|
Post by countygroundhotel on Feb 10, 2017 14:44:19 GMT
Ok substitute the SC for "others" . The point being the others would go from being shareholders in 8% of the Mem to 0% of the UWE stadium if Dwane sports are the new stadium owners.
They are shareholders in the company itself which owns the stadium so there wouldn't be a divy up just because an asset was sold just like there wasn't when the car park and various houses around the stadium were sold. But previously the various other asset sales were held under BRFC 1883 and used within or below that holding company (probably to clear debts) so the 8% would've in theory got their 8% (or whatever it was at that time) by investing in companies they had partial ownership of or clearing debts within those same companies. Now if all the proceeds from the Mem site were used to invest in a company they own not one share of that is a completely different matter. They would in effect be donating their share of the proceeds to Dwane Sports.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 14:49:19 GMT
How do you/we pronounce 'Dwane'? Is is like Du Wayne, or is the D and W rolled together like Dwayne, or is it Dee Wayne, or Dee Wanne, or Du Wanne.........
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 10, 2017 15:53:54 GMT
How do you/we pronounce 'Dwane'? Is is like Du Wayne, or is the D and W rolled together like Dwayne, or is it Dee Wayne, or Dee Wanne, or Du Wanne......... Its pronounced Dwane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 16:05:03 GMT
They are shareholders in the company itself which owns the stadium so there wouldn't be a divy up just because an asset was sold just like there wasn't when the car park and various houses around the stadium were sold. But previously the various other asset sales were held under BRFC 1883 and used within or below that holding company (probably to clear debts) so the 8% would've in theory got their 8% (or whatever it was at that time) by investing in companies they had partial ownership of or clearing debts within those same companies. Now if all the proceeds from the Mem site were used to invest in a company they own not one share of that is a completely different matter. They would in effect be donating their share of the proceeds to Dwane Sports..... Not sure about the legalities of selling assets and moving the proceeds to other companies without consulting shareholders so I will pass on that one but you are certainly right to raise the issue. One for AOB at the next AGM perhaps? Such a shame that the share scheme never achieved its target despite Jim Chappell stating that it has because the owners would have needed the supporters club approval to sell the stadium. Then again would Wael have purchased 74% ownership?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 16:05:35 GMT
How do you/we pronounce 'Dwane'? Is is like Du Wayne, or is the D and W rolled together like Dwayne, or is it Dee Wayne, or Dee Wanne, or Du Wanne......... Its pronounced Dwane. Thanks Yugo.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Feb 10, 2017 16:09:43 GMT
But previously the various other asset sales were held under BRFC 1883 and used within or below that holding company (probably to clear debts) so the 8% would've in theory got their 8% (or whatever it was at that time) by investing in companies they had partial ownership of or clearing debts within those same companies. Now if all the proceeds from the Mem site were used to invest in a company they own not one share of that is a completely different matter. They would in effect be donating their share of the proceeds to Dwane Sports..... Not sure about the legalities of selling assets and moving the proceeds to other companies without consulting shareholders so I will pass on that one but you are certainly right to raise the issue. One for AOB at the next AGM perhaps? Such a shame that the share scheme never achieved its target despite Jim Chappell stating that it has because the owners would have need the supporters club approval to sell the stadium. Then again would Wael have purchased 74% ownership? Agreed not sure either if Wael & Co would've purchased if there was a blocking vote in place, indeed I'm not even sure why they haven't tried to buy out the existing shareholders (though I have guessed that it didn't happen at the time of takeover to make sure there were no leaks, others have guessed it didn't happen then so no-one knew what the ex-directors got). As to AGM over to one of the shareholders (which isn't me).
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Feb 10, 2017 16:10:35 GMT
All this endless speculation on the constitution of Dwain Sports and what shares belong to who and where the executive power lies is making my head hurt!
Do the contributors in these threads actually know what they're talking about, have knowledge of company law or is it all just bollocks?
I really would like to know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 16:19:17 GMT
Not sure about the legalities of selling assets and moving the proceeds to other companies without consulting shareholders so I will pass on that one but you are certainly right to raise the issue. One for AOB at the next AGM perhaps? Such a shame that the share scheme never achieved its target despite Jim Chappell stating that it has because the owners would have need the supporters club approval to sell the stadium. Then again would Wael have purchased 74% ownership? Agreed not sure either if Wael & Co would've purchased if there was a blocking vote in place, indeed I'm not even sure why they haven't tried to buy out the existing shareholders (though I have guessed that it didn't happen at the time of takeover to make sure there were no leaks, others have guessed it didn't happen then so no-one knew what the ex-directors got). As to AGM over to one of the shareholders (which isn't me). I have heard that Wael & Co would like the SC shares. Perhaps with the news today that the SC are now skint and various individuals are financially liable for the rent on 199, it might be a good time to enter into negotiations to sell the shares back. If that does happen you would hope that safeguards are in place to stop the SC being fleeced again. (by misappropriation not the owners)
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Feb 10, 2017 16:30:34 GMT
They are shareholders in the company itself which owns the stadium so there wouldn't be a divy up just because an asset was sold just like there wasn't when the car park and various houses around the stadium were sold. But previously the various other asset sales were held under BRFC 1883 and used within or below that holding company (probably to clear debts) so the 8% would've in theory got their 8% (or whatever it was at that time) by investing in companies they had partial ownership of or clearing debts within those same companies. Now if all the proceeds from the Mem site were used to invest in a company they own not one share of that is a completely different matter. They would in effect be donating their share of the proceeds to Dwane Sports..... All the transactions you refer to are voted by the shareholders at AGM. Minority shareholders have rights rights. The Memorial Stadium has other shareholders who are protected under company law and so the Stadium cannot be sold without those shareholders knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 16:56:39 GMT
How do you/we pronounce 'Dwane'? Is is like Du Wayne, or is the D and W rolled together like Dwayne, or is it Dee Wayne, or Dee Wanne, or Du Wanne......... Its pronounced Dwane. I should have known.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 10, 2017 18:41:32 GMT
Agreed not sure either if Wael & Co would've purchased if there was a blocking vote in place, indeed I'm not even sure why they haven't tried to buy out the existing shareholders (though I have guessed that it didn't happen at the time of takeover to make sure there were no leaks, others have guessed it didn't happen then so no-one knew what the ex-directors got). As to AGM over to one of the shareholders (which isn't me). I have heard that Wael & Co would like the SC shares. Perhaps with the news today that the SC are now skint and various individuals are financially liable for the rent on 199, it might be a good time to enter into negotiations to sell the shares back. If that does happen you would hope that safeguards are in place to stop the SC being fleeced again. (by misappropriation not the owners) But would they be prepared to pay the price that BRSC paid for them. Also, have all the previous Directors been paid back in full for their loans and shares?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Feb 10, 2017 18:46:33 GMT
But previously the various other asset sales were held under BRFC 1883 and used within or below that holding company (probably to clear debts) so the 8% would've in theory got their 8% (or whatever it was at that time) by investing in companies they had partial ownership of or clearing debts within those same companies. Now if all the proceeds from the Mem site were used to invest in a company they own not one share of that is a completely different matter. They would in effect be donating their share of the proceeds to Dwane Sports..... All the transactions you refer to are voted by the shareholders at AGM. Minority shareholders have rights rights. The Memorial Stadium has other shareholders who are protected under company law and so the Stadium cannot be sold without those shareholders knowledge. The bottom line is that the majority shareholders can pretty much do what they like with the assets they own. The DS group structure is common and designed to separate assets from liabilities. Presumably, any money the directors had put in previously was repaid at the time of the Eastville sale and lease back. Presumably, NH & GD loans were repaid as part of the recent deal. In theory Higgs and Co could have relocated the club to Bath or Cheltenham, paid off the MSP loan then cashed out a decent profit on the Mem. On the rare occasions BRFC has ever had any tangible assets, the "custodians" of the time could have sold them and kept any profit. Presumably, the new owners gave specific assurances or they managed to convince the old regime that their intentions were honourable.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 10, 2017 18:54:23 GMT
I have heard that Wael & Co would like the SC shares. Perhaps with the news today that the SC are now skint and various individuals are financially liable for the rent on 199, it might be a good time to enter into negotiations to sell the shares back. If that does happen you would hope that safeguards are in place to stop the SC being fleeced again. (by misappropriation not the owners) But would they be prepared to pay the price that BRSC paid for them. Also, have all the previous Directors been paid back in full for their loans and shares? What too much?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 18:55:07 GMT
I have heard that Wael & Co would like the SC shares. Perhaps with the news today that the SC are now skint and various individuals are financially liable for the rent on 199, it might be a good time to enter into negotiations to sell the shares back. If that does happen you would hope that safeguards are in place to stop the SC being fleeced again. (by misappropriation not the owners) But would they be prepared to pay the price that BRSC paid for them. Also, have all the previous Directors been paid back in full for their loans and shares? I've no idea about the first question and I couldn't care less about the second.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Feb 10, 2017 19:08:39 GMT
All the transactions you refer to are voted by the shareholders at AGM. Minority shareholders have rights rights. The Memorial Stadium has other shareholders who are protected under company law and so the Stadium cannot be sold without those shareholders knowledge. The bottom line is that the majority shareholders can pretty much do what they like with the assets they own. The DS group structure is common and designed to separate assets from liabilities. Presumably, any money the directors had put in previously was repaid at the time of the Eastville sale and lease back. Presumably, NH & GD loans were repaid as part of the recent deal. In theory Higgs and Co could have relocated the club to Bath or Cheltenham, paid off the MSP loan then cashed out a decent profit on the Mem. On the rare occasions BRFC has ever had any tangible assets, the "custodians" of the time could have sold them and kept any profit. Presumably, the new owners gave specific assurances or they managed to convince the old regime that their intentions were honourable. Eastville sale? Must be a mistype that was back in the 40s wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 10, 2017 19:13:44 GMT
Agreed not sure either if Wael & Co would've purchased if there was a blocking vote in place, indeed I'm not even sure why they haven't tried to buy out the existing shareholders (though I have guessed that it didn't happen at the time of takeover to make sure there were no leaks, others have guessed it didn't happen then so no-one knew what the ex-directors got). As to AGM over to one of the shareholders (which isn't me). I have heard that Wael & Co would like the SC shares. Perhaps with the news today that the SC are now skint and various individuals are financially liable for the rent on 199, it might be a good time to enter into negotiations to sell the shares back. If that does happen you would hope that safeguards are in place to stop the SC being fleeced again. (by misappropriation not the owners) Why would Wael and co want the shares? They already have full control so it would make no difference other than Wael would have to spend money on the additional shares for no real gain. Holding 92% of the equity, they could force it through anyway if need be. The downside is you cannot offer one price to one shareholder and a different price to another on a takeover. Further, why are the s/c skint? Remember, these disclosures relate to June last year. We don't no what the current position is, but we can sure as hell ask next week.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 10, 2017 19:15:41 GMT
But would they be prepared to pay the price that BRSC paid for them. Also, have all the previous Directors been paid back in full for their loans and shares? I've no idea about the first question and I couldn't care less about the second. They don't have to pay what the s/c paid for them, but there has to be a fixed offer at the same price for all shares. No, not all the directors have been repaid.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Feb 10, 2017 19:26:05 GMT
We really should have a separate room for all the conspiracy bollocxs. This sort of crap makes us look so ungreatful for what we have. It's like some of you think we have some great entitlement to pick at everything our owners do. I didn't see any queues being formed to buy this failing business concern.
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Feb 10, 2017 20:02:35 GMT
I've no idea about the first question and I couldn't care less about the second. They don't have to pay what the s/c paid for them, but there has to be a fixed offer at the same price for all shares. No, not all the directors have been repaid.you keep saying this but you are wrong or being lied to. They HAVE all been paid - name one who has not! or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Feb 10, 2017 21:01:43 GMT
They don't have to pay what the s/c paid for them, but there has to be a fixed offer at the same price for all shares. No, not all the directors have been repaid.you keep saying this but you are wrong or being lied to. They HAVE all been paid - name one who has not! or shut up. Nick Higgs.
|
|