Club Ownership

[Cartman]

Part ownership is just nonsense. And the worst thing is most people who respond to the club's poll will say that's their ideal model. The club will present that information to any prospective investor and they will say "Thanks, but no thanks". Why would anyone pump money into a business that's infamous for wasting money, and not even have full control over how it's spent?

[LlayDragon]

Originally Posted by dragonspark

if the board were to see the results of this poll so far i am sure they would view it as a victory for them, 78 votes for wst part ownership, this club is doomed but that is democracy

I suppose it depends on the share ownership?

I couldn't support WST having ownership of anymore than 30%.

I couldn't support the WST board carrying on in it's current guise.

I couldn't support members of the current club board being on a mixed board.

All of which kills the whole idea stone dead.

[Inside Left]

I may as well throw in my thee penny worth.

If I was the one to take the majority ownership with WST having say their 40% share there is no way the trust board would tell me who would sit on MY board and all decisions would be taken by me and my cronies.
Does anyone here not understand that?

[standman]

If I was investing I wouldn’t go anywhere near us without a clear out and I’d make them get rid of Keates and Darlington first out the current owners budget. Then I would take over with my own man, no perspective owner should pay for the previous owners Balls up’s.

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

I may as well throw in my thee penny worth.

If I was the one to take the majority ownership with WST having say their 40% share there is no way the trust board would tell me who would sit on MY board and all decisions would be taken by me and my cronies.
Does anyone here not understand that?

There would be a shareholders agreement which would stipulate how many board members the WST could put forwards. There is no way you would own 60% and control everything and all of it
So....does anyone here not understand that? Seems it is just you that doesn’t understand it!!!!

[NottsRed]

For my two cents...

I think we will be bust or within three years under the current set up. The club can't continue like it is and i do believe we will be relegated again in the next two seasons.

It might be the case we will end up having to start again with part fan part private venture.

[Inside Left]

Originally Posted by Haruki

There would be a shareholders agreement which would stipulate how many board members the WST could put forwards. There is no way you would own 60% and control everything and all of it
So....does anyone here not understand that? Seems it is just you that doesn’t understand it!!!!

clearly some have not been in a shareholding situation.

One - If your Trust tried to foist board members on me I would not take up the position and the funding would not be there.

Two - And I have seen this done with a group -
The majority owner humours the society by allowing them to take their smaller percentage membership on the board - BUT - My majority members meet informally elsewhere in caucus and decide how to proceed and vote.
Then hold the meeting and carry out our wishes. Simply bypassing the will of the society. All legal and above board.
But one wouldn't bother even humouring them in the first place - back to One.

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Haruki

There would be a shareholders agreement which would stipulate how many board members the WST could put forwards. There is no way you would own 60% and control everything and all of it
So....does anyone here not understand that? Seems it is just you that doesn’t understand it!!!!

If I owned 51% of the club, I could do what I wanted.
Like an old boss of mine once said.
I don't care how many Directors turn up for board meetings, I own the company and they do as they're told.

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

If I owned 51% of the club, I could do what I wanted.
Like an old boss of mine once said.
I don't care how many Directors turn up for board meetings, I own the company and they do as they're told.

Not quite true, depending on the level of shareholding their are legal protections to minority parties and Directors must operate to the benefit of shareholders not shareholder.