Power phone in tonight 6pm

[ronnie21]

I felt the lack of an  AGM was allowed to pass without much comment from Power or much pushing/ probing from Hodgetts.

Did you expect anything else from Hodgetts?  Scared of his own shadow!!

[suttonred]

I felt the lack of an  AGM was allowed to pass without much comment from Power or much pushing/ probing from Hodgetts. Other than that, seemed a fairly open exchange. Time will tell.

I genuinely don't know why we would need one? Everyone I've ever been to, you run through the expenses against income, giving a balance, work out who's washing the kit, then get pissed. We know the first 2 of those.

[ronnie21]

Surely the club is privately owned now, LP has 98% of the shares I understand - why would he need an agm.  I had shares in the club many years ago but they are no longer valid in the club right now i thought.  May have that totally wrong, where is PaulD when you need him!

[Simon Pieman]

Surely the club is privately owned now, LP has 98% of the shares I understand - why would he need an agm.  I had shares in the club many years ago but they are no longer valid in the club right now i thought.  May have that totally wrong, where is PaulD when you need him!

It's been mentioned a few times but there were several reasons/factors why we don't hold AGMs and they all stem from the Fitton era. I'm sure the below is factually correct, but the general reasons are if I haven't recalled something quite right.

Firstly, the laws changed in 2006 meaning it was no longer a requirement. This was introduced to decrease red tape for owner managed businesses. As Fitton's consortium had over 75% of the share votes, they voted to scrap it and there was nothing the minority shareholders could do. Concerns were raised at the time and although Fitton did state that he would still hold one for the fans, it wouldn't actually be required. Of course, not a problem when he's in charge but when he stood down the AGMs ceased.

There is a rule that someone or a group of shareholders with 5% or greater voting rights can call for a general meeting. However, Fitton's consortium also diluted everyone's shareholding, thus owning over 95% of shares.

So we haven't had an AGM since Fitton left and the running was passed to Wray/Black and I doubt we will again.

[Private Fraser]

I remember attending an AGM chaired by Jeremy Wray in July 2012, which I think was the last one to be held. 

Those with a small number of shares have been marginalized since then as a result of the various sub-division of shares etc. I had a recent exchange of letters with the Company Secretary, who all but told me that they are now unable to track details of individual shareholdings and, following the 2014 High Court ruling that Swinton Reds 20 Limited now own the Club.  I took this to be code for "fuck off"!

[@MacPhlea]

Was just about to mention that politicising the banners would not have helped the cause.

and the fact that the cupboard where they want to store their banners is the same one Lee uses to hide the cash from his dodgy dealings

[horlock07]

I remember attending an AGM chaired by Jeremy Wray in July 2012, which I think was the last one to be held.  

Those with a small number of shares have been marginalized since then as a result of the various sub-division of shares etc. I had a recent exchange of letters with the Company Secretary, who all but told me that they are now unable to track details of individual shareholdings and, following the 2014 High Court ruling that Swinton Reds 20 Limited now own the Club.  I took this to be code for "fuck off"!

I believe (and I am happy to be corrected here) that the revision to shareholding and the dilution of shares occurred under the stewardship of Saint Fitton so to be fair to Power he is only working with what was in place when he took over.

In terms of the share register again I do wonder what Jed got up to in order to muddy the waters when Power was claiming to own the club which would explain possibly the mess with knowing who of the smaller shareholders own what (I also suspect that paperwork was not a strong suit of Jeds), I have no idea what legal requirement they have to rectify this (or how they would do this) but it is clear from the latest return that due to the consolidations of the Fitton/Black era the smaller shareholdings are now essentially (but sadly) pointless.

As an aside I suspect this really scuppers any chance for the Trust to build up a shareholding to have some say in matters as it would need Power to sell them shares to achieve this....

[Private Fraser]

I believe (and I am happy to be corrected here) that the revision to shareholding and the dilution of shares occurred under the stewardship of Saint Fitton so to be fair to Power he is only working with what was in place when he took over.

In terms of the share register again I do wonder what Jed got up to in order to muddy the waters when Power was claiming to own the club which would explain possibly the mess with knowing who of the smaller shareholders own what (I also suspect that paperwork was not a strong suit of Jeds), I have no idea what legal requirement they have to rectify this (or how they would do this) but it is clear from the latest return that due to the consolidations of the Fitton/Black era the smaller shareholdings are now essentially (but sadly) pointless.

As an aside I suspect this really scuppers any chance for the Trust to build up a shareholding to have some say in matters as it would need Power to sell them shares to achieve this....

According to the paperwork I still have, there was a capital consolidation and rights issue carried out in 2009 (the letter explaining it was signed by Andrew Fitton).  The sub-division of share capital exercise happened in the summer of 2012 (Fitton left in August 2011).  This was during Andrew Black's period as Chairman but pre-dated the appointment of Sir William Patey (October 2012) and the subsequent arrival of Jed (February 2013).  The letter to shareholders explaining the sub-division of share capital was dated 12 July 2012.  My electronic copy is unsigned. 

I fear you are right about small shareholdings being "pointless" but I will hang on to my share certificates anyway.

[Reg Smeeton]

According to the paperwork I still have, there was a capital consolidation and rights issue carried out in 2009 (the letter explaining it was signed by Andrew Fitton).  The sub-division of share capital exercise happened in the summer of 2012 (Fitton left in August 2011).  This was during Andrew Black's period as Chairman but pre-dated the appointment of Sir William Patey (October 2012) and the subsequent arrival of Jed (February 2013).  The letter to shareholders explaining the sub-division of share capital was dated 12 July 2012.  My electronic copy is unsigned. 

I fear you are right about small shareholdings being "pointless" but I will hang on to my share certificates anyway.

Do so, you can put them into the Trust Museum.

I lamented earlier in this thread that Power had managed to complete the process begun circa 1985, whereby the traditional links between club and fans have been broken. Very sad state of affairs.

[Frigby Daser]

If there was an AGM, it wouldn't change Power's reluctance to give a straight answer to a question. All that would be achieved is a fractious meeting and damaged relations.

I've just got to the point where I am satisfied that he is in it to make money, which is fine, but doesn't see the need to service the community side of the club and, for want of a better phrase, the heart and soul of the club. That's not fine, but attacking him for it would probably be counter productive too. We've not got a better option.

That's where the Trust has a role now, and we should all be 100% behind it.

[Arriba]

Don't rate these q+a's as I think they are a waste of time and never more so than under the current owner - chairman. I won't ever trust an owner of stfc as they all have something in the closet that eventually comes to light. Whatever they say means nothing to me personally. They're just empty words.

It will end in tears for sure, it always does. It's just a matter of when.

[Tails]

You sound like a jilted teenager! 

[horlock07]

You sound like a jilted teenager! 

Yeah the bitch left me....

[Batch]

Surely the point isn't that they legally HAVE to hold an AGM but that doing so, or at least releasing a full set of accounts + follow up meeting, would go a long way to providing transparency to prove that the club isn't heading in the same toilet bound direction it normally does.

He doesn't have to of course, and almost certainly won't. That's his choice. So we will be perpetually in this situation until he leaves again (or another disaster arises publically).

[Don Rogers Sock]

I may be missing the point and being a bit thick (probably the latter) but do the accounts recently submitted showing a loss of 86k down from whatever they were not answer what a AGM would answer?