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

[symyjym]

If the directors weren't keen on the shares going to the fans I'd fully respect their decision. At the end of the day they are the ones who are contributing greatly to the welfare of the club, I just think it's an unprofessional way to go about it whether he knew they'd reject or not.

They are only greatly contributing to the welfare of the club because they come from wealthy backgrounds and are in very fortunate positions. At the end of the day it’s the fans dipping into their pockets each week as well, and many of them only scrape together a living.

 

[drew]

Your only motivation is to cause trouble. Such a shame you're muddying your immense reputation for no real gain.

Inclined to concur with these sentiments, unfortunately.

Not sure he has done anything in contravention of the Articles.

He has merely garnered the level of interest from fans. There is no legal "offer" in place to fans, whereby they could "accept" and form a legally binding contract.

It's the discourteous way he has gone about it. I'm sure he wouldn't have been too happy when he was in charge if other directors had started plans to sell their shares to others without informing him first, whether or not they were just garnering a level of interest!

It fits with the vision he always had for the club when he first came in and kicked out the Archer regime.

He always gave the fans plenty of credit for the role played in saving the club, and his vision of it being a family / community club was always there. Unwise? This always seemed like a very natural route for his shares to eventually take.

What makes me uncomfortable (and I sincerely hope I'm wrong) is the feeling that we, as fans, are not only unwanted, but people will go to some lengths to keep us at the tills, and not anywhere near the back of house.

Am I cynical, untrusting, and quick to hit the panic button when it comes to ownership of our football club? Yes, absolutely. But that's what Archer did to me. It was like seeing the love of my life being taken from me. Of course it leaves me with trust issues.

Very poetic but was that really the dream. Let's not forget that DK's background is in advertising, ie persuading you to buy something you didn't realise you wanted or maybe even need! Had this vision been honest then DK would have gone about this the correct way so as to ensure he could sell shares to fans, but he didn't. He chose to cause as much trouble as he could, probably because he was still embittered by the fact that TB was seemingly getting all the credit for the Amex and that he had been ousted as Chairman by someone who had put in considerably more money than him. DK could have sold shares earlier but chose to do so when he sold his book, another piece of marketing. Probably been said before but no doubt this was the real reason the club weren't allowed to see the book before publication!

DK may well have done a lot to save the club and for that we owe him, but that doesn't necessarily make him the perfect human being!!!

 

[symyjym]

The first the club knew about the public invitation to treat was when the book was published.

Although they may have known for a long time of DK's intentions but not the marketing strategy. Sometimes if you already know you will get a no, it's best not to ask and just act. At least that way it is brought into the public domain rather than a cosy silence.

 

[stss30]

They are only greatly contributing to the welfare of the club because they come from wealthy backgrounds and are in very fortunate positions. At the end of the day it’s the fans dipping into their pockets each week as well and many of them only scrape together a living.

So who do you think should have the final say on matters like this? Privileged background or not they're still providing the club with stability

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Despite the apparent breakdown in relations between the board and Dick I sincerely hope that both parties can end what appears to be an unseemly petty squabble so that the contributions of both Tony and Dick can be recognised for what they have done for our club.

Wouldn't that be a good outcome ... if only it was possible? What seems to be riling DK is that the Club have initiated an expensive share valuation process involving Mazars, with DK having to pay a substantial part of the costs. The Club is claiming that DK is a party to bringing Mazars in, when the reality is that the whole process could have been avoided if sensible discussions had taken place. The "anonymous shareholder" is behind this piece of unpleasantness and my guess is that it has been set in train with the support of other major shareholders.

 

[London Irish]

Good luck to Dick, hope the club calm down a bit and let him sell the shares to fans.

My rugby club London Irish distributed shares to a few hundred of its fans (I was one) and the notion that it represents a big admin burden on a club is utter cobblers.

 

[symyjym]

So who do you think should have the final say on matters like this? Privileged background or not they're still providing the club with stability

Privileged backgrounds doesn’t make them special, it makes them very fortunate.

As yet we have not had a response from the club giving us a reason for objecting to the token gesture fan shares. If they want to say that it will damage the club financially that’s fine, I will accept that, or they could just be doing it on principle. Maybe you could enlighten me on why they are objecting?

 

[glasfryn]

So who do you think should have the final say on matters like this? Privileged background or not they're still providing the club with stability

and the season ticket holders don't
the fans are the stability of the club

 

[Hamilton]

Just thinking of a way around this.

Could DK not create a separate entity (Organisation A) to which he bequeaths his holding in the Albion?

What would stop him then selling shares in this Organisation A for £1 and that organisation and its shareholders becoming owners of the Albions share on DK's death?

 

[stss30]

Privileged backgrounds doesn’t make them special, it makes them very fortunate.

As yet we have not had a response from the club giving us a reason for objecting to the token gesture fan shares. If they want to say that it will damage the club financially that’s fine, I will accept that, or they could just be doing it on principle. Maybe you could enlighten me on why they are objecting?

As I say, if someone announced something publicly before going through necessary behind the scenes processes I would object too.

 

[symyjym]

As I say, if someone announced something publicly before going through necessary behind the scenes processes I would object too.

Why officially ask if you already know the answer?

 

[stss30]

and the season ticket holders don't
the fans are the stability of the club

The directors are also fans who put a lot of their own money into the club, I trust that they try and make the best decisions for the club. If every season ticket holder had a say no decisions would be reached in months.

 

[Czechmate]

The first the club knew about the public invitation to treat was when the book was published.

Surely not , the guy was a successful business man I am sure he knows the rules .

 

[Goldstone1976]

Privileged backgrounds doesn’t make them special, it makes them very fortunate.

As yet we have not had a response from the club giving us a reason for objecting to the token gesture fan shares. If they want to say that it will damage the club financially that’s fine, I will accept that, or they could just be doing it on principle. Maybe you could enlighten me on why they are objecting?

As I understand it they are not objecting - that's just spin.

Just about all businesses, including the Albion, have pre-emption clauses in their Articles requiring a shareholder who wants sell shares to first offer them to other existing shareholders. In DK's case, he has done this (the book form was not an offer - it was an invitation to treat). The club have asked the existing shareholders whether any of them want to offer to buy the shares DK wants to sell. One has come forward and said "yep, ok. 1p a share". DK wants £1. So somehow the club has to facilitate a negotiation on price. This situation is anticipated by the Articles and a process laid down. That process is that the auditors come in and independently value the shares and both buyer and seller are bound by what the auditors say.

Thus - the club do not have to be "objecting" to DK wanting to sell his shares to the public for the current situation to have arisen.

 

[stss30]

Why officially ask if you already know the answer?

If you're referring to my earlier posts saying I wasn't sure whether Dick had talked to the directors previous to offering his shares to the fans, someone has subsequently clarified that the club confirmed they were not aware that he was intending to sell his shares to the fans.

 

[glasfryn]

The directors are also fans who put a lot of their own money into the club, I trust that they try and make the best decisions for the club. If every season ticket holder had a say no decisions would be reached in months.

bit like now Eh!

 

[stss30]

bit like now Eh!

 

[Simster]

Your only motivation is to cause trouble. Such a shame you're muddying your immense reputation for no real gain.

This. It's totally embarrassing.

It's funny isn't it - on Dick Knights watch, they had the buckets out (the 40 note fund) and our most expensive signing was paid for by Coca Cola. And yet all that time, NOT ONCE were any shares ever made available to the public as a means to raise money. Why not? I'd quite like to have had a handful of shares when Dick Knight was chairman, and I'm sure others would have too. Why didn't he make them available on his watch then?

All this bleating at the current board - it stinks of hypocrisy and is totally unfair.

 

[LowerWesty]

I'm obviously missing something.

The thread appears to suggest that prior to offering shares for sale the seller has to 'offer' them to an existing shareholder/director. This poses a few questions:

1. If an offer is made, does it have to be accepted? For example if an offer were to be made at say .0001p/share would it have to accepted? If not what happens

2 In this situation, is it compulsory that the offer be referred to an independent valuer, even when it is know that the charges will exceed the value of the sale?

2. Does the act of offering shares to an existing shareholder mean that the condition has been satisfied, even if the offer is subsequently rejected?

3. Can the shares be offered and if the offer, due it being derisory, is rejected , can the shares be offered on the open market?

 

[drew]

Wouldn't that be a good outcome ... if only it was possible? What seems to be riling DK is that the Club have initiated an expensive share valuation process involving Mazars, with DK having to pay a substantial part of the costs. The Club is claiming that DK is a party to bringing Mazars in, when the reality is that the whole process could have been avoided if sensible discussions had taken place. The "anonymous shareholder" is behind this piece of unpleasantness and my guess is that it has been set in train with the support of other major shareholders.

Perhaps it would have been a possibility had DK not been underhand! Sensible discussions may have taken place had DK approached the board with his idea but he chose not to, presumably because he had his reasons but to many those reasons seem to be based on marginalisation following TB's takeover. Fact is that DK couldn't build the stadium and TB could. Get over it!