Dick Knight Share Dispute - Unnamed Director offer £0.01 per share

[B.W.]

I have to say that the club are making a big PR mistake by blocking this share sale. as Dick did by setting up the rules that the club are using to block the proposed sale. Personally, I think it very telling that the blocking manoeuvre is being carried out anonymously. This tells me the person concerned is NOT proud of what they are doing.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Most companies have shareholders with small holdings, as well as major shareholders. Well, those that are floated. Why should the Albion, now it is being run as a business of reasonable size, be any different? I would say that, given the club's history, there is even more reason than normal for fans to have shareholder status. Dick, AND the fans, saved the club, after all.

Brighton isn't a floated company firstly and secondly is a small to medium sized business. Not many the size of Brighton's would have that many shareholders.

Dick and the fans may have saved the club but almost certainly it would have been a stay of execution had Bloom not stepped in. He kept us afloat for the last few years at Withdean and continues to do so. Without him the future as we all know would have been very bleak. If he had not put the money in where do you believe we'd be now?

He currently puts in year on year more than the total asset worth of the club. The club itself hardly has any asset worth. What does it own? Players are worthless post Bosman, the Amex/training ground is owned by another company. Therefore the shares are worthless.

 

[Creaky]

not so. by creating a small legion of minority, vocal shareholders he would create a constant irritating noise from a number of those shareholders who at time to time are unhappy. (cant please all the people etc). it does look like this was the intention, to create a constant irritant for the club. im dont want ill feeling towards Knight who saved the club, but i see no practical reason for the share offer to the public (especially as observed he rejected the suggestion when chairman).

The "small legion of minority, vocal shareholders" you talk about would be in no better position than any other member of the public to create "a constant irritating noise" other than be able to attend an AGM once a year.

Not only are you supporting those who are trying to block the purchase of shares by ordinary fans but you are also criticising those fans who do want the simple pleasure of owning a tiny part of the club they love and support by suggesting they want to irritate the club with no basis for your supposition.

There is no practical reason for the share offer but equally whilst there is no practical reason to take up the offer there most certainly is an emotional one.

Why is it OK for an unamed existing shareholder, whose shares have no practical worth, to increase their holding whilst at the same time depriving others of the same opportunity? Petty and unreasonable and something I'd like to see condemned by other shareholders.

 

[Creaky]

Brighton isn't a floated company firstly and secondly is a small to medium sized business. Not many the size of Brighton's would have that many shareholders.

Dick and the fans may have saved the club but almost certainly it would have been a stay of execution had Bloom not stepped in. He kept us afloat for the last few years at Withdean and continues to do so. Without him the future as we all know would have been very bleak. If he had not put the money in where do you believe we'd be now?

He currently puts in year on year more than the total asset worth of the club. The club itself hardly has any asset worth. What does it own? Players are worthless post Bosman, the Amex/training ground is owned by another company. Therefore the shares are worthless.

All very true but are you suggesting TB is against the sale of shares to fans?

Do you have information we don't have or are you basing that assumption on the lack of comment by TB?

 

[B.W.]

Brighton isn't a floated company firstly and secondly is a small to medium sized business. Not many the size of Brighton's would have that many shareholders.

Dick and the fans may have saved the club but almost certainly it would have been a stay of execution had Bloom not stepped in. He kept us afloat for the last few years at Withdean and continues to do so. Without him the future as we all know would have been very bleak. If he had not put the money in where do you believe we'd be now?

He currently puts in year on year more than the total asset worth of the club. The club itself hardly has any asset worth. What does it own? Players are worthless post Bosman, the Amex/training ground is owned by another company. Therefore the shares are worthless.

The shares are, as you say, worth very little. So why is someone blocking the proposed sale? Why are they maintaining their anonymity?

BTW I am one of Tony's biggest fans (take a look at my earlier posts on this very forum if you don't believe me), and agree with everything you say about him in your quoted post, but I really don't like the blocking manoeuvre that we are seeing. The anonymous individual should be very ashamed IMHO. Dick and the relevant fans deserve far, far better treatment, even if we are now a bit 'corporate'.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

All very true but are you suggesting TB is against the sale of shares to fans?

Do you have information we don't have or are you basing that assumption on the lack of comment by TB?

Nothing I've posted needs any further information It's just my opinion.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The shares are, as you say, worth very little. So why is someone blocking the proposed sale? Why are they maintaining their anonymity?

BTW I am one of Tony's biggest fans (take a look at my earlier posts on this very forum if you don't believe me), and agree with everything you say about him in your quoted post, but I really don't like the blocking manoeuvre that we are seeing. The anonymous individual should be very ashamed IMHO. Dick and the relevant fans deserve far, far better treatment, even if we are now a bit 'corporate'.

Perhaps as has been posted it's someone who has shares that too are near enough worthless but is exercising their right to offer an amount for DK's. They perhaps do not want to be known publicly. Something not unusual in business.

I don't know other than what's in the public domain , mostly from DK's book and the fallout from it, but there does appear to be a lot of "goings on" at boardroom level during DK's reign that weren't altogether genial. Most if not all of these disagreements would have remained within the boardroom walls had DK not written his book.

 

[symyjym]

not so. by creating a small legion of minority, vocal shareholders he would create a constant irritating noise from a number of those shareholders who at time to time are unhappy. (cant please all the people etc). it does look like this was the intention, to create a constant irritant for the club. im dont want ill feeling towards Knight who saved the club, but i see no practical reason for the share offer to the public (especially as observed he rejected the suggestion when chairman).

Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd own 20.0% of the club and they seem to be doing ok. There are no fixed rules in club ownership.

 

[drew]

Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd own 20.0% of the club and they seem to be doing ok. There are no fixed rules in club ownership.

The difference is that the SCSS Ltd ownership came about in an effort to prevent the club going out of business, hardly a similar situation to the Albion circa 2014.

With regard to this issue of 270 additional shareholders, BHA is, as I understand it, a private limited company hence the rules for trying to control who owns the shares. However, has anyone stopped to think what would happen if all 270 then decided they wanted to sell their shares and the costs involved, especially if they then wanted to split their shareholding even further.

 

[symyjym]

The difference is that the SCSS Ltd ownership came about in an effort to prevent the club going out of business, hardly a similar situation to the Albion circa 2014.

With regard to this issue of 270 additional shareholders, BHA is, as I understand it, a private limited company hence the rules for trying to control who owns the shares. However, has anyone stopped to think what would happen if all 270 then decided they wanted to sell their shares and the costs involved, especially if they then wanted to split their shareholding even further.

Yes, you charge a £10 admin fee on each transaction if..........................

 

[North London Seagull]

Good luck, I think you are going to need it.

I thought it was only tinpot clubs like Palace that had owners posting on message boards and creating more trouble than it is worth.

if you had half ownership of the club I would understand what you are saying, but your shareholding is so minute now that it is meaningless and for that small a shareholding to leave one person and be replaced by 300 is a ridiculous admin burden on the club, and one that they understandably are keen to avoid.

The club is already owned by fans. Which current shareholder is not every bit as big a fan of the club as all of us?

This isn't DK, its just someone coping an email he sent to all the fans that applied for the shares

 

[North London Seagull]

WHAT IF....
DK just thought it would be nice to give some of his shares away to fans so the fans can have a say in the club.
IMAGINE THAT if you can and stop being so ****ing pessimistic.

 

[B.W.]

Perhaps as has been posted it's someone who has shares that too are near enough worthless but is exercising their right to offer an amount for DK's. They perhaps do not want to be known publicly. Something not unusual in business.

I don't know other than what's in the public domain , mostly from DK's book and the fallout from it, but there does appear to be a lot of "goings on" at boardroom level during DK's reign that weren't altogether genial. Most if not all of these disagreements would have remained within the boardroom walls had DK not written his book.

I didn't like DK's sniping in his book either. But I maintain that the 'blocker' is out of order.

 

[Joe Gatting's Dad]

The answer is to convert these to "B" shares with no voting rights nor any right to attend the AGM of the main company, which is normally only a legal formality anyway. The real business of a private company would be at board meetings to which the public would have no right of access nor see the minutes.

 

[B.W.]

The answer is to convert these to "B" shares with no voting rights nor any right to attend the AGM of the main company, which is normally only a legal formality anyway. The real business of a private company would be at board meetings to which the public would have no right of access nor see the minutes.

Hmmm. I wonder if the club, Dick and the '300' would go for that. I think the majority of the latter would, since I see them as share framers rather than AGM activists, as some are suggesting.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I didn't like DK's sniping in his book either. But I maintain that the 'blocker' is out of order.

Not fussed either way really. There's far more important things to be getting on with.

 

[Ernest]

Hmmm. I wonder if the club, Dick and the '300' would go for that. I think the majority of the latter would, since I see them as share framers rather than AGM activists, as some are suggesting.

Why not just give them a piece of paper telling them they are an UBER FAN ?

 

[Beach Hut]

Why not just give them a piece of paper telling them they are an UBER FAN ?

Stop being silly, the every other weekly accolades stopped when we left Withdean.

 

[drew]

Yes, you charge a £10 admin fee on each transaction if..........................

Are you deliberately missing the point! When someone sells their shares they other shareholders get first dibs. If they don't agree a price then auditors assess a fair value, exactly has happened with DK. What would the costs be if every couple of months another of these small shareholders decides to sell?

 

[Mo Gosfield]

I didn't realise that Mazars are the club's auditors. I have had dealings with them and boy are they expensive. Never mind, I'm sure we can afford them.