FAO: Anyone that may know.

[shakermaker]

What does it mean when you own the majority of shares in a company? How much power does it give you?

I've just seen the bit in the Observer about the transfer of shares from Whalley to O'Neill being almost complete and the latter expecting it to happen within the next week (yeah, heard that one before). What I am wondering is how Ilyas' role as non-executive Chairman and Peter's role as President will work with O'Neill (presumably acting in a role beneath these two) as majority shareholder. The tendency to tell a porky, the absence of clarity and the frightful decision making abilities that O'Neill has displayed so far don't offer much in the way of confidence, especially if he is to have 'the last say on things' as majority shareholder. Describing the ASSF offer as a "fans board" and the balance sheet as having a "slight imbalance" further inflame the worry. Put mildly, he needs guidance. In my opinion.

Ilyas, if these worries will be made clear in the coming weeks as you iron out the ownership issues, then please ignore me.

[Bagpuss]

This is the issue I also have a problem with.

[expatriate]

Shaker and Bagpuss. The point you raise about ownership is something a lot of people are also raising. You are not alone, and its certainly a legitimate question. Before i give you my response, I just want to take the opportunity to reiterate something I have said a few times - particularly when things were a bit heated on this forum !

I really am NOT a conspiracy theorist, and have found that in the overwhelming majority of cases in business and in personal life, the most simple answers are the most correct. I know its easy to reel off these one liners, but I truly truly try to keep things as grounded as possible, and it has served me well.

Now, coming to your point. I think David needs to be congratulated for being very open in this week's paper. He has a deal with WHalley, but he has yet to formally and finally complete it. This is a private matter between him and Eric, and I, for one, will respect this. I have not asked David for details now that he has clarified the situation, and I shall assume, and would recommend that we all assume, that David is the owner of a majority of the share capital.

Next, my position. I dont own a single share. All my shares were transferred to the ASSF which is in teh process of becoming a trust. I am hopeful that in due course the trust constitution will be open to all for scrutiny, and my only request is that anyone anywhere at any time can join, and be an indirect holder of the shares.

COming now to governance. The club has to be run along the most efficient and organised lines, and has a large number of stake holders. Right now the most important stakeholders are those who can clear the debt, allied with those who make the club what it is. You will recognise that in this context John COleman and his team rank right up there alongside the fans. You will have heard John talk about support and being able to get people to turn up to the game. Well, in short, unless those in charge can create the right environment to bring fans, sponsors and advertisers to the table, then we cant attract and retain the team to do its bit on the ground. Right ?

that leaves us then with the directors. ASFC is an English company, governed by UK law. The directors are responsible for running the club and making decisions, and right now that means David, Peter and myself. It is also clear that any director can be removed by a vote of the shareholders, so ultimately the shareholders have to decide on their directors.

In addition, in the case of Stanley, the creditors currently have the key "governance" power. We recently witnessed one creditor over-ride all other considerations and almost take the club to liquidation and wind up (I am talking about HMRC). the reality is that creditors can be more important than equity holders when the debt is too high.

And finally, for many football clubs, the stakeholder constituency is dependant on support from fans. You, the fans, can make or break a club by deciding not to turn up.

I think that summary is both transparent, and clear. I may have missed something, and if that is the case, please shout out loudly.

I also know that the question you might now have will be about the risk. Yes, the risk is that the shareholder's might wish to change their board. This is a healthy balance, and is the reason why companies are accountable. The bottom line here is that directors have to act in the best interests of the company, and create value and meet objectives.

Finally, in the case of ASFC, its clear that all stakeholders and shareholders are dependant upon funding to get out of a tough call. That is what has happened in the past few months. My own take on things is that by not having any shares, and also not being dependant on the club for financial gain (I take no salary, and never will), I can be objective in helping us navigate this tough time. I also happen to love the club and the town, and can afford, by the grace of god, to be helpful with some financial clout.

I dont reckon I will be Chairman for very long, and its right and correct to assume that the long term chairman will be appointed by the major shareholder, or will be the major shareholder. However, before you all go off worrying about that, let me please please draw your attention to my email from yesterday. Lets pull together, and lets all get to the end of the season with our debts cleared, our team healthy and fit, and with the fans really helping broader members of our town and community to come to the ground with eager anticipation.

As always, i promise transparency and accountability.

with my respect to you all, and see you on saturday !

[Mr T]

Non exec Chairman ( you choose the title)

This ranks as the post of the year!!

PS

THANK YOU!!!!

[expatriate]

steady on Mr t. i think yonmon has that honour.

[shakermaker]

Thanks for that Ilyas.

Saturday can't come soon enough.