horlock07
 Offline
Posts: 19147
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
 |
« on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:10:49 » |
|
This may be a stupid question but what is a rights issue?
This keeps being banded about as the saviour of the club?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
|
|
« Reply #1 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:14:28 » |
|
It's where the club issue out the rights for stuff. For example I bought the rights to be the official stfc rasta jew. I now own the rights to this and if anybody else claims to be the official stfc rasta jew then I can sue their anal passage with my 12 inch cock.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
STFCBird
Ralphy's Wet Dream
Offline
Posts: 10673
C U Next Tuesday!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:15:08 » |
|
:shock:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 19147
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #3 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:17:24 » |
|
Well thats cleared that up, bollocks I had my eye on the rasta jew gig. Bastard!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #4 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:18:00 » |
|
This may be a stupid question but what is a rights issue?
This keeps being banded about as the saviour of the club? Its a noise you make when you've a man cold. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
herthab
TEF Travel
Offline
Posts: 12020
|
|
« Reply #5 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:25:02 » |
|
I think it's to do with the Board wanting to change supporters rights.
Apparently they're issuing new ones.
The right not to ask where the moneys gone.
The right not to criticise the board, no matter how inept.
The right to be apathetic sheep.
The right to go to Chippenham (Or elsewhere) to watch home games.
The right to think MD is the One True Messiah, who will bring the club back to the glory years.
And many, many more..................
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's All Good..............
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
 Online
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #6 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:32:01 » |
|
The serious answer is:
A rights issue is where the right to buy x amount of shares for every y you hold. e.g. a 1 for 5 rights issue would be where 1 share was offered for sale (to you) for every 5 you hold.
This has the advantage of raising additional funds without diluting the power of the major shareholders, provided they take up their option (right).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 19147
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #7 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:34:03 » |
|
So essentially much as at the present position has proven. You give them your money for 'shares' you get shares but they mean absolutely fuck all as the directors what they want.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fred Elliot
I REST MY FUCKING CASE
Offline
Posts: 15736
|
|
« Reply #8 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:34:19 » |
|
Si Pi is Right.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fred Elliot
I REST MY FUCKING CASE
Offline
Posts: 15736
|
|
« Reply #9 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:35:52 » |
|
The serious answer is:
A rights issue is where the right to buy x amount of shares for every y you hold. e.g. a 1 for 5 rights issue would be where 1 share was offered for sale (to you) for every 5 you hold.
This has the advantage of raising additional funds without diluting the power of the major shareholders, provided they take up their option (right). Ah................. but is it in the club or the holding company ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
herthab
TEF Travel
Offline
Posts: 12020
|
|
« Reply #10 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:38:11 » |
|
So I'm wrong?
Fuck! I thought I was beginning to get my head around all this.........
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's All Good..............
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Online
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #11 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:40:51 » |
|
Not sure it really matters in the grand scheme. If more shares are issued in the holding company, then that company would still have the same amount of control over the football club, as no more shares from the club have been issued.
That said, there could be a crafty scheme to shift power within the holding company in order for certain individuals to have more influence than others with regards to the voting rights of the shares owned in STFC.
The mind boggles...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
herthab
TEF Travel
Offline
Posts: 12020
|
|
« Reply #12 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:45:38 » |
|
Not sure it really matters in the grand scheme. If more shares are issued in the holding company, then that company would still have the same amount of control over the football club, as no more shares from the club have been issued.
That said, there could be a crafty scheme to shift power within the holding company in order for certain individuals to have more influence than others with regards to the voting rights of the shares owned in STFC.
The mind boggles... Just for arguments sake. Would this affect BPs' position if the Clubs stance that his 1.2 million was for shares in the Club was upheld and the rights issue was for the holding company? My head's beginning to hurt again................... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's All Good..............
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #13 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:51:33 » |
|
The rights issue was mooted a few weeks back as almost a side note in one of the many rather bizarre club statements we've had recently (IIRC this was the same one where they said the Consortium backer - singular - was American) and it was then stated that a rights issue "had been launched" in the holding company and that they were considering doing a rights issue in the club as well. Given that the only shareholders in the holding co are the Wills family and a block of shares held through a trustee/firm of solicitors (which may be being reserved for a development partner or may be already held by a 3rd party - Mr D?) it would seem fairly bizarre to view a rights issue as a mechanism for raising funds, as the Wills family would be raising from fresh capital from, erm, themselves. So FWIW, given that no-one knew anything about this "launch" and we've not heard a lot since, I'd be inclined to view it as part of the ongoing blizzard of bullshit. Unless there's more to that nominee holding than meets the eye or the Wills family have recently given a block of shares to someone they then hope to raise funds from via said rights issue. All clear now? Good, good.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #14 on: Thursday, December 21, 2006, 17:55:28 » |
|
Not sure it really matters in the grand scheme. If more shares are issued in the holding company, then that company would still have the same amount of control over the football club, as no more shares from the club have been issued.
That said, there could be a crafty scheme to shift power within the holding company in order for certain individuals to have more influence than others with regards to the voting rights of the shares owned in STFC.
The mind boggles... Just for arguments sake. Would this affect BPs' position if the Clubs stance that his 1.2 million was for shares in the Club was upheld and the rights issue was for the holding company? My head's beginning to hurt again................... The rights issue is in the holding co - if the club claim that BP's shareholding is in the holding co (and that's not clear as at different times they've said it's in both the holding co and the club); and if that claim was subsequently upheld by a court; then it would be a way of diluting his stake in the holding co. But that's a lot of ifs - best not to hurt your head over it  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
