STFC4LIFE
Fence Fucker
 Offline
Posts: 2785
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:09:40 » |
|
This is confusing the fuck out of me?
Are you saying Power has got shares :? No - the club have sent a form to Companies House stating that they have issued new shares to Bill and Phil. The essence of the argument is whether there was a formal application by Bill and Phil for those shares and if so, did the holding company formally accept. Right, and Power is saying he hasn't? Right? :? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TalkTalk
|
|
« Reply #31 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:10:18 » |
|
Right, and Power is saying he hasn't?
Right? :? Yep. That is it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
 Online
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #32 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:13:10 » |
|
I'd love to have a clue what everyone is talking about, but when it comes to accounts/finances etc etc you might aswell be speaking french. We're basically saying that when it comes to issuing shares the holding company don't know what they're doing - or at least it looks that way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chubbs
Offline
Posts: 10517
|
|
« Reply #33 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:14:52 » |
|
I'd love to have a clue what everyone is talking about, but when it comes to accounts/finances etc etc you might aswell be speaking french. Or Polish?  :shock: |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chubbs
Offline
Posts: 10517
|
|
« Reply #34 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:16:28 » |
|
I'd love to have a clue what everyone is talking about, but when it comes to accounts/finances etc etc you might aswell be speaking french. We're basically saying that when it comes to issuing shares the holding company don't know what they're doing - or at least it looks that way. Riiiiighhttttt *woosh* |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
STFC4LIFE
Fence Fucker
Offline
Posts: 2785
|
|
« Reply #35 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:18:17 » |
|
I'd love to have a clue what everyone is talking about, but when it comes to accounts/finances etc etc you might aswell be speaking french. We're basically saying that when it comes to issuing shares the holding company don't know what they're doing - or at least it looks that way. Riiiiighhttttt *woosh*  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Online
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #36 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:18:23 » |
|
Further to my response to you TalkTalk, I am assuming that the holding co issued that exact number of shares again in 2006, probably so they could go to different people. It also meant that by (re)issuing that amount, James Wills maintains his majority stake.
Of course that assumes they did strike off those shares in the first place. It looks suspiciously like they haven't, in which case it's going to get very confusing in court
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TalkTalk
|
|
« Reply #37 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:20:14 » |
|
What's happened is that in 2003 they issued all of those shares wrongly. In 2006 this was rectified so the accountants have changed the figures in the 2005 retrospectively to compensate. This also means that those 1,081,890 were also struck off. Now since 2003 there have also obviously been other share issues, making the present shares issued figure higher.
Had those other shares not been taken out the figure would have been higher still. Yes, I see that. But it just looks bizarre that since 2005 the share capital of the two original holders (JW 66%/Boodle 33%) has been increased by exactly the same amount as that struck off. To the pound. It's either an odd coincidence, something clever or a huge cock up in that the share capital being stated is just plain wrong... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TalkTalk
|
|
« Reply #38 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:21:27 » |
|
Further to my response to you TalkTalk, I am assuming that the holding co issued that exact number of shares again in 2006, probably so they could go to different people. It also meant that by (re)issuing that amount, James Wills maintains his majority stake.
Of course that assumes they did strike off those shares in the first place. It looks suspiciously like they haven't, in which case it's going to get very confusing in court Natch. Great minds |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Online
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #39 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:25:57 » |
|
I'm going to go on companies house and see if I can find out what the hell is going on.
EDIT: It won't be open til tomorrow though, bugger
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TalkTalk
|
|
« Reply #40 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:32:20 » |
|
That leads on to the interesting situation in that if the share capital is misstated then the share holding would be: BOODLE HATFIELD NOMINEES LIMITED 522,023 ORD 1 SHARES (22%) JAMES S WILLS 1,044,047 ORD 1 SHARES (44%) PHILIP EMMEL 395,472 ORD 1 SHARES (17%) WILLIAM POWER 395,473 ORD 1 SHARES (17%) Giving Phil and Bill 34% of the share holding. More than Boodle and enough to have a serious say in the company (I seem to remember that 33% gives you real clout?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Online
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #41 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:34:05 » |
|
But they wouldn't realistically be able to control the company unless BHN sided with them, which, assuming it's Diamandis, would be about as likely as me winning the lottery.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sussex
|
|
« Reply #42 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:34:15 » |
|
This is all too much for a Sunday.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Online
Posts: 36334
|
|
« Reply #43 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:38:48 » |
|
This is all too much for a Sunday. come back tomorrow. you still won't get it |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chubbs
Offline
Posts: 10517
|
|
« Reply #44 on: Sunday, June 10, 2007, 13:39:06 » |
|
This is all too much for a Sunday. too much for anyday for me |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
