Anyone got Vorderman's number for a calculation of %

[Canada_latic]

21 minutes ago, singe said:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1214622695134040064.html

That's not everything, some tweets were deleted losing some of the threads.

Thank you. 

[singe]

5 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

So this 22% Corney owns... is bollocks.

 

He owns 22 shares. Compared to the 19,572 shares owned by AL.

 

Anyone got Vorderman's number for a calculation of %

Yes, but he didn't own 22/19,572 when he got them did he. He owned 22/194. And then let a lie be told by a Director publicly and broadcast worldwide. The owner had to restructure the shares and it cost him thousands as a consequence

[mcfluff1985]

Just now, singe said:

Yes, but he didn't own 22/19,572 when he got them did he. He owned 22/194. And then let a lie be told by a Director publicly and broadcast worldwide. The owner had to restructure the shares and it cost him thousands as a consequence

It was said on here yesterday that Blitz told everyone Corney owned 22%. Far wrong, despite his solicitor being there as mentioned to make sure everything was factual.

 

 

[Canada_latic]

Did anybody at Abdullah's Q&A raise the issue of what an incompetent buffoon his brother is?

[laticsmarra]

6 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

It was said on here yesterday that Blitz told everyone Corney owned 22%. Far wrong, despite his solicitor being there as mentioned to make sure everything was factual.

 

 

For clarification of what was said in the meeting Blitz said he was not sure on the % as he was not privy to the transaction personally,but that he had been told it was 22%.Hope this helps your understanding

[nzlatic]

Looking at the timeline of the share situation... There used to be 100 shares.  97 owned by Corney (ordinary A), 3 by the Trust (ordinary B).  When AL took over it seems this was increased to 200 shares in total, not sure why.  With AL's company owning 194, the Trust 6 and Corney reduced to 0.  On November 8th last year a further 20,000 shares were issued, split 97%/3% and allocated to AL and the trust accordingly. This was done 4 weeks after the FLG announced they were in the process of purchasing shares.

 

For those who know about stuff like this, what is the process for issuing new shares? It doesn't seem right that the person with significant control could just flood the business with new shares when there is some sort of clawback agreement in place, thus negating the weight of any shares due back to the previous owner.  Assuming of course that a clawback agreement is how Corney now has shares. Unless the agreement didn't cover this eventuality which would be a big oversight.

 

At the least I'd have thought it would need approving by the board of directors, which includes someone from the Trust.  There is a director signature on the resolution document done on November 8th but I'm not sure who that is.  Can any legal/corporate minds shed some light on this?

[yarddog73]

6 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

It was said on here yesterday that Blitz told everyone Corney owned 22%. Far wrong, despite his solicitor being there as mentioned to make sure everything was factual.

 

 

Always side with the fucking loser you, didn't you learn your lesson with Corney, a man you gained great satisfaction from defending, bet you'll be there against Carlisle as well clapping the fuckers off after AL's shitshow of a team get dicked again.

[real]

9 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

Looking at the timeline of the share situation... There used to be 100 shares.  97 owned by Corney (ordinary A), 3 by the Trust (ordinary B).  When AL took over it seems this was increased to 200 shares in total, not sure why.  With AL's company owning 194, the Trust 6 and Corney reduced to 0.  On November 8th last year a further 20,000 shares were issued, split 97%/3% and allocated to AL and the trust accordingly. This was done 4 weeks after the FLG announced they were in the process of purchasing shares.

 

For those who know about stuff like this, what is the process for issuing new shares? It doesn't seem right that the person with significant control could just flood the business with new shares when there is some sort of clawback agreement in place, thus negating the weight of any shares due back to the previous owner.  Assuming of course that a clawback agreement is how Corney now has shares. Unless the agreement didn't cover this eventuality which would be a big oversight.

 

At the least I'd have thought it would need approving by the board of directors, which includes someone from the Trust.  There is a director signature on the resolution document done on November 8th but I'm not sure who that is.  Can any legal/corporate minds shed some light on this?

 

Afaik AL had to convert loans he'd made to the club into shares. He would probably have had to offer the same terms to SC but would SC have matched the payment to retain his % shareholding?

 

In some ways the club (as an operating entity) gained at ALs expense.

[Dave_Og]

5 minutes ago, real said:

 

Afaik AL had to convert loans he'd made to the club into shares. He would probably have had to offer the same terms to SC but would SC have matched the payment to retain his % shareholding?

 

In some ways the club (as an operating entity) gained at ALs expense.

It's highly unlikely that any kind of pre-emption rights (the obligation to give all existing shareholders the opportunity to maintain their percentage shareholding) apply to a small private company such as OAFC. Certainly not a legal obligation unless it is specified in the club's articles.