Thetownend.com

Apologies if this has been covered already.

In the summer, BP put over a million quid into the club.

After the accident, we were told that he wanted it back, as it was a loan, but that the club had taken it as a share purchase.

If the club stuck by their theory and kept his cash, wouldn't that make him a sizeable shareholder, with a bit of clout?

Or have I drifted off into idiotsville again........................

ooops be careful what you ask

Why?

Seems a fair point to me.

Anyone?

i think the answer would be yes.
hopefully that clout will help with the takeover bid

Basically it will put the consortium in a strong bargaining position. Basically he could call in the loan at any time and issue a winding up order. But he aint gonna do that.

It's win/win isn't it? He could say I have already bought X% shares, I offer you £Y to conclude a majority shareholding buyout.

Either he has given them a loan which as STA says he could call in, or he has been given shares which SHOULD give him some influence over what the board does.

However - Not sure if my understanding of company law is still current (or even if it was correct in the first place), but I thought that the board can't just create new shares and sell them to an outsider, they have to give all current shareholders a chance to buy them too (which they haven't). The only way Bill could get a shareholding is by buying shares from an existing holder, unless they are non-voting shares in which case he doesn't have much power at all.

I await correction from someone who knows more than I do.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it is all tied up in legal shit at the moment, and until that is sorted out there will be no definative answer to this question I am afraid

sorry

by that i assume you know the answer

I have my own personal feelings on this issue and that's all they are, personal feelings.

Until the legal big wigs retire to their corners and finally accept whether this investment is a loan or a share option the answer will not be forthcoming unfortunately arriba.

It's very simple really - the board claim Bill's 1.2m was used to buy 33% of the shares in either the club or the holding company (they don't seem very clear on this) ie it was a straight share purchase and hence is not repayable; Bill says it was an investment and hence is repayable. No-one will really know if/until the legal eagles fight it out; however for the moment there is deadlock. If Bill uses the "shareholding" he may be deemed to have accepted the board's case de facto; likewise if the board attempted to prevent him from doing so, they would have accepted his case. Hence, stalemate

I'm probably being simple...but if I buy anything whether it's shares or a car I usually get a certificate or a receipt.  If I'd just spent 1.2 mill I'd certainly want something which proved what I was getting.  Is it different when it comes to football clubs? :?

The intricacies of the investment were being sorted just prior to the Hartlepool game.

Then the plane crashed!