Views from the Sieve

Usually a persons 'net worth' is kept fairly private information.


The fact our club have tried to emphasise the supposed figure, backing it up as being confirmed by a certified accountant (honest guv) - smacks of desperation and something fishy.....

the difference is sod all its who owns it that counts,and why wouldn't our current board not want to put forward instead an absoleute legend of the club plus people who have already been around for years,and have the finance too! I wonder.........oh yeah silly me.

If recommending the proposal, should the board have said 'we have a vested interest in Tampon or whatever his name is' because the No 1 casualty surely will be the man who wrote that statement, Thommo?

I do not trust Tampon one bit. I reckon if he takes over we are well and truly shafted. Bye bye daggers.

WE WANT TO WIN GOOD 6-0. SO VOTE GOODWIN!

Is anyone here a full member? What are you planning to vote? Can we canvass any other full members against the recommendation by the club?

I am sure that intended name insult has never been heard before but that aside I hope full members have a more open mind and make the right decision based on facts once they hear them

The statement seems to have been issued with a touch resentment. That said it does not go into any detail that would help to fend of the concern that are being expressed by Supporters.

To that end the comments that the Manager expressed at the last fans forum that The Club needs to reconnect with the supporter seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The statement is keen to point out that no current board Member benefits by recommending this decision to The Members , if that is accepted then it also needs to be asked does anybody stand to lose anything by recommending this deal above anything else that has been submitted. Turkeys never have and never will vote for an early Christrmas.

Is there anything that stops the major shareholder in the new Company taking money out the Club each season in order to cover the next years installment. If there is no guarantee of this then it is possible that this preferred investor can take complete control of the Club for nothing more then the first years 250k leaving the Club a further 1 million in debt 5 years from now.

Is there anything in place to stop the preferred investor selling his majority shareholding before the 5 years have elapsed, the Control of the Club could be in anybody hands this time next year if there is not , once the decision has been taken the Members will be powerless to prevent it.

What are the the speculation and romours that have appeared in both the Media and on Social media that have lead to the Club to make this statement and what are the exact romours they wish to dispel.

It seems that these and I dare say a lot more that fellow Supporters have thought about that really do need an answer .

Members empowered to vote on these proposals need to remember at all times that the Club is finished id if the limited support it currently has walks away because they dont buy into it

Great post Sussex, once he has control nothing else matters he can do what he wants when he wants. The whole notion of drip feeding is a bluff like said in a previous post he should get 16% for every instalment except he is being given outright control for peanuts.

There is no vote on either or as the other bids will not be voted on its this wannabe offer or nothing.

I was going to start seeing if people wanted to help out say add £100 each to Goodwin's consortium but it's far to late for that now, perhaps we can get the members vote on this yuppie delayed then we might have a chance?

The future of the clubs existence is right here and now.

You have a great shout there mate.

£200,000 ÷ 51 (% shares) = just under 4k per share.

So how about some kind of financial vehicle run in the name of the Supporters Club to buy a 1% share. Just 40 fans @ £100 pp. This would make ownership breakdown of the club

Consortium 51
SC 1
Full members 48

Long term is obviously the concern but just something to think of in the short term.

Great idea Dagger4Eva

If we were going down that route I'd be happy to see the split
Consortium 49%
Full Members 49%
Supporters 2%

That would really help balance out the powers.


Oh and lupins as for the insult, it originally was my autocorrect and I decided not to correct it. ;)

You would need someone to have an overall majority share and that would/should be the consortium imo.

Am I being cynical here in thinking:

Tamplin = Thommo keeps his job.

Consortium = Thommo loses his job

I may have misread the tone of Lee's radio interview.

ThatRoundThing wrote:Am I being cynical here in thinking:

Tamplin = Thommo keeps his job.

Consortium = Thommo loses his job

I may have misread the tone of Lee's radio interview.

No, you aren't being cynical.

Still cant get my head around why somebody who is supposed to be worth so much needs interest free credit for his investment.

The more you think , read and listen about these plans the more uncomfortable i feel, anybody else feel the same.

Mike the Dagger wrote:

ThatRoundThing wrote:Am I being cynical here in thinking:

Tamplin = Thommo keeps his job.

Consortium = Thommo loses his job

I may have misread the tone of Lee's radio interview.

No, you aren't being cynical.

A fair question to ask , its ok informing us all that the Board make no Financial gain but as I asked does anybody stand to lose ?

As I commented in my concerns It is a foolish man who cuts of his leg to feed himself.

lupins wrote:Technically what is the difference between 80% control and 51% control isn't it still control?
Whilst well aware of previous sugar daddy disasters I would still like to keep an open mind on all three bids

51% shareholding gives you an ability to pass ordinary resolutions. 75% gives you the ability to pass special resolutions, such as changing the objects of the company, reducing share capital or winding the company up - there are other things that require a special resolution though.

Alan wrote:

lupins wrote:Technically what is the difference between 80% control and 51% control isn't it still control?
Whilst well aware of previous sugar daddy disasters I would still like to keep an open mind on all three bids

51% shareholding gives you an ability to pass ordinary resolutions. 75% gives you the ability to pass special resolutions, such as changing the objects of the company, reducing share capital or winding the company up - there are other things that require a special resolution though.

Great post Alan
Essentially those owning over 75% equity in a company have almost total control.