| Any news from Trust or developments ? 10:22 - Jun 6 with 12899 views | swancity |
Just looked on Trust website but nothing
|  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:49 - Jun 12 with 1525 views | Dewi1jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:48 - Jun 11 by Uxbridge |
That last comment annoys me when it pops up. Not everyone has the time to stand. Not everyone wants to, or feels they're right for it. Not everyone wants to. That's all fair.
However I do hope some of the passionate people who post on these threads and others choose to stand... Standing for the Trust remains the best way of fans influencing things, especially if you feel strongly about things. |
Wasn't said to annoy anyone and if it has then sorry Ux.
The comment about the unwritten rule about non-members not being allowed to comment on here- see a post about 4 or 5 down from mine where someone is called a thick tw@ and knob (I think)
I really do appreciate all that the Trust board past and present have done.
I genuinely don't have the chance to stand for the Board as I certainly couldn't give it the time it requires.
That may change in the future, even once I'm genuinely old and retired, rather than early 50's and f**ked!
After a little soul searching (truthfully didn't take much) I will renew my subs for the Trust, purely and simply due to the fact I want the club I love to be a little more secure for my grandkids/ great grandkids (hopefully not until I'm in my mid 70's)
I would wish to raise that our SD brings a motion of "no confidence" in any of the sellout snidey, sneaky vermin scum once the members have been informed and balloted on legal action.
Not one of the c**ts should be near the club, let alone touting tickets and trips or earning a living.
Each one of those scum tucked the Trust and supposed friendships right up
Especially that no-mark tw@ Dimwit.
Ex Lead man for the Trust????????
You'd be so busy watching Friends like that b'stard you wouldn't have the time or ever the need to watch any enemies
And breathe |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:10 - Jun 12 with 1492 views | swancity |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:49 - Jun 12 by Dewi1jack |
Wasn't said to annoy anyone and if it has then sorry Ux.
The comment about the unwritten rule about non-members not being allowed to comment on here- see a post about 4 or 5 down from mine where someone is called a thick tw@ and knob (I think)
I really do appreciate all that the Trust board past and present have done.
I genuinely don't have the chance to stand for the Board as I certainly couldn't give it the time it requires.
That may change in the future, even once I'm genuinely old and retired, rather than early 50's and f**ked!
After a little soul searching (truthfully didn't take much) I will renew my subs for the Trust, purely and simply due to the fact I want the club I love to be a little more secure for my grandkids/ great grandkids (hopefully not until I'm in my mid 70's)
I would wish to raise that our SD brings a motion of "no confidence" in any of the sellout snidey, sneaky vermin scum once the members have been informed and balloted on legal action.
Not one of the c**ts should be near the club, let alone touting tickets and trips or earning a living.
Each one of those scum tucked the Trust and supposed friendships right up
Especially that no-mark tw@ Dimwit.
Ex Lead man for the Trust????????
You'd be so busy watching Friends like that b'stard you wouldn't have the time or ever the need to watch any enemies
And breathe |
Don't think anyone could argue with any of that apart from xmastree that is
And like many others I share your annoyance
So why are the people who were actually shat on being so casual about it? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:29 - Jun 12 with 1483 views | cimlajack |
A current High Court case involving Karl Oyston of Blackpool F.C. and the former President of Blackpool F.C. makes interesting reading.
Basically, the President is maintaining that as a minor Shareholder,he was prejudiced financially by Oyston.
Oyston has been accused of using Blackpool FC's funds as his own,to the detriment of the football club and a minority shareholder.
On arrival to the Premier League,he awarded himself/family members an interest free loan of £13m. for starters.
This case must have dragged on for years to reach this point. | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:53 - Jun 12 with 1462 views | monmouth |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:29 - Jun 12 by cimlajack |
A current High Court case involving Karl Oyston of Blackpool F.C. and the former President of Blackpool F.C. makes interesting reading.
Basically, the President is maintaining that as a minor Shareholder,he was prejudiced financially by Oyston.
Oyston has been accused of using Blackpool FC's funds as his own,to the detriment of the football club and a minority shareholder.
On arrival to the Premier League,he awarded himself/family members an interest free loan of £13m. for starters.
This case must have dragged on for years to reach this point. |
Yes, and he is alleging actual, clear and palpable financial detriment, perhaps even financial fraud (I'm unclear about that one), not a speculative share value loss for which no offer ever actually existed.
Anyone who ever thinks this would be cut and dried is in cloud cuckoo land, and that's from someone that would love to see these people in deep legal soup having to make reparation. In practical terms we don't even know if the Trust has the funds for the lengthy legal fight, we do know that others have more. I'm not surprised it's taking a long time. |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 21:03 - Jun 12 with 1450 views | Watchman |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:30 - Jun 12 by DafyddHuw |
Are you seriously suggesting that it's taken 18 months to determine legal avenues and you're still umming and arring over what to do? |
Did you want the Trust to go to war with current and past board members throughout last season. If you thought things were a mess then if there was legal action it would have been catastophic
I am looking forward to giving my input when required/asked to do so and it should be given in private and not on a message board where people with alternative agendas simply cannot be trusted |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 21:30 - Jun 12 with 1400 views | QJumpingJack |
When the Americans fail to engage in dialogue with the Trust, is it
a) they genuinely forget to think to speak to the Trust (which suggests The Trust are not on their radar)
b) deliberately exclude them from their decisions because they fear the Trust may delay their decisions / making money out of us - the fans
c) they don't respect the Trust despite all the great work the Trust gave done over the last 14 years (which suggests they are not aware of The Trust's fantastic work) | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 23:50 - Jun 12 with 1306 views | Nookiejack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:53 - Jun 12 by monmouth |
Yes, and he is alleging actual, clear and palpable financial detriment, perhaps even financial fraud (I'm unclear about that one), not a speculative share value loss for which no offer ever actually existed.
Anyone who ever thinks this would be cut and dried is in cloud cuckoo land, and that's from someone that would love to see these people in deep legal soup having to make reparation. In practical terms we don't even know if the Trust has the funds for the lengthy legal fight, we do know that others have more. I'm not surprised it's taking a long time. |
The thing is under the New Articles there is clear financial detriment.
A buyer is far better off paying £89m for the Yanks' 68% stake and achieving Control of the club - rather than paying:-
£68m for the Yanks stake; and
£21m for the Trusts' stake.
If you have control you can award yourself management fees and never declare a dividend. You tell the fans the club needs the cashflow so don't declare a dividend - but then award yourself management fees.
As the 'Majority' shareholder under the new articles you don't need to include the Minority Shareholders in a sale of your shares - but in contrast the minority shareholders have to disclose any bid for their shares to you and then proceed with a 30 day negotiation process. (See article 13.2.2.)
You also have a clause which says anyone that makes an offer for the Trusts's shares must be 'reasonably acceptable' to you. (See article 13.2.3.)
Some may argue that the Trust does not abide by the New Articles as never signed them - however what buyer would buy the Trust's shares in these circumstances?
Could you give me a scenario where a buyer would buy the Trust's shares? If not there is no liquidity for the Trust's shares. How would say Chinese investors earn a return if they bought the Trusts's shares? Far better that they pay a control premium for the Majority Shareholders shares i.e. the Yanks' shares.
All the liquidity is for the Majority Shareholder's (Yanks' shares) shares.
Far better to pay a control premium for the 'Majority' Shareholder's shares.
They therefore increase from £68m to £89m and the Trust's shares decrease from £21m to Nil. (due to lack of liquidity).
This is clear financial detriment to the Trust. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 00:04 - Jun 13 with 1291 views | Nookiejack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 23:50 - Jun 12 by Nookiejack |
The thing is under the New Articles there is clear financial detriment.
A buyer is far better off paying £89m for the Yanks' 68% stake and achieving Control of the club - rather than paying:-
£68m for the Yanks stake; and
£21m for the Trusts' stake.
If you have control you can award yourself management fees and never declare a dividend. You tell the fans the club needs the cashflow so don't declare a dividend - but then award yourself management fees.
As the 'Majority' shareholder under the new articles you don't need to include the Minority Shareholders in a sale of your shares - but in contrast the minority shareholders have to disclose any bid for their shares to you and then proceed with a 30 day negotiation process. (See article 13.2.2.)
You also have a clause which says anyone that makes an offer for the Trusts's shares must be 'reasonably acceptable' to you. (See article 13.2.3.)
Some may argue that the Trust does not abide by the New Articles as never signed them - however what buyer would buy the Trust's shares in these circumstances?
Could you give me a scenario where a buyer would buy the Trust's shares? If not there is no liquidity for the Trust's shares. How would say Chinese investors earn a return if they bought the Trusts's shares? Far better that they pay a control premium for the Majority Shareholders shares i.e. the Yanks' shares.
All the liquidity is for the Majority Shareholder's (Yanks' shares) shares.
Far better to pay a control premium for the 'Majority' Shareholder's shares.
They therefore increase from £68m to £89m and the Trust's shares decrease from £21m to Nil. (due to lack of liquidity).
This is clear financial detriment to the Trust. |
Just a thought but maybe worth contacting a Corporate Finance House to establish what do they think the value of the Trust's shares are under the new articles. | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 08:12 - Jun 13 with 1204 views | QJumpingJack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 00:04 - Jun 13 by Nookiejack |
Just a thought but maybe worth contacting a Corporate Finance House to establish what do they think the value of the Trust's shares are under the new articles. |
Nookie - some great posts. Have you considered standing for the Trust? | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 09:25 - Jun 13 with 1171 views | Uxbridge |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:49 - Jun 12 by Dewi1jack |
Wasn't said to annoy anyone and if it has then sorry Ux.
The comment about the unwritten rule about non-members not being allowed to comment on here- see a post about 4 or 5 down from mine where someone is called a thick tw@ and knob (I think)
I really do appreciate all that the Trust board past and present have done.
I genuinely don't have the chance to stand for the Board as I certainly couldn't give it the time it requires.
That may change in the future, even once I'm genuinely old and retired, rather than early 50's and f**ked!
After a little soul searching (truthfully didn't take much) I will renew my subs for the Trust, purely and simply due to the fact I want the club I love to be a little more secure for my grandkids/ great grandkids (hopefully not until I'm in my mid 70's)
I would wish to raise that our SD brings a motion of "no confidence" in any of the sellout snidey, sneaky vermin scum once the members have been informed and balloted on legal action.
Not one of the c**ts should be near the club, let alone touting tickets and trips or earning a living.
Each one of those scum tucked the Trust and supposed friendships right up
Especially that no-mark tw@ Dimwit.
Ex Lead man for the Trust????????
You'd be so busy watching Friends like that b'stard you wouldn't have the time or ever the need to watch any enemies
And breathe |
Sorry, I wasn't clear it seems. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I've got no time for those seeking to denigrate other people's views because they are unable or unwilling to stand themselves. I might poke the occasional bear myself if I think someone's going to far, but standing for the Trust isn't for everyone. As this site shows, you'll need the hide of a rhino at the very least. So, aye, I totally understand where you're coming from. |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 09:38 - Jun 13 with 1157 views | Uxbridge |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 23:50 - Jun 12 by Nookiejack |
The thing is under the New Articles there is clear financial detriment.
A buyer is far better off paying £89m for the Yanks' 68% stake and achieving Control of the club - rather than paying:-
£68m for the Yanks stake; and
£21m for the Trusts' stake.
If you have control you can award yourself management fees and never declare a dividend. You tell the fans the club needs the cashflow so don't declare a dividend - but then award yourself management fees.
As the 'Majority' shareholder under the new articles you don't need to include the Minority Shareholders in a sale of your shares - but in contrast the minority shareholders have to disclose any bid for their shares to you and then proceed with a 30 day negotiation process. (See article 13.2.2.)
You also have a clause which says anyone that makes an offer for the Trusts's shares must be 'reasonably acceptable' to you. (See article 13.2.3.)
Some may argue that the Trust does not abide by the New Articles as never signed them - however what buyer would buy the Trust's shares in these circumstances?
Could you give me a scenario where a buyer would buy the Trust's shares? If not there is no liquidity for the Trust's shares. How would say Chinese investors earn a return if they bought the Trusts's shares? Far better that they pay a control premium for the Majority Shareholders shares i.e. the Yanks' shares.
All the liquidity is for the Majority Shareholder's (Yanks' shares) shares.
Far better to pay a control premium for the 'Majority' Shareholder's shares.
They therefore increase from £68m to £89m and the Trust's shares decrease from £21m to Nil. (due to lack of liquidity).
This is clear financial detriment to the Trust. |
That's all well and good, and I broadly agree with the theory (although I have a different interpretation of the impact of the two points of the Articles you state ... I certainly don't see that 30 day condition as anything as significant as you do), but it needs to be clear in a legal sense and clear in a likelihood of winning sense. And, if a legal case is won, what are the remedies and the impacts. You also need to look at what it is the Trust, or more accurately its members, would want to happen.
I don't doubt the next comment from someone will be "Ooh, you just don't want to take legal action". Well, no, ideally not. It's a last resort. And, as Waynekerr has outlined, the courts want it to be a last resort too. It's expensive, damaging and unpredictable. Thems the facts. Legal action will bring with it all sorts of issues for all parties.
However, if it's what the legal eagles advise, then I'll vote for it. I suspect some will vote for it even if they don't and it's just to bloody a few noses. I get that, but I'm more pragmatic. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 09:38 - Jun 13 with 1153 views | Uxbridge |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 08:12 - Jun 13 by QJumpingJack |
Nookie - some great posts. Have you considered standing for the Trust? |
Seconded. Always happy to nominate someone. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 10:42 - Jun 13 with 1100 views | Nookiejack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 09:38 - Jun 13 by Uxbridge |
That's all well and good, and I broadly agree with the theory (although I have a different interpretation of the impact of the two points of the Articles you state ... I certainly don't see that 30 day condition as anything as significant as you do), but it needs to be clear in a legal sense and clear in a likelihood of winning sense. And, if a legal case is won, what are the remedies and the impacts. You also need to look at what it is the Trust, or more accurately its members, would want to happen.
I don't doubt the next comment from someone will be "Ooh, you just don't want to take legal action". Well, no, ideally not. It's a last resort. And, as Waynekerr has outlined, the courts want it to be a last resort too. It's expensive, damaging and unpredictable. Thems the facts. Legal action will bring with it all sorts of issues for all parties.
However, if it's what the legal eagles advise, then I'll vote for it. I suspect some will vote for it even if they don't and it's just to bloody a few noses. I get that, but I'm more pragmatic. |
Re: the 30 day condition and the Yanks having the ability to vet a potential buyer of the Trust's shares - as being reasonably acceptable to them (the Trust doesn't have reciprocal rights).
These are mechanisms inserted to put off potential buyers of the minority shareholders holdings.
For example if a potential buyer of the Trust's shares incurs due diligence costs - to assess the value of the Trusts shares - if they then make a bid - the Trust has to inform the Yanks of the bid and the Trust than has to open up 30 days of negotiations with the Yanks. The Yanks will then have to decide whether to make an offer - for the shares that the potential buyer - has offered to buy from the Trust.
The Trust then would have to accept a bid from the Yanks if it is higher than the potential buyer. The potential buyer would then lose the due diligence costs. Hence this puts off potential buyers.
If the Yanks offer less than the potential buyer - bearing in mind they have all the latest information on the club's performance - then the potential buyer will then realise that they have over bid.
Also the Yanks could than say that the potential buyer is unacceptable to them - if the potential buyer's offer was higher than the Yanks's(Given Trusts reluctance to take legal action would they fight this?).
Would it really be worth a potential buyer making a bid for the Trust's shares in these circumstances? (Including they would only receive a dividend if the Yank's declare one).
A potential buyer has has to consider how do they achieve their exit and would there be many buyers for the shares they would buy off the Trust under the new articles.
Much better for a potential investor to pay a control premium just for the Yank's 68% stake. Value is then transferred from the Trust to the Yanks.
This is what will happen if Yanks keep delaying and the Trust does not take legal action - in my view. | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 11:46 - Jun 13 with 1065 views | E20Jack |
Yep, they have essentially syphoned away The Trusts share value into their own. Brilliant really, and incredibly devious and pre meditated from the old board, intent on nothing but destroying the supporters Trust for the ability too eek even more cash out of their own personal shares.
There clearly is a case to be had. I just dont understand the appetite for the alternative, what are The Trust hoping that alternative is out of interest? You mention legal action being the last resort, what are your realistic ambitions for these talks or negotiation that would avoid legal action? A change in the articles to more suitable terms? An offer for your shares? What?
I cannot stress enough that "moving on with better relations and more open lines of communication" or something to that effect, essentially means chucking our shares down the drain, and protecting the relative pittance the Trust in the bank, which will essentially be dead money. |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:02 - Jun 13 with 991 views | swancity |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 11:46 - Jun 13 by E20Jack |
Yep, they have essentially syphoned away The Trusts share value into their own. Brilliant really, and incredibly devious and pre meditated from the old board, intent on nothing but destroying the supporters Trust for the ability too eek even more cash out of their own personal shares.
There clearly is a case to be had. I just dont understand the appetite for the alternative, what are The Trust hoping that alternative is out of interest? You mention legal action being the last resort, what are your realistic ambitions for these talks or negotiation that would avoid legal action? A change in the articles to more suitable terms? An offer for your shares? What?
I cannot stress enough that "moving on with better relations and more open lines of communication" or something to that effect, essentially means chucking our shares down the drain, and protecting the relative pittance the Trust in the bank, which will essentially be dead money. |
Reading between the lines there is something that the Trust are keeping hidden at the moment I'm quite sure of that.
They are not grasping the nettle as you would expect having been taken for mugs and with the opportunity to readdress the balance. That means there are things simmering in the background that haven't been made clear yet. May be its the fact that they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in the past and the worry of the repercussions but certainly something isn't right.
When you add into the bargain the whole future of the Trust hanging in the balance this apparent reluctance to attack anything or even comment on it with more force than a money spider is disturbing. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:12 - Jun 13 with 978 views | Uxbridge |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 11:46 - Jun 13 by E20Jack |
Yep, they have essentially syphoned away The Trusts share value into their own. Brilliant really, and incredibly devious and pre meditated from the old board, intent on nothing but destroying the supporters Trust for the ability too eek even more cash out of their own personal shares.
There clearly is a case to be had. I just dont understand the appetite for the alternative, what are The Trust hoping that alternative is out of interest? You mention legal action being the last resort, what are your realistic ambitions for these talks or negotiation that would avoid legal action? A change in the articles to more suitable terms? An offer for your shares? What?
I cannot stress enough that "moving on with better relations and more open lines of communication" or something to that effect, essentially means chucking our shares down the drain, and protecting the relative pittance the Trust in the bank, which will essentially be dead money. |
That comment ... effectively chucking our shares down the drain ... remains as wrong as it was whenever someone first coined it. It's a ridiculous comment. The stake retains a value in itself. Now, we can argue over the value of that, and that impact would be the logical issue on whether the Trust has been negatively impacted but saying 21% of the shareholding of a company values at 9 figures last year is actually worth £0 is just silly.
The second paragraph however is the nub of it all. I'm admiring the total certainty on the prospects of any legal case. If only. As for appetite, there's only so many times it can be said that it's a decision for the members not the Trust board ... it wouldn't matter if nobody there wanted to push the button (which, by the by, is presumptive in the extreme, and bordering on the offensive), however if the Members choose that route then it's off to court we go. The question of what the Trust wants is ultimately what is key, however what that really means is which of the various paths open would the Trust and its members, after weighing up all the options, actually choose to pursue. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:12 - Jun 13 with 975 views | Nookiejack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 11:46 - Jun 13 by E20Jack |
Yep, they have essentially syphoned away The Trusts share value into their own. Brilliant really, and incredibly devious and pre meditated from the old board, intent on nothing but destroying the supporters Trust for the ability too eek even more cash out of their own personal shares.
There clearly is a case to be had. I just dont understand the appetite for the alternative, what are The Trust hoping that alternative is out of interest? You mention legal action being the last resort, what are your realistic ambitions for these talks or negotiation that would avoid legal action? A change in the articles to more suitable terms? An offer for your shares? What?
I cannot stress enough that "moving on with better relations and more open lines of communication" or something to that effect, essentially means chucking our shares down the drain, and protecting the relative pittance the Trust in the bank, which will essentially be dead money. |
Re : the Old Board
Yes if they have a separate deal tucked away somewhere - to sell their residual 11% shares (Huw Jenkins 5% and Martin Morgan/ex wife 5%) some time in the future to the Yanks.
They can get out the Trust can't. | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:37 - Jun 13 with 937 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:12 - Jun 13 by Uxbridge |
That comment ... effectively chucking our shares down the drain ... remains as wrong as it was whenever someone first coined it. It's a ridiculous comment. The stake retains a value in itself. Now, we can argue over the value of that, and that impact would be the logical issue on whether the Trust has been negatively impacted but saying 21% of the shareholding of a company values at 9 figures last year is actually worth £0 is just silly.
The second paragraph however is the nub of it all. I'm admiring the total certainty on the prospects of any legal case. If only. As for appetite, there's only so many times it can be said that it's a decision for the members not the Trust board ... it wouldn't matter if nobody there wanted to push the button (which, by the by, is presumptive in the extreme, and bordering on the offensive), however if the Members choose that route then it's off to court we go. The question of what the Trust wants is ultimately what is key, however what that really means is which of the various paths open would the Trust and its members, after weighing up all the options, actually choose to pursue. |
Well I clearly didnt mean figuratively throwing the shares down the drain Ux, come on now. But it is essentially the same thing in reality. They will be next to worthless. What value could they possibly have? You can not really sell them on and you can not get a continuous return on them, so what would be the point in having them?
It just becomes a prestigious season ticket for a select few.
When the shares were valued at 9 figures they were completely different entities. Unrecognisable, incomparable entities. To say "they were valued at this last year so cannot be worth nothing today" is horrifyingly ignorant of that acts' impact on those shares. They could have been worth 9 figures an hour ago, however as soon as those articles change - be next to worthless now. It isnt the length of time that has impacted on the depreciation, it is the event. Everything changed immediately after.
If you cannot sell something, then it is worthless.
The Trusts shares have been reduced to prestige/novalty factor value for anyone looking to buy. No serious investor or venture capitalist would even entertain it. How much would someone pay for a title and a bit of kudos with no real power or ability to make a return? A million? A million and a half?
Weighing it up, I would say the Trusts shares have depreciated 90%-95% immediately after the articles were signed. Which is why accepting that is essentially chucking the shares down the drain. [Post edited 13 Jun 2017 13:48]
| |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:07 - Jun 13 with 899 views | Uxbridge |
Yeah, we're on different planets, figuratively speaking.
I suspect, no I know, this'll be a very different debate once things are played out in public with all the information available to all. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:50 - Jun 13 with 856 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:07 - Jun 13 by Uxbridge |
Yeah, we're on different planets, figuratively speaking.
I suspect, no I know, this'll be a very different debate once things are played out in public with all the information available to all. |
But you do understand that the impact of the new articles being signed resigns these shares to becoming pretty unsellable, right? No influence on the company is attached to them what so ever, no way of getting any money out through the profitability of that company, no vetoing rights and the knowledge that when you do want to dump these shares - the people buying will also understand the above.
What is the Trusts desired outcome? Realistically speaking? You have stated legal action is last resort, so what is best restort? I cant figure it out. [Post edited 13 Jun 2017 15:41]
| |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:57 - Jun 13 with 847 views | Nookiejack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:37 - Jun 13 by E20Jack |
Well I clearly didnt mean figuratively throwing the shares down the drain Ux, come on now. But it is essentially the same thing in reality. They will be next to worthless. What value could they possibly have? You can not really sell them on and you can not get a continuous return on them, so what would be the point in having them?
It just becomes a prestigious season ticket for a select few.
When the shares were valued at 9 figures they were completely different entities. Unrecognisable, incomparable entities. To say "they were valued at this last year so cannot be worth nothing today" is horrifyingly ignorant of that acts' impact on those shares. They could have been worth 9 figures an hour ago, however as soon as those articles change - be next to worthless now. It isnt the length of time that has impacted on the depreciation, it is the event. Everything changed immediately after.
If you cannot sell something, then it is worthless.
The Trusts shares have been reduced to prestige/novalty factor value for anyone looking to buy. No serious investor or venture capitalist would even entertain it. How much would someone pay for a title and a bit of kudos with no real power or ability to make a return? A million? A million and a half?
Weighing it up, I would say the Trusts shares have depreciated 90%-95% immediately after the articles were signed. Which is why accepting that is essentially chucking the shares down the drain. [Post edited 13 Jun 2017 13:48]
|
Spot on | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 15:00 - Jun 13 with 842 views | Nookiejack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:50 - Jun 13 by E20Jack |
But you do understand that the impact of the new articles being signed resigns these shares to becoming pretty unsellable, right? No influence on the company is attached to them what so ever, no way of getting any money out through the profitability of that company, no vetoing rights and the knowledge that when you do want to dump these shares - the people buying will also understand the above.
What is the Trusts desired outcome? Realistically speaking? You have stated legal action is last resort, so what is best restort? I cant figure it out. [Post edited 13 Jun 2017 15:41]
|
Super stuff | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 15:39 - Jun 13 with 814 views | 3swan |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:07 - Jun 13 by Uxbridge |
Yeah, we're on different planets, figuratively speaking.
I suspect, no I know, this'll be a very different debate once things are played out in public with all the information available to all. |
I'm sure there will be a debate when all the facts are known, but i'm guessing it will be based on the morals of the takeover, which most people will agree on.
The financial/legal side will be a different case where I'm sure that most will go with the recommendation from the Trust after they will have completed with the legal advice.
I have posted in the past, and agree with the recent postings that currently the shares are just a paper value, and can't see any buyer/investor touching them with a bargepole. | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 15:43 - Jun 13 with 803 views | DafyddHuw |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:50 - Jun 13 by E20Jack |
But you do understand that the impact of the new articles being signed resigns these shares to becoming pretty unsellable, right? No influence on the company is attached to them what so ever, no way of getting any money out through the profitability of that company, no vetoing rights and the knowledge that when you do want to dump these shares - the people buying will also understand the above.
What is the Trusts desired outcome? Realistically speaking? You have stated legal action is last resort, so what is best restort? I cant figure it out. [Post edited 13 Jun 2017 15:41]
|
Hope you're not holding your breath for an answer, but. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
