MKDarlo wrote:lo36789 wrote:MKDarlo wrote:How long does it take for someone else to buy 15% and someone else to buy 15% and someone else and suddenly while no one person owns more than 15% one shareholding block does and can then drive the direction of the club.
They issue more share capital at decent prices or preferential shares in exchange for more investment and water down the stock holdings knowing we as fans cant match the investment or put up the money needed to buy a block of shares, they change the articles of association to allow for an automatic buy out at X% and then they take control. It isnt difficult.
Mr Tibbs has already covered this. Legally the community benefit company cannot diminish its interests. Basically holding anything above 75% is pointless as it gives you no additional control or anything you are entirely in control of the Articles of Association etc.
If someone else came in to take the share beneath this then actually a share issue could not be agreed to by the DFCSG as it would dimish its interests in the assets which are locked for community benefit.
Again - I don't think that, really, offers much protection. There are processes in place to wind up a CIC ( which i wont go into here) and once have enough of a voice within that structure you can seek to make changes to the legal entities owning the club. Hell you could buy out the "footballing asset" and leave the CIC as a pure community interest company centered on the sports hub.
No, we're a Community Benefit Society. The CIC merged with the Trust and the Supporters Club to form the DFCSG (the CBS). We can't take anything out without it being in accordance with the rules, which are in accordance with the Co-operative and Community Benefits Societies Act.
There's a link to our rules are here if anyone wants to read them...
http://dfcsg.co.uk/aboutus
I too would like to know what Raj's motive is. I can't think of a good one but the Net Cafe should provide a bit more clarity.
Two things on my mind:
1) On a previous thread Geordie Quaker made a few very good points, one of which was that we should seek the investor's assurance that the focus of his investment should be the club and not Martin Gray. I would've preferred to see MG's name replaced by the word "the Manager" in the statement but that's by the by.
2) I've received the notice of the SGM, the agenda for which includes this:
"Vote as to whether to support DFC Resolution and, if necessary vote to provide a
mandate for the proposed future action in relation to this resolution by the DFCSG
Board"
As this is a vote purely to provide the DFCSG with a mandate to use it's majority vote to pass the decision whether to allow Raj to acquire a 15% shareholding in the club then a further SGM would be needed for an extraordinary resolution to be passed if the DFCSG's shareholding were to be reduced in any way, in the future.
I don't think there is any attempt to hoodwink people in any way here, but people need to understand what they're voting for, and what they're not voting for.
Spyman wrote:I notice he says his £40k is conditional on the supporters putting in the other £40k.
Sorry, not had time to read the whole thread to see if someone else has mentioned this but I didn't read it as being conditional. It does say that it reduces the amount we need to raise by £40k and that we still have some work to do to raise the balance in order to set the manager's budget in good time, but it's not a condition that we do so before he puts his money in.
I do have some concern that he gets 15% of the club for putting £40k in, while the rest of us get nowt. We could put it in the Uncovered Fund and offer it as a lump sum in exchange for a share ourselves.
Still to much to read and digest right now, but I'm currently leaning strongly towards voting against this. I don't trust him.