Looks like some bad news - Page 13

VALAIRIAN · 03-09-2009, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskin

I have no objection to Mr Khan taking the club, but to allow the club to be run by a Committee is an absolute receipe for further disaster....IMO

Nobody at A.S.S.F. has ANY thoughts of running Stanley!!! Controlling stake, not running the club, 2 very different things.

maccawozzagod · 03-09-2009, 20:24

Don owns 52% of a nominal 100k worth of shares. If we need to put in 300k then we need to create three times as many shares (minimum). So Dons share of the issue would be worth only a quarter of what it is now (13%) - as would everybody elses.

Do we need to discuss this on every page? If Ilyas used his money to bail out the club (52% Dons business) then what would be to stop him selling his 52% to someone else at a vastly inflated price as the company was now solvent? The 'company' would now be worth the share price of £400k and he could sell his 52% at market value and 'possibly' make a killing from his original purchase price (that nobody knows or needs to know).

Yes he deserves the chance to make a success of the club.

Yes many of the committee are fully behind his tenure

but no, he is not more important than Accrington Stanley and he has acknowledges so.

There is an offer on the table that is not to his liking because it is not in his best interests (only at face value) But it is in the best interests of Accrington Stanley and is funded by someone with the best interests of Accrington Stanley at heart and was delivered and sanctioned by 12 people with the best interests of Accrington Stanley at heart.

If anyone comes up with a better solution in the meantime then they have the backing of me, the ASSF, the OSC, the Ultras and ASFC.

Outback Ozzy · 03-09-2009, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

The way I understand it, it wouldn't be run by a committee - the ASSF would appoint its own directors who would work with the existing directors (including the D'on).

Further to this, I'm pretty sure the ASSF has already appointed a representative who has business acumen to sit on the board and attend meetings.

Redskin · 03-09-2009, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

Don owns 52% of a nominal 100k worth of shares. If we need to put in 300k then we need to create three times as many shares (minimum). So Dons share of the issue would be worth only a quarter of what it is now (13%) - as would everybody elses.

Do we need to discuss this on every page? If Ilyas used his money to bail out the club (52% Dons business) then what would be to stop him selling his 52% to someone else at a vastly inflated price as the company was now solvent? The 'company' would now be worth the share price of £400k and he could sell his 52% at market value and 'possibly' make a killing from his original purchase price (that nobody knows or needs to know).

Yes he deserves the chance to make a success of the club.

Yes many of the committee are fully behind his tenure

but no, he is not more important than Accrington Stanley and he has acknowledges so.

There is an offer on the table that is not to his liking because it is not in his best interests (only at face value) But it is in the best interests of Accrington Stanley and is funded by someone with the best interests of Accrington Stanley at heart and was delivered and sanctioned by 12 people with the best interests of Accrington Stanley at heart.

If anyone comes up with a better solution in the meantime then they have the backing of me, the ASSF, the OSC, the Ultras and ASFC.

Sorry, but you can purchase 25% stake holding at what ever price you negogiate, ensuring the ASSF funds are used accordingly to pay-off the appropriate debt!

Redskin · 03-09-2009, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

Nobody at A.S.S.F. has ANY thoughts of running Stanley!!! Controlling stake, not running the club, 2 very different things.

Same thing!

Redskin · 03-09-2009, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

Don owns 52% of a nominal 100k worth of shares. If we need to put in 300k then we need to create three times as many shares (minimum). So Dons share of the issue would be worth only a quarter of what it is now (13%) - as would everybody elses.

Do we need to discuss this on every page? If Ilyas used his money to bail out the club (52% Dons business) then what would be to stop him selling his 52% to someone else at a vastly inflated price as the company was now solvent? The 'company' would now be worth the share price of £400k and he could sell his 52% at market value and 'possibly' make a killing from his original purchase price (that nobody knows or needs to know).

Yes he deserves the chance to make a success of the club.

Yes many of the committee are fully behind his tenure

but no, he is not more important than Accrington Stanley and he has acknowledges so.

There is an offer on the table that is not to his liking because it is not in his best interests (only at face value) But it is in the best interests of Accrington Stanley and is funded by someone with the best interests of Accrington Stanley at heart and was delivered and sanctioned by 12 people with the best interests of Accrington Stanley at heart.

If anyone comes up with a better solution in the meantime then they have the backing of me, the ASSF, the OSC, the Ultras and ASFC.

I think you are getting confused here!....share price (face value) and market value are two totally seperate entities!

Nickelson · 03-09-2009, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskin

Same thing!

No its not, a controlling share means that they ultimately dont need to have a board decision on any issue.

maccawozzagod · 03-09-2009, 20:35

whether it is or isn't Redskin doesn't matter. Ilyas will only bail the club out subject to that condition. And until ASSF gets its own funds rolling we have to work within those parameters.

Redskin · 03-09-2009, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickelson

No its not, a controlling share means that they ultimately dont need to have a board decision on any issue.

Exactly!!!!!!...they own 50%, therefore control the club!!!!...which was my original point!

Redskin · 03-09-2009, 20:42

Here's hoping a Large Multi-National comes in and sponsors the ground for 300k, problem solved!!!......Sky, Coke, EON, Ebay, ESPN....the possibilities are endless!!!!

semi-skilled · 03-09-2009, 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskin

Exactly!!!!!!...they own 50%, therefore control the club!!!!...which was my original point!

And that control has got us................where exactly?

maccawozzagod · 03-09-2009, 21:07

I think the point that Nickelson was making Redskin was that if one man owns a controlling share he can, if he wishes, veto any decision and make his own decisions on how ASFC progresses. These decisions are sometimes good, and they are sometimes bad.

If ASSF had a controlling share it would, at worst, have 12 committee members voting on good or bad decisions, and at worst would have hundreds. It would also be more accomodating to individual professional opinions on things regardless of what we wanted. If the accountant says no to a wage rise to Kenny Arthur then that decision would have been made with the head rather than the heart.

The Don, or Eric, or anybody else may have made an emotional decision and paid the extra - as with Paul Mullin for example.

Redskin · 03-09-2009, 21:11

Committee's organise Coffee Mornings!.............LMAO

ukcowboy · 03-09-2009, 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redskin

Committee's organise Coffee Mornings!.............LMAO

Very helpfull, now go away and come back when you have something of value to add

Redskin · 03-09-2009, 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukcowboy

Very helpfull, now go away and come back when you have something of value to add

Still wearing ya Rose tinted glasses I see!.......well you lot put your money where your mouths are!......I own 5 "B" shares and paid 4k for them, Write me a cheque for 4k, payable to ASFC and they are yours, otherwise carry on planning ya coffee mornings!