kowenicki Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 11 hours ago, lookersstandandy said: Has he? 20,000 shares valued at £1 each. Yes. Any debt write off is good. The motive for it seems personally motivated and not for the benevolence of the club though. nominal value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 9 hours ago, Pidge said: Just found this googling about a bit! Companies Act 2006 Section 561 obliges a company to offer new shares first of all to its existing shareholders in the same proportions they already hold shares. In other words, it upholds shareholders’ right to be protected from dilution. If they are willing to pay the price asked for the new shares, they can have them. But this only applies where the shares are offered for cash – if a company is issuing shares in exchange for shares in another company, say, or in payment for a non-cash asset, there is no requirement to offer the shares to existing shareholders first of all. The section can be disapplied, along with section 549, either in the articles or by a shareholder vote, though only by a special resolution. Again, institutional shareholders have their price: only shares equal to five per cent of the issued share capital can be issued without first offering them to shareholders. Looks like there should be protection against dilution 9 hours ago, Dave_Og said: Going beyond my area of expertise now but even companies listed on AIM can readily override s561 Yes. Private limited companies can exclude 561 in their articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 24 minutes ago, kowenicki said: nominal value. ...but if, as it looks, his intention is to water down the shares the FLG claim to have purchased, would it not have made more sense to issue more shares if indeed the loan value was greater than £20k, because quite frankly the shares are worthless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted November 13, 2019 Share Posted November 13, 2019 3 hours ago, Pidge said: Follow the logic and see if it makes sense. The whole concept of directors loan being converted into shares is relevant to companies with multiple owners. A director invests his capital. The board reward that investment by giving him extra shares, hence bigger share of any dividends or assets. This is instead of a directors loan which would need to be repaid. In Oldham’s case, the only significant share owner has taken more shares, but not increased his percentage of those shares, hence his share of any dividends or assets stays the same. In fact he has even given the minor share holder shares to maintain the same percentage. I’m suggesting there is no advantage to the director investing his money in increasing the shares in this way, so there is no trade off against the advantage of maintaining a directors loan in the accounts. Dilutes whoever owns the other shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 8 hours ago, Dave_Og said: Dilutes whoever owns the other shares. Exactly Dave, that why I came to the conclusion that this is ALs motivation, not swapping a directors loan of (according to reports) millions, for shares with nominal value of £20,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 15 minutes ago, Pidge said: Exactly Dave, that why I came to the conclusion that this is ALs motivation, not swapping a directors loan of (according to reports) millions, for shares with nominal value of £20,000. There is no clue that I've seen as to how much director loan has been exchanged if any. Here's a theory and that's all it is. At a certain percentage level a shareholder gets certain rights, let's say 10%. It wouldn't be hard to issue just enough shares to dilute that shareholder to, let's say, 9.999999999%..... That's what this regime has done. Replaced everything to conspiracy based speculation about what the hell is actually motivating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Ok here is another theory. Say SC sold 90% of his 97% to AL, a controlling share, but kept 7% so he had a right to be a director. We know things went pair shaped and maybe SC was left with some shares which FLG want to buy. In our little scenario that is 7 shares out of 100. Now possibly there are 20,000 shares and SC/FLG now own only 0.035% of the company instead of the previous 7%. That is not even a subtle dilution, that is a real 2 finger salute dilution to the FLG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Pidge said: Ok here is another theory. Say SC sold 90% of his 97% to AL, a controlling share, but kept 7% so he had a right to be a director. We know things went pair shaped and maybe SC was left with some shares which FLG want to buy. In our little scenario that is 7 shares out of 100. Now possibly there are 20,000 shares and SC/FLG now own only 0.035% of the company instead of the previous 7%. That is not even a subtle dilution, that is a real 2 finger salute dilution to the FLG! That's the same theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Maybe we should be asking the Trust to confirm they have been offered extra shares, and if so, why did they not inform us ordinary fans (who they represent) of the offer and the reason they were given for the share issue. Give me a few mins and I'll post something in the Trust forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Webdarren seems to have gone into hiding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 11 minutes ago, Pidge said: Maybe we should be asking the Trust to confirm they have been offered extra shares, and if so, why did they not inform us ordinary fans (who they represent) of the offer and the reason they were given for the share issue. Give me a few mins and I'll post something in the Trust forum I don't think it's a case of being offered. My understanding is that they have a clause guaranteeing that their holding will be kept at 3%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Dave_Og said: I don't think it's a case of being offered. My understanding is that they have a clause guaranteeing that their holding will be kept at 3%. I wonder if the shares the FLG claim to be buying are subject to the same clause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Dave_Og said: That's what this regime has done. Replaced everything to conspiracy based speculation about what the hell is actually motivating them. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjk2008 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 2 hours ago, deyres42 said: Webdarren seems to have gone into hiding... Yep - gone private and isn't accepting many OAFC followers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 hour ago, lookersstandandy said: I wonder if the shares the FLG claim to be buying are subject to the same clause? I'd suggest no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjk2008 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 @Lee Sinnott on Twitter: "Wheels are turning. Abdallah's days as #oafc owner are numbered..." Never have I hoped his ITK worthiness to continue as much as now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 1 minute ago, sjk2008 said: @Lee Sinnott on Twitter: "Wheels are turning. Abdallah's days as #oafc owner are numbered..." Never have I hoped his ITK worthiness to continue as much as now... yeah but how long is that number weeks months years ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 14 minutes ago, sjk2008 said: @Lee Sinnott on Twitter: "Wheels are turning. Abdallah's days as #oafc owner are numbered..." Never have I hoped his ITK worthiness to continue as much as now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Wonder if thats Philliskirks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pk200 Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 18 minutes ago, Senor_Coconut said: Wonder if thats Philliskirks? https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-a-philliskirk-v-oldham-athletic-2004-association-football-club-ltd-2402139-2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 I've said it before, but strap in. Things are hopefully about to start to get interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, pk200 said: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-a-philliskirk-v-oldham-athletic-2004-association-football-club-ltd-2402139-2019 A bit odd that they've mispelt judgement, twice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, oafcmetty said: I've said it before, but strap in. Things are hopefully about to start to get interesting. Good interesting or bad interesting...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 HMRC related? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 13 minutes ago, pk200 said: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-a-philliskirk-v-oldham-athletic-2004-association-football-club-ltd-2402139-2019 So he withdrew the claim ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.