I think it might mean a live stream of text commentary ( i.e. you don't need to refresh the page).
If so, then it's a little surprising in light of the club's detailed listing of global restrictions on its free pre-season streams following AZ Gull's complaint.
I decided to listen to it without the subtitles and got everything apart from the very last couple of words. Maybe that's because I wasn't expecting anybody to describe themselves as a 'nice guy' :lolol:
Although he's definitely a Nice guy.
Rather surprised nobody has sought to publicise this derby. I know it's only the second preliminary round, but one of these ties is actually the second biggest match in England tonight :)
A company can issue as many shares as it likes. In this case, as long as the number is divisible by 4 and distributed equally, why would it matter?
That requirement was withdrawn several years ago, although a director must ensure their duties are still fulfilled.
You really have to question why the company was set up with only one share issued for each leaseholder. If a couple who own a flat split up, the one whose name comes second on the share certificate loses their voting rights to their former partner.
Sure, that should have happened on incorporation, but the OP is talking about a share(s) being sold to him. To me, that could only be by one of the other shareholders.
Ownership depends on shareholding, not directorships.
In whose name? ( please don't reply "the seller's name" !)
Do you even have a copy of the certificate of incorporation?
What four freeholders? Surely the company is the freeholder and there are four leaseholders, although you don't even state if this is for 4 flats/ maisonettes in one block.