Zone Update The £80 million question

[shrimpfan]

Thanks shrimpfan, i was unaware of this. I wonder why he's so keen to go then???

ask him???????

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I do not want to be involved in politics from within [as stated feel the need to be on the outside, as independent and non financially motivated or constrained by others].

Are you seriously of the opinion that by purchasing a minimum share holding you'll automatically become "one of them" and therefore a part of whatever corruption, intrigue, and scandal you feel is happening within the club? If so then sorry, but I'm seriously concerned for your mental wellbeing.

 

[Irate Ian]

Are you seriously of the opinion that by purchasing a minimum share holding you'll automatically become "one of them" and therefore a part of whatever corruption, intrigue, and scandal you feel is happening within the club? If so then sorry, but I'm seriously concerned for your mental wellbeing.

No, not at all, what on earth gives or gave you that impression.

 

[Irate Ian]

ask him???????

As an observer.

To learn

if any shareholders have tabled on the agenda any similar questions [important to do so in advance in writing] and

what the officers response may be - viz: answers given & dilligence check, which may give rise to further questions on the day from the floor !!

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

no questions can be asked with a proxy. ian knows he cant ask with a proxy hes been to a agm befor.

I believe the Companies Act 2006 means that a proxy can ask questions at a meeting, and even prior to this was at Chairmans discretion anyway.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

No, not at all, what on earth gives or gave you that impression.

errm, the fact that you stated that you didnt wish to purchase shares as you wished to remain neutral? The act of merely buying shares would only have an effect on your neutrality if you let it.

I do not want to be involved in politics from within [as stated feel the need to be on the outside, as independent and non financially motivated or constrained by others].

You'd only be financially constrained if you invested for profit, and only then if you let yourself be, and as for "constrained by others", well, which others?

 

[Fish]

If I was a shareholder then I would expect answers, as I would have a stake in the business.

The football side of things, he's answerable to the fans. The business side of things, to the shareholders. I just feel this is all business related matters.

The fans are the (only?) customers of the business. That means from a busienss perspective, Ron should bear in mind that by keeping customers of the business in the dark about massive future prospects of the business, he could alienate them.

On a technical point, there is a difference between shareholder and stakeholder - the latter very firmly involves customers (i.e. us, including Irate Ian). Look at what Tesco's had to deal with at their AGM this year - CUSTOMER pressure brought to bear at the AGM.

 

[Fish]

I believe the Companies Act 2006 means that a proxy can ask questions at a meeting, and even prior to this was at Chairmans discretion anyway.

More than that, if you go as a proxy for a shareholder (i.e. nominated by them to represent them at the meeting) you can exercise all of the rights that that shareholder would have been able to exercise at the meeting themselves. A proxy does not limit your rights, unless the proxy appointment specifies it (normally laid down in a 'Letter of Representation').

There are debates at the moment about the 2006 Act about how many proxies an individual can nominate - consensus seems to be as many as the number of voting rights those shares convey - and how those shares can be voted in different ways if required.

My knowledge comes from professional involvement in institutional shareholder proxy voting, before anyone asks!

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

More than that, if you go as a proxy for a shareholder (i.e. nominated by them to represent them at the meeting) you can exercise all of the rights that that shareholder would have been able to exercise at the meeting themselves. A proxy does not limit your rights, unless the proxy appointment specifies it (normally laid down in a 'Letter of Representation').

There are debates at the moment about the 2006 Act about how many proxies an individual can nominate - consensus seems to be as many as the number of voting rights those shares convey - and how those shares can be voted in different ways if required.

My knowledge comes from professional involvement in institutional shareholder proxy voting, before anyone asks!

Indeed, I believe if you hold 100 shares, you can appoint a proxy for each share so in effect 100 people could turn up on your behalf which could cause quite a stir!

 

[WestRoadShrimper]

The fans are the (only?) customers of the business. That means from a busienss perspective, Ron should bear in mind that by keeping customers of the business in the dark about massive future prospects of the business, he could alienate them.

On a technical point, there is a difference between shareholder and stakeholder - the latter very firmly involves customers (i.e. us, including Irate Ian). Look at what Tesco's had to deal with at their AGM this year - CUSTOMER pressure brought to bear at the AGM.

I see where you're coming from, and clearly you know a lot more about this than me so I'm not going to argue.

The only difference I see is that Tesco's we have a choice - don't like it, go and shop elsewhere. They therefore need to listen to their stakeholders. Can any of us really say that we're going to stop watching Southend just because we aren't told the intricate ins and outs of the development funding? I'm going to watch the team regardless of what is happening off the field, so is there really the same urgency for Mr Martin to keep us sweet?

 

[Irate Ian]

The reason it was moved is because the £80m is to be raised to fund Fossetts Farm. We have a section for discussion of Fossetts Farm and it's just as easy to find as this one. I'm on holiday and just checking in for my dose of Southend news so I can't be bothered to move it but, in my opinion, THIS thread should be in there.

It's not a graveyard Ian, it's just another part of the forum. We certainly don't need two threads.

I disagree on both counts.

First, it is IMO, the graveyard.

Evidence: Look at numbers viewing, typical would be 2/3 to Fossetts, when 60 + online [say around 5%]. Right now there are 61 online, with 1 viewing FF, how can you possibly say it is not the graveyard ?

Secondly, the raising of £80M and the use of the funds is only part of the topic/subject. One of the unknowns is the very assumption that you make.

Do you know for a fact that all £80M is for the development of FF ?

Is it not conceivable that the raising of more than twice the last highest estimated cost [£35M], could be partly for a buy out of other owners interests [the suggestion on other threads is that there are indeed other other owners and RM has not formally denied or given information in that respect].

Trust nobody, question everything, until the facts are disclosed.

 

[Irate Ian]

The fans are the (only?) customers of the business. That means from a busienss perspective, Ron should bear in mind that by keeping customers of the business in the dark about massive future prospects of the business, he could alienate them.

On a technical point, there is a difference between shareholder and stakeholder - the latter very firmly involves customers (i.e. us, including Irate Ian). Look at what Tesco's had to deal with at their AGM this year - CUSTOMER pressure brought to bear at the AGM.

Hallelujah and Amen to that.

Praise the Lord that a perceptive voice arises from the depths of "tinternet".

I thought reality would never kick in !!

 

[Irate Ian]

I see where you're coming from, and clearly you know a lot more about this than me so I'm not going to argue.

The only difference I see is that Tesco's we have a choice - don't like it, go and shop elsewhere. They therefore need to listen to their stakeholders. Can any of us really say that we're going to stop watching Southend [yes it is ones only sanction - vote on ones feet] a bit just because we aren't told the intricate ins and outs of the development funding? [it is not just the development funding - have you actually read the list of questions ?]

I'm going to watch the team regardless of what is happening off the field, so is there really the same urgency for Mr Martin to keep us sweet? [well if you want to be certain that you and your club are not being taken for a ride maybe the answer is also yes]-

In the end analysis I seek information upon the long term security of tenure and financial well being of the club and how that is proposed to be achieved

 

[cockles is back]

keep up the good work Ian, your posts are like a breatth of fresh air to me, and hopefully with your continued good work we will finally some day in the next 1 million years maybe get the answers we would like ( I suspect we won't) but neather the less good stuff mate I find your posts excellent

 

[TrueBlue]

keep up the good work Ian, your posts are like a breatth of fresh air to me, and hopefully with your continued good work we will finally some day in the next 1 million years maybe get the answers we would like ( I suspect we won't) but neather the less good stuff mate I find your posts excellent

**** him too if you had the chance wouldn't you, you dirty no good homo thug!

 

[WestRoadShrimper]

In the end analysis I seek information upon the long term security of tenure and financial well being of the club and how that is proposed to be achieved

Of course I've read the questions, or I wouldn't have posted so many b****y times on this thread would I? Stupid question.

So basically you want a great list of long term assurances given to you by a chairman who thus far has given us supporters no reason to doubt him at all. How long's he been in charge for, and how many times has he shafted the club? Not sure I can recall any incidents - so why the hell do you think he's going to start now?

Seriously, buy some flipping shares and ask him properly.

 

[Irate Ian]

Of course I've read the questions, or I wouldn't have posted so many b****y times on this thread would I? Stupid question.

So basically you want a great list of long term assurances given to you by a chairman who thus far has given us supporters no reason to doubt him at all. How long's he been in charge for, and how many times has he shafted the club? Not sure I can recall any incidents - so why the hell do you think he's going to start now?

Seriously, buy some flipping shares and ask him properly.

Why do you insist on demanding to tell me how to go about my business.

There are valid but confidential reasons that I choose not to buy shares - not that any have been on offer for sale, since the FF planning decision was made in any event [as earlier in this thread stated].

You must realise that the relocation of SUFC is the vehicle by which Mr Martin or the developing owner companies will make tidy sums from the building upon of Roots Hall [happy that he makes a bundle], so you would not expect any "shafting" as you put it, whilst that is all at stake.

If any shafting is to take place it will be once the cash cow has been slaughtered.

It is the concern about the prospect of being shafted at a later date, that gives rise to early disclosure request and answers to the questions concerning effectively the business plan and advance assurances for the long term future of SUFC and the non-shafting of its supporters.

Just because we have not been shafted yet is not indicative of someone [not necessarily RM] having their wicked way with us in the future.

Shafting can take place in mutiple positions and places I do not want to be taking it up the **** do you ?

Trust you get the point. Zero tollerance to shafting of SUFC or supporters.

Mr Martin will help to retain goodwill of grass roots supporters, the greater majority of which happen to non-shareholders or "elitist", if he does come forward with informative and authoritive details of SUFC business plan/model.

I am not at all interested in other matters which do not directly affect SUFC. Read my lips SUFC first second and last.

Mr Martin can ably look after his own or those interests of the developers from the muck-away companies to get rid of the substantial digging out of the bowl right up to the laying of the final topping out brick.

Now I think I have have given you as many answers as you could reasonably require of me, and I must consider now to keep my eye on the ball, as much as I have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate my transparency on this thread.

 

[WestRoadShrimper]

Well, that post certainly changed a good discussion into something bordering on vitriol. I won't bother you on thread again.

 

[Irate Ian]

Well, that post certainly changed a good discussion into something bordering on vitriol. I won't bother you on thread again.

It is just that I have given you full and frank answers to all your questions. If only RM would do the same eh ?

I may have been a little too terse & apologise. I have welcomed a frank exchange of views with you and although I don't know you and you could be RM's neighbour for all I know.

It was becoming just you firing a never ending barrage in my direction and I responding, which could have been done in PM exchanges. Very few others seem at all interested and may just want to go "boldly into the unknown" whilst blindfolded..

Perhaps some just don't want to think about the unthinkable ?

Mind you SZ owners have ordained that this thread be seen by only 5% of SZoners at best, in the graveyard of FF threads, and I think I may have to try other avenues next/instead, as the exposure to like minded suporters is so very limited here. I am beginning to have reservations that SZ itself be wholly independent of RM as might be desirable.

Do have a number of other priorities up-coming, not least of which is a stag do to arrange for next week in advance of my sons wedding the week following, so may be pre-occupied for a while.

Could not resist the repeated refs to shafting, my favourite subject !!

 

[Scarf]

And one returns in a different guise after a 3-year absence. I feel all this stuff shows a very healthy scepticism. Well played Ian. Seriously, where will the club (not the property developers who currently own it) - the football club we all care about so much - stand when the dust dies down at FF?