| Ok, i'm no financial expert by any means. 01:07 - Aug 19 with 729 views | Garyjack |
So i will accept the answer if anyone can tell me whereby a major shareholder in a company would sell a % of their shares in order to have funds to purchase new shares in order that their lesser shareholding would not be diluted under a new share issue? Honestly now, i haven't got a clue so help me out.
|  | | |  |
| Ok, i'm no financial expert by any means. on 08:15 - Aug 19 with 632 views | barry_island |
The Supporter Director is an accountant, and a good fellow apparently, he'll be able to explain it.
Please don't hold your breath though. |  |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Ok, i'm no financial expert by any means. on 08:17 - Aug 19 with 615 views | SgorioFruit |
No idea either.
One big fish wants to own the lot and buy everyone out.
Said big fish doesn't give a toss about the club.
Supporters Trust is the last piece of identity the fans have with running the club.
Trust have failed by evening putting it to a vote, should have been a clear NO from the start.
Trust are becoming worthless and this has turned even more fans away from membership.
Sad and disappointing times for the trust and it's members. |  |
| |
| Ok, i'm no financial expert by any means. on 08:37 - Aug 19 with 568 views | MattG |
I'm guessing the OP is a reference to a post I made in another thread last night - not sure why it deserves a separate thread but there we go.
My point was that, IF the Trust wanted to purchase additional shares to prevent or minimise dilution, a fund of £6m makes that more achievable than the current <£1m.
The key word in that sentence is "IF" - at no point did I say that was the aim of selling so your OP is misrepresentative. |  | | |
| Ok, i'm no financial expert by any means. on 08:37 - Aug 19 with 568 views | waynekerr55 |
The phrase rock and hard place spring to mind. The Trust are a minority shareholder and the actions of the sellers in handing over voting rights meant the shares would be unlikely to be sold market value due to the lack of Welly in the voting rights. The second thing could be that, whilst the trust had a strong case, there is a chance that the ADR discussions and the offer could have been seen as 'fair' by the judge. The 21m was not guaranteed by any means.
That's my thoughts (layman). Did anyone ask Dai Little at the fans forum? |  |
| |
| Ok, i'm no financial expert by any means. on 08:46 - Aug 19 with 515 views | MattG |
| Ok, i'm no financial expert by any means. on 08:37 - Aug 19 by waynekerr55 |
The phrase rock and hard place spring to mind. The Trust are a minority shareholder and the actions of the sellers in handing over voting rights meant the shares would be unlikely to be sold market value due to the lack of Welly in the voting rights. The second thing could be that, whilst the trust had a strong case, there is a chance that the ADR discussions and the offer could have been seen as 'fair' by the judge. The 21m was not guaranteed by any means.
That's my thoughts (layman). Did anyone ask Dai Little at the fans forum? |
The ADR point has definitely been mentioned although, in all honesty, I can't remember whether that was just on here or if it was raised at either of the Forums. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
