people make up your minds part 2

[Dazzza]

Its a bit tricky to track some of this stuff down....but at the time of the second CVA, SSW held 1.8 mill shares this represented 40% of the total.

 STPL held 21%

 James Wills 283,350 or 6.3%

 Wendy Godwin 398,934, roughly 9%

  Carson 100,000 or 2.2 %

 Then a couple of oddities Charles Adams and Robert Haville each holding about the same as Carson

 By 2003 the last set of accounts Wendy Godwin has none left Carson and James Wills the same and no mention of others not on the Board.

 Of course the Newbury lot have no shares at all.

  No idea what became of the STPL holding.

:thumbs:   Nice one cheers Reg.
Don't suppose you're going to share how many you've got tucked away are you?  

I always presumed SSW had a controlling stake although that could well be the case since the CVA.

Would be interesting to find out but I don't think you have to disclose/file shareholders outside of a companies own shareholder registry?

Presume STPL was a purely owned Brady stake?  I seem to remember the Trust approach him to make use of these and upset SSW a while back.

I see that the club is now officially registered at Newbury along with a certain Swindon Town F.C. Limited which sprang to life in 2001 and actually filed a return in 2004.  Wonder what that’s all about; change of office took place back in November.   :?

[flammableBen]

we should get a big possy of people and go to the address. demand some answers.

[RobertT]

Buying Carson's share would give you a right to vote, not to a place on the board.  i think you need 25%+1 share to get that right, so you'd still end-up with the same people.

SSW has influence over a controlling interest, i think the property company owns shares still (maybe under a new name, Shaw Developments or something like that).  I'm fairly certain though that SSW can command more than 50% of the shares in voting, hence why we have the board we have - SSW votes them in every year they are up for renewal (Gray and James Wills were up last time I think, Reg?).

So Ironside, for you plan to have any real influence, you need to some how have a way of controlling 25% of the shares.  You would need all the fans shares plus some fo the other major shareholders, possibly even a few of which are currently loyal to SSW.  The development of the ground could be a way of some Community Org getting a stake in the club for just that reason?  The Council could request a 25%+1 stake for a Community Org in return for agreeing to finance the development through a new club lease - which in turn allows sale of land for development.

[pauld]

Last I heard the Wills family directly owned over 60% of the shares, may even be as high as 2/3rds. And I believe they control another 10% or so, but I may be wrong on that.

As Rob says, just buying Willie out (which would take 500k as that's what he invested and that's what he wants back) wouldn't be enough - you'd have to find someone else willing to sell you another 20+% of the shares. You can't just buy them from "Share-U-Like", you have to find an existing shareholder willing to sell.

[pauld]

I always presumed SSW had a controlling stake although that could well be the case since the CVA.

Since then the Wills family have acquired back STPL's shares (they sold them to Brady in the first place IIRC) as part of the settlement with D&B, so they now have their 60+% controlling interest back.

Presume STPL was a purely owned Brady stake?  I seem to remember the Trust approach him to make use of these and upset SSW a while back.

After Brady left, it was D&B owned. We proxied for the shares at one AGM, and yes the board went bloody mental.

I see that the club is now officially registered at Newbury along with a certain Swindon Town F.C. Limited which sprang to life in 2001 and actually filed a return in 2004.  Wonder what that’s all about

Can't remember exactly which is which, but basically one is the actual club which holds the league share, the other (probably Swindon Town F.C. Limited, but maybe a different co altogether) is the holding company which owns the club and which is itself pretty much wholly owned by the Wills family and some of the board - ie fans don't have a look-in on it. As I recall, it is the holding company which was doing the joint venture (as Shaw Park) with St Modwen over Shaw Tip and it is the holding co that is used as the primary investment vehicle for monies in and out - so loans to the club are generally done as loans to the holding co, as I understand it. It was this holding company that Cliff Puffett was urging the board to open up shares in to fans at the last AGM and that they said they couldn't comment on as it was a separate company, even though they then admitted they were all on the board of the holding company.

; change of office took place back in November.   :?

Most if not all of the Dunwoody related businesses were reorganised in November/December last year (change of directors, change of registered address, some folded and replaced with others etc). Mike Diamandis' disqualification as a director expired in November (ie from then he is legally allowed to act as a director of a company again). So it makes sense for him to reorganise his businesses accordingly - nothing especially sinister in it, just a bit of administrative "tidying up".

[lumpimynci]

Before we get carried away with this fans buying up the shares idea, we should all remind ourselves why SSW and his family own such a huge chunk of the clubs share value.

As Reg pointed out on the thisis thread that was posted on here the other day, the fans had a chance to buy shares back in '94. Ricki Hunt even gave away a couple of shares to any fan that wanted them so that they could buy more in the rights issue.

It's embarrassing to admit but the opportunity was met with such a wave of apathy that the Wills family had to buy up the large number of shares that were left over. I can only say fair play to Reg who actually bought some, because I, like thousands of others never got around to it.

[McLovin]

I have some! Only a couple of hundred, but still...

[lumpimynci]

I have some! Only a couple of hundred, but still...

Alright. There's no need to rub it in.

Dammit, I knew I should have lied about this and pretended to be one of the active, organised fans when I was younger. Who the hell would ever know......

Apart from Reg and Paul D who appear to have the names and addresses of everyone who ever had any kind of financial interest in the club.

[pauld]

Not me, I'm just distilling the knowledge (and hard research work) of others second hand. Whereas Reg is all-knowing and has a direct line into the motherlode of all things STFC. To paraphrase the hymn, there's not a youth player sprains his ankle during training but that he doth not know. (or something)

[Ironside]

Buying Carson's share would give you a right to vote, not to a place on the board.  i think you need 25%+1 share to get that right, so you'd still end-up with the same people.

SSW has influence over a controlling interest, i think the property company owns shares still (maybe under a new name, Shaw Developments or something like that).  I'm fairly certain though that SSW can command more than 50% of the shares in voting, hence why we have the board we have - SSW votes them in every year they are up for renewal (Gray and James Wills were up last time I think, Reg?).

So Ironside, for you plan to have any real influence, you need to some how have a way of controlling 25% of the shares.  You would need all the fans shares plus some fo the other major shareholders, possibly even a few of which are currently loyal to SSW. The development of the ground could be a way of some Community Org getting a stake in the club for just that reason? The Council could request a 25%+1 stake for a Community Org in return for agreeing to finance the development through a new club lease - which in turn allows sale of land for development.

Thankyou Rob that's kind of what I'm getting at here.  

25% is an un-realistic figure to achieve but For the reasons stated in my previous post, Carson is deadwood.  His involvement with the club, even as a so called "figurehead" as been zero.  I think he'd be glad to get out with his £500k in tact.  I don't know if £500k is a realistic target for a "fans consortium" to achieve?

The benefit of the fans holding some shares is two fold.  Not only do we get some kind of influence within the club, even if it's only a direct voice in the shell like of SSW and a vote, we also have the added benefit  (I would have thought) of getting the inside track on stadium plans and discussions with the council.  We will also as a side effect increase our voice in the ears of the council.  We could (aided and abetted) apply some pressure in the forthcoming local elections as well.

If we have a "fans consortium" we may be able to influence the stadium issue in terms of having a greater emphasis on community, leisure and sporting activity (In light of the soon to have to be replaced Oasis & possibly Link centre)as opposed to the pointless housing & commercial development it will become (Although I accept that there has to be an amount of these facilities in order for the club to remain sustainable and indeed in order to finance some of the project) I think the emphasis should be on the sporting & community side of things, thus going someway to securing the clubs future and providing the new facilities the council are going to have to find in the near future.

Of course Carson could say no, sell his shares to Wills or others or I could be just some kind of retard and all this is a figment of imagination. don't say it.

[pauld]

Problem is less than 25 + 1% is useless, as Rob has pointed out. You're right about the benefits of fans holding shares, but you'd need that kind of level of shareholding in order to have the right to the kind of influence you're talking about. And then you'd need to find someone willing to sell you that many shares - Carson certainly doesn't have that many in his own right, so you're going to be looking at the Wills family being willing to part with some of theirs. Which is why Carson's shares are a bit of a red herring in this - you could (maybe) raise the 500k (which is far more than the shares are worth, by the way), and all you'd achieve would be to pay Willie back the money he invested and "get rid" of him as chairman. You still wouldn't have a say in the running of the club. Which is why the Trust have been campaigning since its inception for a fans' rep on the board - fans are the lifeblood of the club and should be included in its running.

[Simon Pieman]

As long as SSW maintains a share of the business over 50% then he has control over voting.

[RobertT]

As long as SSW maintains a share of the business over 50% then he has control over voting.

True, but the 25+1 holding does allow you to get someone on the board (which can help influence decisions) and can allow you to be a pain the rear end if were ever needed.

[Ironside]

Yes okay, I realise that our influence would be minimal at the club.

I'd rather have someone at the club doing Carson's job (ie.Chairman) who actually does care about the club and is prepared to actually spend some time working to further it's interests.  Carson just blatantly doesn't give a shit.  Is it right that the "chairman" of the club does absolutely fuck all work for the club?  Not in my opinion.  The best person for the job is a fan.  

I still think our voice with the council will be increased with carson out and us in, even with our share being so little.  Especially if we argue the case for the redevelopment to be more community focused (assisting the council in their Oasis duties along the way) We can subsequently no doubt enlist the support of other community orientated groups along the way.

Lumpy
1994 was a relegation season but the club wasn't in the kind of shit it's now.  That's why it's important that something does happen this time around, especially with the stadium development being the ultimate key to the clubs long term survival.

[lumpimynci]

1994 was a relegation season but the club wasn't in the kind of shit it's now. That's why it's important that something does happen this time around, especially with the stadium development being the ultimate key to the clubs long term survival.

Thats kind of what I was gettin at in an earlier post.

Fans tend to take over clubs, or gain a significant interest in the running of them, only when their deep in the shit. That's partly because club owners tend to look at fan takeovers as a last resort, (a bit like management buyouts for other companies,  they only happen when no other fucker wants the thing).  

But it's also because fans, like all people in all political movements (and that's what we're talking about here) tend to take the path of least resistance.  When things are desperate they might take action, if there's the right leadership and organisation, but they're only going to do that once they've exhausted all other possibilities.

Even those that would like to see a community owned club would probably still jump at the chance of someone with a bit of cash coming in and taking over, and who could blame them.