Clarification from Paul Barber on Dick Knight Selling his shares

[Black Rod]

Maybe because when he ran the club his shares controlled a much higher percentage and selling any would have lost him control over say Archer ? Let's not forget, he and Archer held the same percentage for a long time with Martin Perry holding the deciding percentage.

Archer was bought out in April/May 2002 I believe. He was gone by the time schemes such as the Forty Note Fund and the Alive and Kicking Appeal came about. Now I'm not going to pretend for one minute to know the ins and outs of selling shares of a football club but if he was so desperate to give fans a say in terms of shareholding, then why couldn't shares could have been offered in exchange for the money fans gave over during those campaigns as opposed to a nice certificate or whatever it was that was received as a result of the generosity?

 

[Bozza]

If you owned a business, would you stock a product that you had no knowledge of what it contained - particularly if it could be something that is extremely uncomplimentary or detrimental about you?

Stroppy ? If someone potentially wrote a load of damaging things about you in a book - would you then publise the book ?

Amazon sell a book which is not very complimentary, in places, about both them and their founder Jeff Bezos: http://www.amazon.com/One-Click-Jeff-Bezos-Amazon-com/dp/1591845858

Mrs Bezos even left it a 1 star review - http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member...=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2I0T26SV0ELPP

 

[Ernest]

Archer was bought out in April/May 2002 I believe. He was gone by the time schemes such as the Forty Note Fund and the Alive and Kicking Appeal came about. Now I'm not going to pretend for one minute to know the ins and outs of selling shares of a football club but if he was so desperate to give fans a say in terms of shareholding, then why couldn't shares could have been offered in exchange for the money fans gave over during those campaigns as opposed to a nice certificate or whatever it was that was received as a result of the generosity?

Wasn't it their name on a seat at the AMEX ? Which of course never happened

 

[The Large One]

It wasn't a pop at those who organised it, it's just amazing how people change when there is a chance of a quick quid, if he had sold shares at 40 quid a pop that would have made a lot of difference and nobody would have bought them expecting a return

Actually, it was a pop at one of the organisers. I'm not saying who, suffice to say I rarely hear his name ever being mentioned these days.

Apart from that, we're making the same point from opposite ends. Donating 40 quid to the club or spending 40 quid on effectively worthless shares (while not guaranteeing that that share money would go back to the club) would still have had the effect of pouring scorn on Dick's abilities.

Dick's trick was never in bankrolling the club, it was persuading others to help do so.

 

[Simster]

I don't know who Simster is referring to when he refers to 'backslapping lickspittles' - if he means other board members, we would be talking about Sussex businessmen. If he means the FFA team, it's they who constantly bollocked/facepalmed Dick, rather than roll over for tummy tickling sessions.

No-one in particular, Al. But I didn't warm to him on the 3 or 4 occasions I met him because I always felt he had his favourites (fans and club big-wigs alike) and treated others with a certain disdain. It didn't sit comfortably with the whole "Uncle Dick" routine that he rolled out whenever he wanted another gargantuan letter writing or bucket jangling effort from the great unwashed.

It took 12 years to get a stadium and because of the collapse of the banking sector, it would never have been delivered on Knight's watch if it wasn't for Bloom's philanthropy and that is a fact - not that he would admit as much with his repeated Chemical Ali "it's all in hand" nonsense when people started to query where the money was coming from when the banks weren't lending to anyone.

 

[The Large One]

Talking of Bill Archer, I've just found this little snippet from a website called 'thisismoney' from 2002. It's a well-documented tale, though the bits in bold were things I didn't know about...

HE is the self-styled king of British DIY. His stake in the empire he heads is said to be worth £350 million. And he hopes that by September, the company he chairs will have successfully floated on the stock market with a price tag of about £1.4bn.

Salute Bill Archer, head of Focus Wickes, the man who, with takeovers of Do It All, Great Mills and Wickes, has catapulted his company into second place in Britain's DIY league.

Now, Archer wants to float the company, of which he owns a fifth. Last week, the group, with almost 430 outlets and declared sales of £1.5bn and operating profits of £106m , appointed ING Barings and Goldman Sachs to handle the listing.

The move ought to mark a triumphant climax to Archer's career. But his debut as head of a listed company will also throw the spotlight on one of the unhappier episodes in his history - as chairman of Brighton & Hove Albion football club.

During his time there:
• Archer was reviled by fans as he and a colleague - also involved in his Focus DIY business - secretly negotiated to sell the club's Goldstone ground.

• The club's articles of association were rewritten, dropping a clause that had been explicitly designed to prevent shareholders profiting if the club was wound up.

• Brighton was forced to admit that it had filed substandard accounts. The accounts had to be amended and resubmitted to Companies House.

The loathing that Archer inspired during his time as chairman of Brighton, nicknamed the Seagulls, was so fierce that for long periods he did not go near the ground. Instead, he spent match days at his Blackburn home nearly 300 miles away.

The supporters' anger was hardly surprising - no chairman who says a football club must sell its ground to avoid going bust will ever be popular, particularly when it has been there for almost a century and the team has nowhere else to play.

But now that Archer is piloting Focus Wickes to market and seeking new shareholders for his retail group, it is not the fact that he sold the Seagulls' ground that is significant. It is the manner in which Brighton & Hove Albion was run while he was in the chair that now faces scrutiny - given that, as a stock market company, Focus Wickes will have to meet the levels of corporate governance expected of quoted firms.

Archer became involved with the club in 1990 through his friend and Focus DIY colleague Greg Stanley. Three years later, when the club was within days of being wound up with debts of about £3m, Archer and Stanley took over the club.

They put in only £100 of their own money. But £880,000 was raised - not from the DIY duo, but through a bank loan secured against the club's one asset, the Goldstone ground.

The club was saved from oblivion. But what fans did not discover until 1995 was that just weeks after Archer and Stanley had taken over, the club's articles of association - the constitution under which it had been run since 1904 - had been changed.

The original articles contained a 'no profit' clause - if the club was wound up, any remaining assets should go to a charity or institution catering for football in the county. Scrapping the clause meant that, if Brighton were wound up, the way would be clear for Archer and Stanley to pocket any profits from selling the ground.

The disappearance of the no-profit clause - uncovered by Paul Samrah, a chartered accountant and lifelong Seagulls fan - was discovered only as it emerged that the club was indeed selling the ground for £7.4m for development as a retail park. No new ground had been found.

But the Football Association intervened. A no-profits clause is standard for clubs and the FA should be told of any changes. In the case of Brighton, it had been told nothing. Amid the ensuing furore, Archer reinstated the clause. He said it had been dropped in error. Furthermore, two sets of the club's accounts for 1995 and 1996 were challenged after they went to Companies House, because they had omitted certain details required by law. Amended versions were later filed. Archer has told friends that he now has no memory of the mix-up.

After the ground was sold, Brighton shared a stadium with Gillingham in Kent - a four-hour car trip for fans. The club has now returned to Brighton and Hove where it plays at an athletics ground. It won promotion to the First Division last month.

An Archer spokesman said: 'He got involved through a friend to save a near-bankrupt football club. When he left, its future was secure.'

Ahead of the float, Archer has tied up a deal extricating him from the Brighton saga, writing off half of the £1.4m he is owed.

Goodbye Brighton. Hello stock market.

 

[Creaky]

So why didn't he do this at any point during the TWELVE years he ran the club then?

Ah yes, because he didn't fancy dealing with the admin cost of handling hundreds of noddy shareholders and by the end of it preferred to surround himself with an inner circle of backslapping lickspittles.

And you know that? - How?

The point is the shares are his - if he wants to sell them to fans now then, if they aren't bought up by existing shareholders, why shouldn't he?

If he wants to sell them in a way that promotes his book, again why shouldn't he?

If he wants to sell them to get some of his investment back, yet again why shouldn't he?

None of the above situations detracts in any way from the work he has put into keeping the club in existence nor the work he did for AITC. It seems very presumptive of people to criticise DK for the way in which he is dealing with his own property.

 

[Wozza]

Exactly. In his interiew with the simpering Guardian woman...

LOL

 

[Man of Harveys]

Fair enough, I'm happy to stand corrected: he should absolutely have sent them an advance copy in order for them to sell it - of course they can't stock a book that might say that senior club officials blow goats or whatever - I'm sure this book doesn't and I'm certain they don't btw. Just wish to make that clear.

Personally - and it's just my humble proverbial - I wonder whether they'd stock it even if he had. But we don't know.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Amazon sell a book which is not very complimentary, in places, about both them and their founder Jeff Bezos: http://www.amazon.com/One-Click-Jeff-Bezos-Amazon-com/dp/1591845858

Mrs Bezos even left it a 1 star review - http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member...=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2I0T26SV0ELPP

Amazon is Amazon though - its a billion pound company which is worldwide - you cant compare them with BHAFC.

Besides, you get money if we buy things through Amazon.....

 

[Bozza]

Amazon is Amazon though - its a billion pound company which is worldwide - you cant compare them with BHAFC.

Same principle...

1. People are going to buy a product regardless.
2. Sell it so at least you make a cut of the sale proceeds.

 

[Buzzer]

The point is the shares are his - if he wants to sell them to fans now then, if they aren't bought up by existing shareholders, why shouldn't he? Nothing at all and more power to his elbow if he does. He has however broken the articles of association and it would appear knowingly. That's poor form.

If he wants to sell them in a way that promotes his book, again why shouldn't he? Because he's legally obliged to notify existing shareholders first.

If he wants to sell them to get some of his investment back, yet again why shouldn't he? Fair play to him if he does get his investment back and then some. He deserves it but he should do it the right way.

None of the above situations detracts in any way from the work he has put into keeping the club in existence nor the work he did for AITC. Agreed with bells on.

It seems very presumptive of people to criticise DK for the way in which he is dealing with his own property. It's fair game to criticise him for not having the courtesy of informing the board first of his wish to sell the shares. He's using the fans as pawns in his dispute with the current board and that's not on.

My reply.

 

[Creaky]

My reply.

It is very unlikely that there will be anything in the articles of association that requires a shareholder to first declare their wishes to sell their shares nor to who they wish their shares to be bought by before going public with those wishes.

On that basis he is perfectly entitled to express his wish to sell the shares to fans as a simple desire and/or for publicity purposes and/or to obtain the return of some of his investment.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

2. Sell it so at least you make a cut of the sale proceeds.

That was my thought. Anyone who is going to buy it will buy it regardless so might as well make some cash out of it.

 

[portlock seagull]

"Well, boys, you have done your work, now you may go and play - if you don't fall out among yourselves".

Ashley said this about the Roundheads at the end of the English civil war. Could have been Archer about BHA fans if this threads anything to go by! And with that, I'm out!

 

[Seagull73]

No-one in particular, Al. But I didn't warm to him on the 3 or 4 occasions I met him because I always felt he had his favourites (fans and club big-wigs alike) and treated others with a certain disdain. It didn't sit comfortably with the whole "Uncle Dick" routine that he rolled out whenever he wanted another gargantuan letter writing or bucket jangling effort from the great unwashed.

It took 12 years to get a stadium and because of the collapse of the banking sector, it would never have been delivered on Knight's watch if it wasn't for Bloom's philanthropy and that is a fact - not that he would admit as much with his repeated Chemical Ali "it's all in hand" nonsense when people started to query where the money was coming from when the banks weren't lending to anyone.

'Felt' like he had his favourites - so it's possible that your attitude towards him was not all it may been??

And I for one don't buy this 'there would be no club without TB' - TB paid for stadium, granted, but DK and others rescued the club from Archer. The club WOULD exist today, christ only knows in what league, but it would exist.

Buzzer and the likes really need to get off their soap boxes - DK has not behaved 'appallingly' - he's just making his point, as DK does.

 

[Husty]

I've only got as far as page two and had to take a break as I was feeling a bit queezy. It's appallingly self indulgent.

 

[Buzzer]

It is very unlikely that there will be anything in the articles of association that requires a shareholder to first declare their wishes to sell their shares nor to who they wish their shares to be bought by before going public with those wishes.

On that basis he is perfectly entitled to express his wish to sell the shares to fans as a simple desire and/or for publicity purposes and/or to obtain the return of some of his investment.

There's a huge difference in expressing the wish that fans are shareholders and publishing a form in a book for fans to fill out applying for shares. He's obviously thought about this for a long time, why didn't he say this before and then approach the board? It's extremely presumptive and he is building fans' hopes up and applying emotional blackmail on the board to comply with his wishes. I'm cross that we're being used as pawns in this boardroom battle.

 

[Buzzer]

Buzzer and the likes really need to get off their soap boxes - DK has not behaved 'appallingly' - he's just making his point, as DK does.

Soapbox? It's a forum where people make points, as Dick has done in his book and the Argus.

 

[Creaky]

There's a huge difference in expressing the wish that fans are shareholders and publishing a form in a book for fans to fill out applying for shares. He's obviously thought about this for a long time, why didn't he say this before and then approach the board? It's extremely presumptive and he is building fans' hopes up and applying emotional blackmail on the board to comply with his wishes. I'm cross that we're being used as pawns in this boardroom battle.

One good reason I imagine for him not first approaching the board is the one you give -'emotional blackmail'

If he wants the shares to end up in the hands of fans rather than with existing shareholders then I can't think of a better way of doing this.

It's not a boardroom battle as DK is not on the board. As such I don't see why you should be cross.