New statement

[mab]

O’Neill would also like for the new board to democratically vote on the new Chairman once Ilyas officially departs, he went on to explain
“When Eric left it was assumed that because he was Managing Director and Chairman that I would step into those shoes, it was not a position that I was comfortable with as it did not seem right to just adopt that roll

At least Mr ONeil admitts that he not up to been chairman and wants a democraticall vote by the board

[bdc]

As much as it is great that we are seeking new investment and ideas, I honestly believe we are not an attractive proposition to an investor. I think it would be a lot better if we got the accounts finalised, sort the embargo out, sort the ownership issue and then I think we may have a chance of getting interest in the club. I think most people wouldn't be interested when we don't actually know who owns the club and at what percentage. Plus there is still the issue of directors loans of a 6 figure sum which needs resolving, I think the timing of this could have been better as there a number of key issues that need to be resolved yet.

[Nickelson]

Originally Posted by mab

At least Mr ONeil admitts that he not up to been chairman and wants a democraticall vote by the board

Dont forget that O'Neill stepped down from chairman after the fiasco with the tax, when Ilyas and PM saved us from deaths door.

The original statement stated that '' What happened when Eric left is I became Chairman, nobody voted me in or anything like that. But 51% shareholder I can vote myself in if I needed to anyway.''

[cashman]

Originally Posted by bdc

As much as it is great that we are seeking new investment and ideas, I honestly believe we are not an attractive proposition to an investor. I think it would be a lot better if we got the accounts finalised, sort the embargo out, sort the ownership issue and then I think we may have a chance of getting interest in the club. I think most people wouldn't be interested when we don't actually know who owns the club and at what percentage. Plus there is still the issue of directors loans of a 6 figure sum which needs resolving, I think the timing of this could have been better as there a number of key issues that need to be resolved yet.

The timing does seem very strange to me. makes me wonder,is there n ulterior motive.

[Revived Red]

“I am very pleased that the new board has come together, and that the future of Accrington Stanley Football Club is assured. The past few months have been challenging, but the positive changes effected on the field, and in the day to day management of the club can now be supported by a stronger financial backing and a board with the requisite experience and strength to move forward." (David O'Neill, 3 November 2009)

Are we now to assume that the board described by David O'Neill did NOT have "the requisite experience and strength to move forward"?

[Pendle Red]

I for one would certainly welcome new investment, fresh ideas & impetus into the Club whether the timing is right remains to be seen?

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by shillelagh

does this mean lancsdave is applying?

I run a business that makes a profit, we have no debts and only one bad debtor. Can't see me being of much use

Normally an investment in a football club is measured by shares and ownership. The easiest way to raise money would be to issue shares which actually give people or organisations ownership rights, from the statement issued that doesn't seem to be the case, so as Theo, Peter, Debra, James and Duncan would say, I'm Out

Of course there is no monetary investment required, the statement clearly asks that the investment is of knowledge and business acumen, not cold cash

[AccyMad]

I thought the new statement was to be 'basically the same but with a few additions', - I would say it's definately not the same & with a lot of exclusions - as someone has said it was probably a list of notes by O'Neil which was published by accident, but in those notes he certainly showed his true colours & by panicking & demanding the thread on here be removed I think he's just dug himself into a deeper hole (just my opinion)

[Wynonie Harris]

Transfer embargo still in place...accounts still not submitted...still questions being asked over the shares/ownership...ground still not up to FL standards.

It might have been better if he'd resolved some of those issues before asking for "new blood" to come on board.

[JEFF]

Originally Posted by Nickelson

A much more professional version. Shame that the bit saying 'I have 51% and can vote myself as chairman', which is sheer arrogance has been removed.

He doesn't own 51% EW owns 51%. When will he get that into his thick skull. Until it is registered at Companies House differently EW still legally owns the shares. Incidentally the £250 shares that were sold still haven't been registered.

[Stanleymad]

Originally Posted by JEFF

He doesn't own 51% EW owns 51%. When will he get that into his thick skull. Until it is registered at Companies House differently EW still legally owns the shares. Incidentally the £250 shares that were sold still haven't been registered.

No wonder he is hinting for solicitors then

Then can they do this 'legally' then or does it still require someone to buy out that 51%

[JEFF]

Originally Posted by Stanleymad

Then can they do this 'legally' then or does it still require someone to buy out that 51%

Don't know, but I suspect that EW can vote who he wants in as he owns the shares.

Here are details of legal ownership of shares:

The entry of the person or persons in to the share records is the acid test of whom owns a certain share. Thus the name has to appear in the share register for the law to recognise that ownership is effective from:

1. The signing date of the instrument of transfer;

2. The date the company's officers met to approve and record the share transfer, or

3. The date the stamp was placed on the share transfer documents stamped

Obviously if this has not been done then DON knows fine well who leaglly owns the shares. There could also be clauses in the Club's Articles of Association concerning the transfer of shares to an outsider

Save for a listed company, a company's Articles of Association may restrict the right of a member to transfer his shares and may require him, in specified circumstances, to offer his shares for sale. Normally, such provisions would prohibit him from transferring his shares to an outsider at a given price unless existing members have been given an opportunity to purchase the shares at the same price and such remaining members have refused to purchase the shares. Where a company's Articles contain such a provision either the procedure laid down must be followed or a Special Resolution passed by the members relaxing the pre-emption provisions in respect of a specific transfer

[DAV007]

This just gets worse

We have a chairman (or want to be chairman)/majority share holder with no money, no ideas but plenty of stuborness, selfishness and self-promotion.

He is hoping for a few mugs who in return for the title as company director and a nice seat on a match day, will put money into the club with no return or legal right to a return on their investment.

Where as Oneill would get a handsome return if we where to get promoted or had a big cup run, brought in loads of extra cash, for him with 51% to take home a big dividend.

This is utter madness.

The above is not my opinion, but the opinion of a guy i just meet in the street. The club are so obsessed with ontroing this messageboard, you just never know.

[Stanleymad]

Wow cheers Jeff, so be no surprise there will be clauses and conditions attached to any prospective share transfer as far as Erics shares are concerned

[Stanleymad]

Originally Posted by DAV007

The above is not my opinion, but the opinion of a guy i just meet in the street. The club are so obsessed with ontroing this messageboard, you just never know.

Now you understand the position im in davo, i have to protect our users and messageboard