A question

[tdk1]

Given we supposedly have two potential investors, could the constitution of the club be rewritten to define a maximum shareholding as 26%? You'd then have fans owning the largest share, with two separate investors having collective control but not individually?

Clearly if this happens, and like many others I'm torn, we need to establish rules within the club's make up to prevent the kind of flawed ownership we've seen before. How that looks I don't really know.

[princes town]

Given we supposedly have two potential investors, could the constitution of the club be rewritten to define a maximum shareholding as 26%? You'd then have fans owning the largest share, with two separate investors having collective control but not individually?

Clearly if this happens, and like many others I'm torn, we need to establish rules within the club's make up to prevent the kind of flawed ownership we've seen before. How that looks I don't really know.

Pretty clear that these new investors would not accept a deal of this kind. The only rule you can ever impose is a fit and proper person test but they're pretty useless as well. The 50+1 rule is the only rule that comes even close to protecting the interests of the club against new investors but even this can be got around as leipzig proved. The choice is straight

Accept the private investors but lose majority control or the current fan model. We need to stop pretending their is some perfect hybrid solution. Both options present massive risks.

[Quakerz]

Yep, there's going to be no hybrid, it's going to be one or the other.

You can't just say to investors "yep we'd love your money, but we control it completely" which we would do as a majority shareholder. That is cloud cuckoo land.

And due to the massive decision that will eventually need to be undertaken, there will be a lot of votes, a lot of heated debate, a lot of spat dummies from both sides, a lot of legalities, a lot of things popping up that nobody has even thought of, and ultimately a lot of time used up.

Whatever happens, this isn't going to be a 5 minute job - which means in the short to medium term at the very least, running and financing the club is down to us.

Now, where is that fundraising page?

Wake up everybody.

[MKDarlo]

Yep, there's going to be no hybrid, it's going to be one or the other.

You can't just say to investors "yep we'd love your money, but we control it completely" which we would do as a majority shareholder. That is cloud cuckoo land.

And due to the massive decision that will eventually need to be undertaken, there will be a lot of votes, a lot of heated debate, a lot of spat dummies from both sides, a lot of legalities, a lot of things popping up that nobody has even thought of, and ultimately a lot of time used up.

Whatever happens, this isn't going to be a 5 minute job - which means in the short to medium term at the very least, running and financing the club is down to us.

Now, where is that fundraising page?

Wake up everybody.

I agree - well said.

[darlostu]

Agree totally.

It will take time to resolve all these issues and while that is happening the fundraising initiave will stall.

As long as there is no outside investor then the club is still fan owned and we need to maintain the fundraising drive.

As has been mentioned on other threads, it is our club, our choice and our future.

[Robbie Painter]

Yep, there's going to be no hybrid, it's going to be one or the other.

You can't just say to investors "yep we'd love your money, but we control it completely" which we would do as a majority shareholder. That is cloud cuckoo land.

And due to the massive decision that will eventually need to be undertaken, there will be a lot of votes, a lot of heated debate, a lot of spat dummies from both sides, a lot of legalities, a lot of things popping up that nobody has even thought of, and ultimately a lot of time used up.

Whatever happens, this isn't going to be a 5 minute job - which means in the short to medium term at the very least, running and financing the club is down to us.

Now, where is that fundraising page?

Wake up everybody.

I agree - well said.

I totally agree with Quakerz above but I have no interest in gifting substantial sums of money to our club if it is no longer going to be fans owned. I won't be completing on my current pledge towards pitch redevelopment until this situation is resolved definitively.

I also put a sum towards boost the budget pitch & will keep that in place given it is a much smaller monthly sum.

[Quakerz]

Yep, there's going to be no hybrid, it's going to be one or the other.

You can't just say to investors "yep we'd love your money, but we control it completely" which we would do as a majority shareholder. That is cloud cuckoo land.

And due to the massive decision that will eventually need to be undertaken, there will be a lot of votes, a lot of heated debate, a lot of spat dummies from both sides, a lot of legalities, a lot of things popping up that nobody has even thought of, and ultimately a lot of time used up.

Whatever happens, this isn't going to be a 5 minute job - which means in the short to medium term at the very least, running and financing the club is down to us.

Now, where is that fundraising page?

Wake up everybody.

I agree - well said.

I totally agree with Quakerz above but I have no interest in gifting substantial sums of money to our club if it is no longer going to be fans owned. I won't be completing on my current pledge towards pitch redevelopment until this situation is resolved definitively.

I also put a sum towards boost the budget pitch & will keep that in place given it is a much smaller monthly sum.

Understand what you say but a community share isn't exactly a gift is it?

Also, there is no way this going to be resolved definitively in the timescale required to raise the pitch money.

Even if there are credible investors, it is not a given that they will just swan in carrying bucket loads of cash any time soon. We might stay fan owned.

Either way, we're going to be fan owned for the forseeable and the stadium fundraising can't be stalled.

Even if we do eventually get investors, does that mean that they should pay for the latest round of stadium funding? Aren't they going to have enough on their plate funding Martin Gray, and then there will be future stadium development too.

And won't the fans always have some sort of stakeholding in any case, even if it's eventually diluted to 10%?

Questions, questions, but no quick answers.

[Robbie Painter]

Yep, there's going to be no hybrid, it's going to be one or the other.

You can't just say to investors "yep we'd love your money, but we control it completely" which we would do as a majority shareholder. That is cloud cuckoo land.

And due to the massive decision that will eventually need to be undertaken, there will be a lot of votes, a lot of heated debate, a lot of spat dummies from both sides, a lot of legalities, a lot of things popping up that nobody has even thought of, and ultimately a lot of time used up.

Whatever happens, this isn't going to be a 5 minute job - which means in the short to medium term at the very least, running and financing the club is down to us.

Now, where is that fundraising page?

Wake up everybody.

I agree - well said.

I totally agree with Quakerz above but I have no interest in gifting substantial sums of money to our club if it is no longer going to be fans owned. I won't be completing on my current pledge towards pitch redevelopment until this situation is resolved definitively.

I also put a sum towards boost the budget pitch & will keep that in place given it is a much smaller monthly sum.

Understand what you say but a community share isn't exactly a gift is it?

Also, there is no way this going to be resolved definitively in the timescale required to raise the pitch money.

Even if there are credible investors, it is not a given that they will just swan in carrying bucket loads of cash any time soon. We might stay fan owned.

Either way, we're going to be fan owned for the forseeable and the stadium fundraising can't be stalled.

Even if we do eventually get investors, does that mean that they should pay for the latest round of stadium funding? Aren't they going to have enough on their plate funding Martin Gray, and then there will be future stadium development too.

And won't the fans always have some sort of stakeholding in any case, even if it's eventually diluted to 10%?

Questions, questions, but no quick answers.

You're right it's not a gift but for me personally it is - I don't ask for interest & won't be asking for the principal back either but I guess I could in x years time if DFCSG no longer majority shareholders. Still I'd rather have my own money available to me now if we are going to change the club's ownership model.

Again agree, it won't be resolved quickly & that leaves us in a tricky position.

If we get investors then I expect them to pay for (at the very least) their % share of development. If they want to financially dope the club on top of that that will be their prerogative.

This current situation is entirely of Martin Gray's making. It was completely unprofessional for him to demand at a public meeting a change in the club direction & that he had investors lined up to push it through. He has created material short term uncertainty that could have been avoided if he had delivered this approach from investors in private to the board & supporters group. Initial due diligence could then have been conducted & only if the proposal was viable should it have been proposed to the fans.

[H1987]

I posted this in another thread, but a 50-50 relationship makes sense doesn't it?

Write it in the agreement that the fans essentially cede control of day to day running etc, but are on the board and can veto the private owners in the event of something that might harm the long term stability of the club (like building a ludicrous stadium, for example).

[super_les_mcjannet]

I posted this in another thread, but a 50-50 relationship makes sense doesn't it?

Write it in the agreement that the fans essentially cede control of day to day running etc, but are on the board and can veto the private owners in the event of something that might harm the long term stability of the club (like building a ludicrous stadium, for example).

MG pretty much advised this wouldn't be what the investor(s) wanted I think and as he spoke to them, then the only investors available are ones who want to take controlling stake of the club.

Let's be honest most people wanting to put a large amount into the football club that is significant to move us to football league would want a controlling share and who would blame them.

[Darlo_Pete]

Nobody is going to make a substantial investment unless they have a majority control of the club.