Jump to content
IGNORED

City shareholding update (Merged)


phantom

Recommended Posts

Like many companies - why can’t there be a Rights Issue - ie give existing share holders the option to buy shares more based on their existing holding - then - if a shareholder doesn’t want to buy the extra shares Steve can buy the Rights issue and the existing holder can retain their current share holding - albeit at a lesser value overall.

where it’s been stated that many have shares for sentimental reasons the actual value of each share is not that important. 
 

This would surely satisfy both the existing shareholders and the Lansdowns??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SC&T Board Members
3 minutes ago, RightUpInCider said:

I listened again and whilst not clear it could be more like 117m shares in total, with 3% owner by other shareholders... so it’s “only” costing him £3.9m.... not £117m!!! 

Sounds more like it. A short time ago, I was told that the total number of shares in issue was 106,550,622, so 117m now is not a great leap forward.

97% owned by SL and 3% by others sounds plausible. So £3m odd to wipe up the stragglers seems about right.

The only reason not to sell is sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a legal requirement based on more unissued shared being purchased by Pula.

SL makes a generous offer for those shares floating about in private hands, knowing that the shares are effective worthless and are held for sentimental reasons, and given the way holdings have been diluted over the years, thanks to the Lansdowns and their continued investment, it's a generous offer than I can't imagine anyone will take!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SC&T Board Members
4 minutes ago, AshtonPark said:

Why is there a need for Steve to spend £3million on an attempt for complete control? Surely the 3% makes no difference ?

Just to tidy up financial loose ends, I think. And to get rid of any potentially irksome minority shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blagdon red said:

Just to tidy up financial loose ends, I think. And to get rid of any potentially irksome minority shareholders.

I have a feeling (based on some dim and distant knowledge), that once a shareholder reaches 'x'% they are obliged to invite other shareholders to sell their shares to them (making the company private), chances are, SL needs to inject some significant cash in the club over the next 18 months and a share issue is his best option, so he makes the offer knowing no one will accept it (for reasons of sentiment), which leaves him clear to buy however many shares by way of new investment to keep us solvent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clevedon Red said:

Think i paid £10 a share. 

I certainly remember mine were. I think I got 5 or 10. Which was a lot of money for me back then. I think being a shareholder entitled me once to get priority in our Freight Rover Wembley match or something. I certainly would keep rather than sell for £1 each

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
5 minutes ago, Blagdon red said:

Doesn't matter. If you're on their register, you can still sell.

I can’t recall how many I have, I think it’s about 50, I’m not that desperate for 50 quid.  If they went up to £100 a share, then I might be interested and sentiment could be forgotten ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dorset_Cider said:

Yep, I like that 'irksome' kinda has a good ring to it :)

Not sure how irksome they can be though - surely the shares held by supporters are non-voting, or even if they are voting they can't block a special resolution (requiring 75% of shares to vote for it) so can barely stop anything happening so far as day-to-day management. Then there's bound to be drag-along provisions so that in the event of a complete sale of the club they'd all be compelled to sell.

Suspect the only irksomeness would be that you could turn up at a shareholders' meeting and shout at SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Not sure how irksome they can be though - surely the shares held by supporters are non-voting, or even if they are voting they can't block a special resolution (requiring 75% of shares to vote for it) so can barely stop anything happening so far as day-to-day management. Then there's bound to be drag-along provisions so that in the event of a complete sale of the club they'd all be compelled to sell.

Suspect the only irksomeness would be that you could turn up at a shareholders' meeting and shout at SL.

It could be quite fun, if all but about 12 of us sell all our shares, we could become the irksome dozen and have convivial shareholders meetings, involving caviar canapés and champers.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SC&T Board Members
2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Not sure how irksome they can be though - surely the shares held by supporters are non-voting, or even if they are voting they can't block a special resolution (requiring 75% of shares to vote for it) so can barely stop anything happening so far as day-to-day management. Then there's bound to be drag-along provisions so that in the event of a complete sale of the club they'd all be compelled to sell.

Suspect the only irksomeness would be that you could turn up at a shareholders' meeting and shout at SL.

What shareholders' meeting? BCFC Holdings does not hold any these days, does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

I have 50. Bought when 50 quid was a lot of money. 

For me its not about money, although it was about money for the club when I bought them.

I just don’t know what to think right now. This is the first time my 50 have not been piled in behind SL!

 

I think it's more a legal requirement than a desire by Steve to get his mits on your shares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...