Not quite. I'd never move to Ilkley.

vbfg wrote:I would gladly increase my donation for this.



So would I.

Is this the only option. Is it not possible to acquire enough shares for the fans to have some representation on the BOD

If you look at the accounts and returns filed at Companies House (£1 a go) then you can see total shareholding of 199,774 £1 ordinary shares. The full list of shareholdings must be quiet large so you have to order it on a CD, but on the last return which was filed on the 19th Jan this year Mr Hood was shown as holding about 81,000, and J Bates about 43,000 shares, if Mr Caisley holds 25% then he would have about 50,000 - so it would appear that between them they control over 87% of the shares.



In terms of what options you have to gain some representation you could either: buy shares from one of the existing holders - assuming they can be sold - but in this case though you get rights as a shareholder the consideration goes to the owner of the shares, or alternatively the club could issue more shares - assuming the shareholders agree - and in this cash the consideration goes to the club. The second option would get some representation if you have a sufficient holding but from the existing shareholders point of view would dilute their holdings - another test as to whether they put the club before themselves.

But a key point here is how you value the existing shares? but on thing is certain if the fans and supporters of the game had not stepped up to the plate last week they would be worth precisely zero now - or less than zero if there were some guarantees in place with the bank.



So what about the next £500,000 is raised from fans for shares at par - which would give the fans control - assuming they can co-ordinate their interests - say by giving Bullbuilder a group proxy. I realise this is a radical concept that the fans should get something tangible for their hard earned cash?

I can't see the major shareholders wanting to part with them, or BullBuilder being able to afford to do it in a way that takes a sizeable chunk.



The other 13% I presume are mostly people who were involved in 1964 and are very small shareholders. Either fans of the club or family members they were passed on to. I would have thought these were the targets if it's possible - I imagine some of the others have tried before.



Their say in the running of things now is very diluted. Their say in the running of things under BullBuilder would similarly be very diluted, but they would be consolidated under one banner that already has increased moral authority and in enough numbers to be more powerful than the previous sum of parts.

Misreading the (admittedly misleading statutory form) document.



Hood holds about 20% (he bought Jack Tordoff's holding)



Bennett holds about 5%.



Caisley holds about 27%



Agar about 11%



Bates around 9%



Coulby Holds around 6%



Tasker around 3.6%





You can see from the above why the current board has consistently faced a near-impossible task in trying to sort the investment out for taking the club forward.



The board can decline to register any share transfer.

Even if the club is in administration? This is a serious question.

If it goes into administration, and (as is usually the case) the administrator sells the assets to Newco, then its a clean sheet.



Just a load of creditors who have not been paid. Maybe even including some on here, or firms they work for.

ok, so how does the Administrator decide who should be paid?



Could he decide the shareholders get nothing and every other creditor is recompensed, would that work? I'm with you on defaulting on debts, Adey, you know me from long ago.

Statutory order.



Fixed charge holders paid out of sale of their security



Preferential creditors (mainly employees nowdays)



Debenture holders, secured by floating charge



Ordinary creditors (nowdays incl HMRC)



Shareholders.



Usually the unsecureds get sod all if anything, and the shareholders lose the lot anyway cos the business is insolvent before you even start realising assets.



IMO administration > phoenix next day > screw the creditors is legalised theft.

Agreed.

With that spread of ownership and Agar and Tasker in camp Caisley, I would suspect we'll have a new chairman after the EGM!



Going back to the point on fan ownership I don't see how a co-operative can't work, with membership presenting an opportunity for a genuine equity stake and more importantly a voice I would invest considerably more than I've pledged, as my pledge was made with grave reserves about the lunatics running our particular asylum





If the last two weeks have taught us anything its how creative we are as a supporters body, the amount of good ideas I've heard talking to other supporters over the last two weeks has been heartening, from turning the coral stand into a leagues type club we ACTUALLY have access to between and during games to volunteer working parties to fix stuff at Odsal (which now looks to be falling apart).



We should have insisted upon more for our first £500k, but we were all rightly focussed on saving the club - If they come back for more we need to say 51% please and thanks for coming!