Share Certificates...

[FlashGordon]

Just a quick question, if the issue goes to court and the board provide share certificates signed by Power...thus proving he has bought shares, would that piss on what Power is claiming?

[Fred Elliot]

pretty much so

[FlashGordon]

So everyone is banking on the fact the board dont have these share certificates signed then...big assumption to make?

[lebowski]

i think they have to be signed by bill power, which is why he's saying that his money was not for shares: he (supposedly) hasn't signed anything.

[sonic youth]

if the share certificates exist, then why haven't they shown proof of them yet?

[Tails]

if the share certificates exist, then why haven't they shown proof of them yet?

Exactly.

Which is why I'm more inclined to believe Power.

[FlashGordon]

Maybe they will now, And therefore make power look stupid by not knowing what he has bought shares or given a loan?! Top business man that!

[Chubbs]

if the share certificates exist, then why haven't they shown proof of them yet?

Exactly.

Which is why I'm more inclined to believe Power.

Agreed,

[sonic youth]

what utter nonsense. are you stupid enough to think that power would do that?

you're clutching at straws.

[RobertT]

Umm, the Board wouldn't have the share cert though, would they.  It would be the owner.  What they would need would be a record of proper transfer, and even then it would be James Wills, not the club.

Here is the rub Flash.  If Power paid £1.2m to get some shares, then a certain James Wills would have £1.2m, not the club as it's a private transfer of shares.  Fact is, Power's money went straight to the club, so unless documentary evidence can be produced (which clearly would have involved Powers sig) then that would be deemed a loan to the club.

Basically, you can't buy shares from the club unless they have a share issue like they did in the 90's.

My rudamentary understanding of the situation would be that even if they managed to show some shares, even then the money could still be legally construed a loan as it did not go to the party handing over the shares.  oF course, you would normally expect someone to remember buying some shares though because they'd be putting their sig on paper to confirm it.

[FlashGordon]

Stupid enough? possibly, just waiting to see the outcome personally, i want the mess to be sorted out soon as possible but i just think people are all to willing to take Power's side on everything and i think there is more to it than there is, would the board really incite legal action if it meant they would be up shit creek?

[RobertT]

yes.

[Simon Pieman]

From what I can see the holding company has been issuing new shares left right and centre since 2003

[Hmonkey]

if the share certificates exist, then why haven't they shown proof of them yet?

on the flip side if Power has proof that the £1.2 million was a loan why hasn't he produced the paperwork?

I can't believe that Power would have been stupid enough to loan/invest over a million quid without getting everything in writing.

[TalkTalk]

I've been somewhat confused by this discussion about "share certificates signed by Bill Power" as when I set up my own limited company there was no signature required on them by the applicant.

So I have dug out my company law books and this is what they say:

An application for shares in a company will usually be in writing, although it can be made orally. Such an application will be an offer by the applicant. The acceptance of the application will be a letter of allotment from the company. The application form usually reads "I agree to accept such shares and any any smaller number that may be allotted to me".

An application must be accepted within a reasonable time.

The company's acceptance must be communicated to the applicant. Notice of the allotment is is generally sent by post and the contract is complete on posting the letter. This is so even if the letter is delayed or lost in the post.

An application for shares may be withdrawn at any time before the letter of allotment is posted.

A company must have a share certificate ready for issue within two months of allotment, unless the terms of issue of shares provide otherwise.

Although there is no requirement in the Act that a share certificate must be under seal, the articles usually provide this. Section 81 states that a certificate under the common seal of the company , specifying the shares held by any member, shall be prima facie evidence of the title of the member to the shares.

So I would suggest - just like any contract in law - that the share issue question hinges on whether Bill made an offer (and I would have thought that a letter would have been in order, as opposed to an oral one) and if the club replied in writing, accepting the offer. The issue of a share certificate is a bit of a red herring as far as the legals go as it may have been prepared but could be sat on Sandy Gray's desk.