Accrington Web - View Single Post

expatriate · 16-04-2010, 17:23

i am sorry for the negativity on this site. Its clear that i am not able to communicate clearly the reasons why i am not as worried as many of you. The idea of a fans forum is just a way to try and continue to communicate with you all about the longer term plans.

Along the way, here is another attempt to try and bring you along towards my perspective. I fully appreciate that this may take a few more attempts, but i would encourage you to try and see things in the way i do - not fully, but at least a little bit. I certainly try to see things from your way, thats for sure (and not always successfully).

1. when we started again after the high court debacle i committed to be available and transparent

2. i asked you to judge me by my actions, not my words.

3. i laid out a short and medium term plan. I said that the problems that come to be apparent could not be resolved over night.

4. earlier this week I was able to expand upon the way in which I will commit to ensure that the club at the end of the season has no debt and is capable of completing on the important plans for the stadium development and pitch work. I will pay for this if no other money is available.

Now turning to ownership. Doug, with all due respect, not only do i think you are way off mark, but your bulletin is misleading. Lets ask ourselves what exactly does eric/david o'neil own ? they own 51% of the outstanding shares of the club. They are not owners, but simply the largest single owner. HOwever, and this is the key you seem always to miss. Ownership of 51% of the current outstanding share capital is meaningless. Its meaningless because the club is controlled through its board, and its meaningless because at any time the number of shares could increase and eric/david's shares would be a small fraction of the percentage. Put graphically, say eric/david (and i use both their names as i respect the fact that david believes he has done the deal with Eric) own 51 shares and there are 100 in issue. lets say tomorrow there are 200 in issue. then Eric/david would own only 25%. I hope this is clear ?

you then will say - what will it take for the shares to be issued. From a purely legal perspective it requires only a board meeting. However i made a commitment to David that i would step down, and in that context i dont foresee having to or needing to or wanting to convert at this point.

Now, lets turn to what really matters. What next ?

(see next post, running out of space)

16-04-2010, 17:23	#105
expatriate Full Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 213 Liked: 31 times Rep Power: 311	Re: Ilyas on BBC Radio Lancashire i am sorry for the negativity on this site. Its clear that i am not able to communicate clearly the reasons why i am not as worried as many of you. The idea of a fans forum is just a way to try and continue to communicate with you all about the longer term plans. Along the way, here is another attempt to try and bring you along towards my perspective. I fully appreciate that this may take a few more attempts, but i would encourage you to try and see things in the way i do - not fully, but at least a little bit. I certainly try to see things from your way, thats for sure (and not always successfully). 1. when we started again after the high court debacle i committed to be available and transparent 2. i asked you to judge me by my actions, not my words. 3. i laid out a short and medium term plan. I said that the problems that come to be apparent could not be resolved over night. 4. earlier this week I was able to expand upon the way in which I will commit to ensure that the club at the end of the season has no debt and is capable of completing on the important plans for the stadium development and pitch work. I will pay for this if no other money is available. Now turning to ownership. Doug, with all due respect, not only do i think you are way off mark, but your bulletin is misleading. Lets ask ourselves what exactly does eric/david o'neil own ? they own 51% of the outstanding shares of the club. They are not owners, but simply the largest single owner. HOwever, and this is the key you seem always to miss. Ownership of 51% of the current outstanding share capital is meaningless. Its meaningless because the club is controlled through its board, and its meaningless because at any time the number of shares could increase and eric/david's shares would be a small fraction of the percentage. Put graphically, say eric/david (and i use both their names as i respect the fact that david believes he has done the deal with Eric) own 51 shares and there are 100 in issue. lets say tomorrow there are 200 in issue. then Eric/david would own only 25%. I hope this is clear ? you then will say - what will it take for the shares to be issued. From a purely legal perspective it requires only a board meeting. However i made a commitment to David that i would step down, and in that context i dont foresee having to or needing to or wanting to convert at this point. Now, lets turn to what really matters. What next ? (see next post, running out of space)