Jump to content

#ReclaimTheFaith


Recommended Posts

With all the good work PTB are doing, it really is highlighting how shit and useless the trust have become.

 

Trust rep complaining because he was listed as a trust rep on the board of directors at the Q&A

 

Also refusing to give his opinion on AL's valuation of the squad, asking that the question is put through the trust website because he isn't allowed to answer questions as he might get in trouble 

 

Jesus wept

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, lookersstandandy said:

 

Yeah, gotta be.... PTB notes need updating;

 

puaTigr.png

From notes - The comment AL made he did say Stevenage. However we do acknowledge having read through again this is an error on AL behalf and he should of said Swindon. 

Edited by adamoafc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, mcfluff1985 said:

Good notes, nice quick turnaround

 

Who the frig wants rid of Mouldy Old Dough?

 

22 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

Somebody with no sense of history.

Judging by Natalie's answer I wonder if that was someone who was prompted to ask by a Southport fan? 

 

That or a plant to let Natalie reveal the nugget about her changing a song at Southport. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, adamoafc said:

I’m 99.9% sure he doesn’t there is no reason why we would have notes stating  Stevenage otherwise. The club will be able to confirm this is the case if they release the audio 👍


He did mention Stevenage but corrected it to Swindon. He went further by stating that now Doyle has returned to Bradford, we would have the most valuable squad. (Wouldn’t that likely take Bradford to the top of the table?!)

 

Doesn’t matter if he said Stevenage, Swindon or sausage sandwich, it was either pure delusion or an ill-aimed attempt to reassure the fans present that we’re not as bad as our league position and standard of football suggest.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2020 at 9:34 AM, adamoafc said:

The club held a Q&A for fans on Tuesday night. Please read our full notes on the meeting below #oafc #ReclaimTheFaith
 

http://pushtheboundary.co.uk/club-q-a-10-01-2020

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pidge said:

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.

It's bog standard for small companies as I've posted many times 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, adamoafc said:

I’m 99.9% sure he doesn’t there is no reason why we would have notes stating  Stevenage otherwise. The club will be able to confirm this is the case if they release the audio 👍

M8 I was there. Went on to explain we had the most valuable but we’d be 2nd if Doyle stayed at Swindon. 

 

Not arsed like but weird hill to die on.

Edited by Agnus UK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

It's bog standard for small companies as I've posted many times 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pidge said:

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

Last time I'll post on it; one of the drawbacks of message boards is that bits of factual information get lost in threads and then misunderstandings become accepted fact.

 

It isn't at all unusual for pre-emption rights not to apply in smaller companies. 

 

https://www.informdirect.co.uk/shares/what-are-shareholder-pre-emption-rights/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

Last time I'll post on it; one of the drawbacks of message boards is that bits of factual information get lost in threads and then misunderstandings become accepted fact.

 

It isn't at all unusual for pre-emption rights not to apply in smaller companies. 

 

https://www.informdirect.co.uk/shares/what-are-shareholder-pre-emption-rights/

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Pidge said:

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?

A special resolution dated November 8th regarding this (4 weeks after the FLG declared they were buying shares) has been filed with companies house. Does this suggest a board vote? Was the trust rep involved in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

A special resolution dated November 8th regarding this (4 weeks after the FLG declared they were buying shares) has been filed with companies house. Does this suggest a board vote? Was the trust rep involved in this?

 

Not sure but this was his response at the time. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pidge said:

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.

I don't doubt it was done to dilute Corney's stake but if it converted director's loans then fair enough really.  There's really nothing to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2020 at 8:11 PM, wiseowl said:

The first extract highlighted in bold illustrates that the second bit highlighted in bold is correct. 

 

Latics fans did not come back (in any numbers) for the Salford game. See previous explanations.

 

 

I presume you mean the one poster who said he had rcvd a free ticket for the game. No mention on here before the game about free tickets being issued. Aside from this if I normally have no queue to pay cash when you enter and on this occasion there was a queue to pay cash.

The fact that it was a holiday period game with not much else on and a tiny bit of form from the team may have contributed-or perhaps it was the prospect of cheap pies at the end after the boycott had bitten(get it?)

Just an example of "if you build it they will come"

So from someone who wasn't even there I will take your comments to be your usual bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Lifted from PTB website.

Mr Lemsagam to show us this club can change under his leadership and commit to tangible steps to achieve that or alternatively dispose of his interest Oldham Athletic.

A request to make changes or go is not the same as trying to oust the owner.

 

Dont misconstrue what is being said by PTB

Edited by Andy b
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, adamoafc said:

We are pleased to announce that a date & time has been confirmed for PTB to meet with Mr Lemsagam. Please read our short statement and the request for questions you want answering #oafc #ReclaimTheFaith
 

http://pushtheboundary.co.uk/ptb-meeting-with-mr-lemsagam-12-01-2020

Well done once again. There must be no wiggle room for AL to be able to fudge his answers. He needs to be pushed hard. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Lifted from PTB website.

Mr Lemsagam to show us this club can change under his leadership and commit to tangible steps to achieve that or alternatively dispose of his interest Oldham Athletic.

 

AS the only alternative to those two options is carrying on as it is now they do seem like the obvious choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Lifted from PTB website.

Mr Lemsagam to show us this club can change under his leadership and commit to tangible steps to achieve that or alternatively dispose of his interest Oldham Athletic.

 

Have a read of what it says then have another go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, whittles left foot said:

Lifted from PTB website.

Mr Lemsagam to show us this club can change under his leadership and commit to tangible steps to achieve that or alternatively dispose of his interest Oldham Athletic.

Happy to meet and discuss further whittles left foot, nothing to hide here. The offer if there 👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...