North Stand Construction Thread

[nzlatic]

48 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

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. 

I tried to do a bit of reading and found something about private companies incorporated pre 2009 and/or having different classes of shares having to do things differently to private companies post 2009. Just wondering if the new shares needed board sign off?

[Stainrod]

8 hours ago, singe said:

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

Thanks for your constructive and well thought out answer.

[singe]

8 hours ago, Canada_latic said:

Thank you. 

PTB are going to do similar for the Lemsagam meeting as theyve dine Blitz one. Most info we've had I feel 

Hope we get one from the club. 

 

[LightDN123]

Am I correct in saying Blitz could put the club (team) into admin, buy us out of admin for a nominal price. Then sell the team and stadium as a full package to a future investor ? 

[HarryBosch]

When Blitz says he could put the club into admin does that mean that's what would happen if he gives AL no more time to pay what he owes & takes it to court? i.e. if AL just paid what he owes Bitz couldn't "put us into admin"?

[laticsmarra]

1 minute ago, HarryBosch said:

When Blitz says he could put the club into admin does that mean that's what would happen if he gives AL no more time to pay what he owes & takes it to court? i.e. if AL just paid what he owes Bitz couldn't "put us into admin"?

Correct.What he said on this is that his advisers and Danny Gazal are urging him to press the admin button. He himself does not want to do that,heart ruling head, however he may lose patience and he doesn't know when/if that will happen. It seems that reporting him/them to the police is testing his patience.

[LightDN123]

Who owns the other 3 stands if Blitz owns the land ? 

[jorvik_latic]

2 minutes ago, LightDN123 said:

Who owns the other 3 stands if Blitz owns the land ? 

 

Blitz owns it all. The club lease them all from him.

[yarddog73]

3 minutes ago, LightDN123 said:

Who owns the other 3 stands if Blitz owns the land ? 

Blitz

[LightDN123]

Thank you 

3 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

Blitz owns it all. The club lease them all from him.

 

2 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

Blitz

 

[JohnnyPimp]

1 hour ago, laticsmarra said:

Correct.What he said on this is that his advisers and Danny Gazal are urging him to press the admin button. He himself does not want to do that,heart ruling head, however he may lose patience and he doesn't know when/if that will happen. It seems that reporting him/them to the police is testing his patience.

The outstanding monies to Blitz form part of the report sent to GMP for review regarding the North Stand so I’m not sure he’d want to fire the admin gun until that position is more clear.

[BP1960]

3 hours 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?

 

Are the 20,000 shares worth the same as the 200, in effect no difference in total value?

[Dave_Og]

39 minutes ago, JohnnyPimp said:

The outstanding monies to Blitz form part of the GMP investigation regarding the North Stand so I’m not sure he’d want to fire the admin gun until that position is more clear.

 

Is there a GMP investigation?  All I've heard is a report has been made; doesn't guarantee they'll investigate

[singe]

9 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.

 

 

I'm glad we've had a bit if transparency by the owner clearing it up. Finally. The circumstances to him owning it are still murky. 

[JohnnyPimp]

17 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

Is there a GMP investigation?  All I've heard is a report has been made; doesn't guarantee they'll investigate

Edited, ta.

[Hands on]

So Blitz, clearly a crazy football supporter, decided to put the record straight.  He has done this at a meeting and on the podcast.  If what he has said is untrue then undoubtedly Marco & Mo now have the opportunity to reply.  I know who I believe.

[Stevie_J]

10 hours 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 %

Equates to 0.5%.

[lookersstandandy]

3 hours ago, jorvik_latic said:

 

Blitz owns it all. The club lease them all from him.

 

.....which in Marco's defence () means there is little/no incentive for him to spend any money on improving them. Not that he can afford it anyway.

 

Blitz isn't lying when he says the land/club were separated in 1999 - by Brierley..... and he is correct to assert that the club/land being reunited would be the best solution for all..... but he omits to deal with the fact that he once owned them both and chose never to reunite them because that wouldn't serve his personal objectives/insurance policy from redeveloping part of the land.

 

He says on the All things Latics podcast that they looked at Hull, Luton and one other and then makes out like on arrival at Boundary Park there was some emotional connection. I call bollox to that. He looked at the site BP is on and thought, what a lovely site to build all over, starting with the Clayton Arms and former Staff/Players carpark. I don't doubt he spent £15m all told, but I also don't doubt he will have recovered at least that much when he finally departs, while playing at football ownership between 2004-2010 and before liquidity dried up at the banks following the credit crunch in 2007.

 

As an aside, I'm led to believe, part of the reason TTA's didn't buy Hull was because they couldn't secure a deal for the site Boothferry Park was on, which had [without any sense of irony] been decoupled from the club by a former owner, former Tennis player and Gym owner David Lloyd. Hull City should count themselves fortunate for they moved into a new purpose built council owned stadium, shared with Hull RFC, found more wealthy owners and had two stints in the Premier League. One of their owners on that journey was Adam Pearson [now owner of Hull RFC], who has also been involved, amongst others, in Leeds United. Mr. Adam Morallee, Abdallah's adviser and current Latics board director, was an adviser to Leeds when Mr. Pearson was there. Draw your own conclusions about how Corney might first have met Abdallah.

 

In the meantime, Blitz [& Gazal] have kept the land, will continue to build over it, while we've rotted away in L1 and now L2. This, is the price for being in Administration without tangible assets [the land] following Moore... and OMBC acquiescing to the TTA's without any of Hull council's foresight or ambition for Latics & Roughyeds.

 

For me, Abdallah, may/may not be influenced by opaque 3rd party objectives that relate to his brother's [his former] football agency or otherwise, but either way he's a walter mitty fantasist who lacks the requisite intelligence [see his Transfermarket comment at the recent Q&A] to ever make a success of owning us..... but the reason we have such an owner and not more competent ones, is because of Blitz/Gazal.

 

 

[Haribo_man]

5 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

.....which in Marco's defence () means there is little/no incentive for him to spend any money on improving them. Not that he can afford it anyway.

 

Blitz isn't lying when he says the land/club were separated in 1999 - by Brierley..... and he is correct to assert that the club/land being reunited would be the best solution for all..... but he omits to deal with the fact that he once owned them both and chose never to reunite them because that wouldn't serve his personal objectives/insurance policy from redeveloping part of the land.

 

He says on the All things Latics podcast that they looked at Hull, Luton and one other and then makes out like on arrival at Boundary Park there was some emotional connection. I call bollox to that. He looked at the site BP is on and thought, what a lovely site to build all over, starting with the Clayton Arms and former Staff/Players carpark. I don't doubt he spent £15m all told, but I also don't doubt he will have recovered at least that much when he finally departs, while playing at football ownership between 2004-2010 and before liquidity dried up at the banks following the credit crunch in 2007.

 

As an aside, I'm led to believe, part of the reason TTA's didn't buy Hull was because they couldn't secure a deal for the site Boothferry Park was on, which had [without any sense of irony] been decoupled from the club by a former owner, former Tennis player and Gym owner David Lloyd. Hull City should count themselves fortunate for they moved into a new purpose built council owned stadium, shared with Hull RFC, found more wealthy owners and had two stints in the Premier League. One of their owners on that journey was Adam Pearson [now owner of Hull RFC], who has also been involved, amongst others, in Leeds United. Mr. Adam Morallee, Abdallah's adviser and current Latics board director, was an adviser to Leeds when Mr. Pearson was there. Draw your own conclusions about how Corney night first have met Abdallah.

 

In the meantime, Blitz [& Gazal] have kept the land, will continue to build over it, while we've rotted away in L1 and now L2. This, is the price for being in Administration without tangible assets [the land] following Moore... and OMBC acquiescing to the TTA's without any of Hull council's foresight or ambition for Latics & Roughyeds.

 

For me, Abdallah, may/may not be influenced by opaque 3rd party objectives that relate to his brother's [his former] football agency or otherwise, but either way he's a walter mitty fantasist who lacks the requisite intelligence [see his Transfermarket comment at the recent Q&A] to ever make a success of owning us..... but the reason we have such an owner and not more competent ones, is because of Blitz/Gazal.

 

 

 

Bosh!

[mcfluff1985]

5 hours ago, yarddog73 said:

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.

Hahaha. Siding with nobody. Just pointing out what's been said it always right.

 

I haven't been to the last couple of home games.

 

I like it when you ignore any post previously where I've said AL is shite and pick up on one where I point out that Blitz was wrong to say I'm siding with AL. Well twisted sir. 

 

We're fucking gash because of the recruitment. AL and MO have signed majority shite players.

 

Few decent ones come in from a sea of wank.

 

If things continue we are fuckedy fuck fucked.

 

Major changes needed from them

 

Is that clear enough for you?

[tGWB]

11 hours 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 %

 

Ah but consider this mcfluff1985 . . . . . .

 

Early declarations at Companies House show:

 

AL having 97 shares and the Trust 3 shares

 

These were inflated to AL 194 shares and the Trust 6 shares

 

This week the share listing with Companies House show:

 

AL having AL 19,572 shares, the Trust 606 and Simon Corney having 22 shares

 

If Corney had 22 shares from AL's original 97 shares or even from the inflated 194 shares, this is far from over as 'normally' the base % for all shareholders would equally increase at the same rate, unless of course brand new shares have been issued and purchased.

 

Saying that, I have not read anywhere that the Trust have purchased any additional shares yet, thankfully their base % appears to have kept pace

 

Of course, Oldham Athletic 2004 Ltd are not a Plc and with respect to our club, we don't seem to do many things 'normally' these days but I would be surprised if similar rules to Plc shares allocations aren't 'mirrored' in Private Limited Companies

 

Personally though, if I had the base % of 22 shares and the influence they afforded me with the club and they hadn't kept pace with other shareholder base % increases, I wouldn't be happy and would be at the very least checking my position with a legal expert

 

Am sure if we have fans on here who might know differently that they'll let us know 

 

 

[Dave_Og]

17 minutes ago, tGWB said:

 

s

 

If Corney had 22 shares from AL's original 97 shares or even from the inflated 194 shares, this is far from over as 'normally' the base % for all shareholders would equally increase at the same rate, unless of course brand new shares have been issued and purchased.

 

 

 

Of course, Oldham Athletic 2004 Ltd are not a Plc and with respect to our club, we don't seem to do many things 'normally' these days but I would be surprised if similar rules to Plc shares allocations aren't 'mirrored' in Private Limited Companies

 

Personally though, if I had the base % of 22 shares and the influence they afforded me with the club and they hadn't kept pace with other shareholder base % increases, I wouldn't be happy and would be at the very least checking my position with a legal expert

 

 

 

 

 

Those rules do not apply to private companies.  They don't even apply to companies listed in junior stock markets

[longtimeblue]

1 hour ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

.....which in Marco's defence () means there is little/no incentive for him to spend any money on improving them. Not that he can afford it anyway.

 

Blitz isn't lying when he says the land/club were separated in 1999 - by Brierley..... and he is correct to assert that the club/land being reunited would be the best solution for all..... but he omits to deal with the fact that he once owned them both and chose never to reunite them because that wouldn't serve his personal objectives/insurance policy from redeveloping part of the land.

 

He says on the All things Latics podcast that they looked at Hull, Luton and one other and then makes out like on arrival at Boundary Park there was some emotional connection. I call bollox to that. He looked at the site BP is on and thought, what a lovely site to build all over, starting with the Clayton Arms and former Staff/Players carpark. I don't doubt he spent £15m all told, but I also don't doubt he will have recovered at least that much when he finally departs, while playing at football ownership between 2004-2010 and before liquidity dried up at the banks following the credit crunch in 2007.

 

As an aside, I'm led to believe, part of the reason TTA's didn't buy Hull was because they couldn't secure a deal for the site Boothferry Park was on, which had [without any sense of irony] been decoupled from the club by a former owner, former Tennis player and Gym owner David Lloyd. Hull City should count themselves fortunate for they moved into a new purpose built council owned stadium, shared with Hull RFC, found more wealthy owners and had two stints in the Premier League. One of their owners on that journey was Adam Pearson [now owner of Hull RFC], who has also been involved, amongst others, in Leeds United. Mr. Adam Morallee, Abdallah's adviser and current Latics board director, was an adviser to Leeds when Mr. Pearson was there. Draw your own conclusions about how Corney might first have met Abdallah.

 

In the meantime, Blitz [& Gazal] have kept the land, will continue to build over it, while we've rotted away in L1 and now L2. This, is the price for being in Administration without tangible assets [the land] following Moore... and OMBC acquiescing to the TTA's without any of Hull council's foresight or ambition for Latics & Roughyeds.

 

For me, Abdallah, may/may not be influenced by opaque 3rd party objectives that relate to his brother's [his former] football agency or otherwise, but either way he's a walter mitty fantasist who lacks the requisite intelligence [see his Transfermarket comment at the recent Q&A] to ever make a success of owning us..... but the reason we have such an owner and not more competent ones, is because of Blitz/Gazal.

 

 

 

You could almost be led to believe that Blitz/Corney couldn't believe their luck when a 'fall guy' came to take the reigns and the inevitable shitstorm that went with it. A deal they made with absolutely no risk given the land is still theirs. Absolutely nothing to lose.

[tGWB]

4 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

Those rules do not apply to private companies.  They don't even apply to companies listed in junior stock markets

 

thanks for clearing that up Dave

[tGWB]

16 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

Those rules do not apply to private companies.  They don't even apply to companies listed in junior stock markets

thinking on it though Dave, a shareholder with A shares would normally have entitlement to view Board Minutes and Annual Accounts.