What about the shareholders?

[Barry.C]

No it wasn't. The prospectus made it very clear that the shares would be worthless and never amount to anything. More fool you for not reading. Or worse, reading it, buying them anyway and then complaining.

I think you could be a bit more generous there

I certainly read all the paperwork and it was very clear that the shares at that time would hold little value. You could pass them on to your family and you could benefit from priority ticket sales

Indeed they could hold a tiny bit more value than that, who knows if new buyers did come in, but highly likely, It was more a means to help bail out the club

But whether people put in £100 or £5000 its likely that that contributed to strongly supporting and saving the club at that time ! so not something to mock too much I suggest

 

[Sammy Shrimper]

By the way, when is the next AGM ? Probably when the accounts are filed with Companies House.

 

[Big Bad Barry Corr]

No it wasn't. The prospectus made it very clear that the shares would be worthless and never amount to anything. More fool you for not reading. Or worse, reading it, buying them anyway and then complaining.

Ooh well that’s told me then hasn’t it?

Of course I knew that. Do you think that I thought I was going to be trading them up to furnish retirement and lavish lifestyle in the South of France then?

Hardly, but as well as being a gesture of support, I did hope (as was promised at the time but quickly forgotten about) that shareholders would be given priority on tickets (the issue was just prior to the Chelsea game if I remember rightly) that there would be (at least occasional) shareholders meetings, shareholders would be kept in the loop re happenings at the club and by owning shares, you would be made to feel like you were actually part of the bigger plan.

Yes actually you are right. I was ****ing stupid wasn’t I?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Not so long ago RM sold shares in the club.

I never purchased any but friends did. Where do they stand re the selling of the club I wonder?

RM didn’t sell his shares but rather the club issued new shares.

When Ron “sells the club” he’ll actually be selling a company owning his majority shareholding in the club. The position of minority shareholders of SUFC Ltd will remain unchanged. They remain entitled to a share of profits (ha!) and to receive accounts (ha!) and vote at AGMs (ha!) where their vote won’t mean anything as they’ll always be outvoted.

 

[SouthendSpence]

There is always someone worse to take over any business so be careful what you wish for

Seen this line of thinking a few times now and I honestly fail to see how it could be any worse, aside from literally going under.

We are on the brink 24/7, in the NL, protests, embargo, debts/wages outstanding, collapsing on the pitch, infra physically collapsing off of it.

If there ever was a case for "better the Devil you know" this isn't it. It's at a stage now where anything is worth taking a punt on. We are 100% down the drain otherwise.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I own a few hundred shares in SUFC and had the foresight to hedge my position.

Sadly the hedges were at Fossets Farm and and some ******* chopped them down a few weeks ago.

 

[LBBlue]

RM didn’t sell his shares but rather the club issued new shares.

When Ron “sells the club” he’ll actually be selling a company owning his majority shareholding in the club. The position of minority shareholders of SUFC Ltd will remain unchanged. They remain entitled to a share of profits (ha!) and to receive accounts (ha!) and vote at AGMs (ha!) where their vote won’t mean anything as they’ll always be outvoted.

Why won’t it be SEL just selling its shares to a new shareholder, rather than the company being sold. Doesn’t the company do other things than just own shares in SUFC Ltd?

 

[Mick]

By the way, when is the next AGM ? Probably when the accounts are filed with Companies House.

Unlike filing accounts, there is no longer a legal requirement to hold an AGM for private companies with non-traded shares. This requirement ended in 2006.

 

[Mick]

Why won’t it be SEL just selling its shares to a new shareholder, rather than the company being sold. Doesn’t the company do other things than just own shares in SUFC Ltd?

No.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Why won’t it be SEL just selling its shares to a new shareholder, rather than the company being sold. Doesn’t the company do other things than just own shares in SUFC Ltd?

It’s generally more efficient to hold assets in a holding company. It helps insulate risk, makes it easier to borrow against, can have tax advantages, gives you more options how to structure the sale etc.

 

[Sammy Shrimper]

It’s generally more efficient to hold assets in a holding company. It helps insulate risk, makes it easier to borrow against, can have tax advantages, gives you more options how to structure the sale etc.

And even more so if the owner is a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.

 

[LeedsSUFC]

Didn’t Phil Brown’s contract include receiving shares once upon a time?

 

[londonblue]

I think you could be a bit more generous there

I certainly read all the paperwork and it was very clear that the shares at that time would hold little value. You could pass them on to your family and you could benefit from priority ticket sales

Indeed they could hold a tiny bit more value than that, who knows if new buyers did come in, but highly likely, It was more a means to help bail out the club

But whether people put in £100 or £5000 its likely that that contributed to strongly supporting and saving the club at that time ! so not something to mock too much I suggest

It was called a rip off. It was nothing of the sort.

 

[Barry.C]

It was called a rip off. It was nothing of the sort.

and you accused BBC of being a fool and even worse for complaining,
Just suggesting you might have tempered that a bit , given the generosity involved

 

[londonblue]

and you accused BBC of being a fool and even worse for complaining,
Just suggesting you might have tempered that a bit , given the generosity involved

More fool you is a saying, it's not calling him a fool.

But more to the point, if someone bought shares in SUFC expecting to gain anything then they probably have been foolish.

 

[seve le six]

Unlike filing accounts, there is no longer a legal requirement to hold an AGM for private companies with non-traded shares. This requirement ended in 2006.

At the previous AGMs there was the opportunity to ask Ron questions relating to the accounts and other matters about the club.
I don't think he'd want to have to answer questions now.

 

[Mick]

More fool you is a saying, it's not calling him a fool.

But more to the point, if someone bought shares in SUFC expecting to gain anything then they probably have been foolish.

It is both. As sayings go, especially with Shakespearian origins as this one has, it is pretty unambiguous.

 

[Dave Smiths Love Child]

Seen this line of thinking a few times now and I honestly fail to see how it could be any worse, aside from literally going under.

We are on the brink 24/7, in the NL, protests, embargo, debts/wages outstanding, collapsing on the pitch, infra physically collapsing off of it.

If there ever was a case for "better the Devil you know" this isn't it. It's at a stage now where anything is worth taking a punt on. We are 100% down the drain otherwise.

I never said Better the devil read the post
I seem to remember when I was shouted down at the start he could do no wrong, handing out his mobile to all and sundry and pleasing the lynching mob that now is
All I am saying there is always a Maxwell or Johnson waiting in the wings

 

[londonblue]

It is both. As sayings go, especially with Shakespearian origins as this one has, it is pretty unambiguous.

From the Collins dictionary:

more fool (you)​

PHRASE
If you say to someone 'More fool you' when they tell you what they have done or what they plan to do, you are indicating that you think that it is silly and shows a lack of judgment.

 

[basilrobbie]

I may be wrong, but I have a vague recollection that when they were having major problems with their owner, Leyton Orient fans did some thinking about this, as they had quite a lot of minor shareholders. It may be worth talking to their Trust. Apologies in advance if I have misremembered that.