Statement on Shareholding

[mab]

NO- And be back at squareone at least now the ASSF can move forward IMHO

[Redskin]

Originally Posted by mab

NO- And be back at squareone at least now the ASSF can move forward IMHO

How exactly?........Your backer has gone!, you have no money to invest!, I just hope that you guys have already paid for your sponsorships etc!

So you now have a collective stake in ASFC, just like a lot of other people who also have no money to invest!

So why not sell the majority of the shares, attracting a "real" investor and ihelp the club????

[Greeny]

A very kind gesture indeed BUT when Ilyas held the very first meeting at Stanhill , he himself said he will not let Stanley close, I heard him as did others present. He formed the ASSF.

[Redskin]

Originally Posted by Greeny

A very kind gesture indeed BUT when Ilyas held the very first meeting at Stanhill , he himself said he will not let Stanley close, I heard him as did others present. He formed the ASSF.

Well!!!!......they can't blame the D'ON for this one!

[maccawozzagod]

pmsl @ Redskin!


that is all

[Tommy McQueen]

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

So what? The shares have little/no monetary value and being a shareholder gives you few privileges. It doesn't give you a seat on the board.

No it doesn't even get you to a shareholders meeting, not for the past five years at least.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Tommy McQueen

No it doesn't even get you to a shareholders meeting, not for the past five years at least.

Maybe now Tommy that will change....I hope the club will reverse the past inadequacies and insure that all share holders get the due respect they deserve; this could be a point that the newly provisioned ASSF could pursue with the board.

[Tin Monkey]

The ASSF is a group of supporters with little cash, but a lot of hearts in the right places. Without Ilyas Khan's financial backing they are little more than another version of the Supporters Club. Converting to a Trust may give them a little more 'status', but the shares aren't going to do that.

Although this will go against the general consensus, I honestly don't think any side in this debacle has come out of this with any real credit. Ilyas Khan has lived the whole affair through the media glare and the donation of his shares is just another chapter in my opinion. Likewise the club (directors, etc) are soiled with the same dirt, just done differently.

It's just a shame that the real fans have to be caught up in the middle.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

The ASSF is a group of supporters with little cash, but a lot of hearts in the right places. Without Ilyas Khan's financial backing they are little more than another version of the Supporters Club. Converting to a Trust may give them a little more 'status', but the shares aren't going to do that.

Although this will go against the general consensus, I honestly don't think any side in this debacle has come out of this with any real credit. Ilyas Khan has lived the whole affair through the media glare and the donation of his shares is just another chapter in my opinion. Likewise the club (directors, etc) are soiled with the same dirt, just done differently.

It's just a shame that the real fans have to be caught up in the middle.

I think that a quite apt and fair assessment of the whole episode…..eye’s wide open so to speak; rather than seeing what we think we see or what others want us to see.

[Redskin]

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

The ASSF is a group of supporters with little cash, but a lot of hearts in the right places. Without Ilyas Khan's financial backing they are little more than another version of the Supporters Club. Converting to a Trust may give them a little more 'status', but the shares aren't going to do that.

Although this will go against the general consensus, I honestly don't think any side in this debacle has come out of this with any real credit. Ilyas Khan has lived the whole affair through the media glare and the donation of his shares is just another chapter in my opinion. Likewise the club (directors, etc) are soiled with the same dirt, just done differently.

It's just a shame that the real fans have to be caught up in the middle.

Amen!

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by Tommy McQueen

No it doesn't even get you to a shareholders meeting, not for the past five years at least.

Errr....could anyone just clarify this point? Is TMc saying that over the last few years, shareholders have not received invitations to attend the AGM of the club? Surely it is a legal obligation that invitations are sent to all shareholders in advance of a statutory AGM, the usual purpose of which is the approval of the annual accounts, the re-election of the directors and the questioning of the said directors on any matters arising. If this has not been happening, then this is yet another worm in the can. I am also under the impression that the minutes of the said AGM have to be forwarded to the Foofball League.

[Revived Red]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Errr....could anyone just clarify this point? Is TMc saying that over the last few years, shareholders have not received invitations to attend the AGM of the club? Surely it is a legal obligation that invitations are sent to all shareholders in advance of a statutory AGM, the usual purpose of which is the approval of the annual accounts, the re-election of the directors and the questioning of the said directors on any matters arising. If this has not been happening, then this is yet another worm in the can. I am also under the impression that the minutes of the said AGM have to be forwarded to the Foofball League.

Posted by Tin Monkey on 1/9/2007 :

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

They tried that in the past Doug. I dug deep and bought shares in the club, but since Eric took over I don't even think there's been a meeting of shareholders. I bet he doesn't even know we exist.

I think I'll leave it for tonight, as I'm struggling to find anything positive to say. I'm going to have a malt and watch some CSI.

[JEFF]

Seems as though Shareholders can look at the minutes of any Board meetings. Might be interesting if a Shareholder asks to look at the minutes and so find out when Directors' loans were made

How to conduct a board meeting
You must give reasonable notice - normally 14 days - to the other directors.
You must take formal minutes of the meeting.
Once approved, the minutes should be signed by the chairman of the meeting.
You must keep the minutes as the official record. Shareholders can ask to see them.

As for the Annual General Meeting

Rules surrounding the annual general meeting (AGM)
Private companies are not required to hold an AGM. Public limited companies (PLCs) must hold an AGM once in each six-month period.

Companies can still hold an AGM if they choose to. As with other meetings, an AGM must be arranged if any director asks for one with due notice, or if 10 per cent of the members request one - 5 per cent if it has been more than 12 months since the last meeting.

[Redskin]

Originally Posted by JEFF

Seems as though Shareholders can look at the minutes of any Board meetings. Might be interesting if a Shareholder asks to look at the minutes and so find out when Directors' loans were made

As for the Annual General Meeting

This never occured under eric's stewardship!

[JEFF]

Originally Posted by Redskin

This never occured under eric's stewardship!

Maybe Shareholders were not brave enough to ask to see the minutes during Eric's stewardship. Maybe now they are. Why doesn't a Shareholder ask to see the minutes of the meetings at which Directors' loans were approved