Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Mikey D's 50p shares - Shareholders Accountants and Bankers  (Read 995 times)
Lumps

« on: Friday, October 19, 2007, 19:23:09 »

I know there are some accountants and bankers out there, as well as a few STFC shareholders, and this revelation in Mikeys interview has made me think of something that I want an opinion on.

The idea that shares in a Private Limited Company, that doesn't have a sole shareholder, can be sold  in secret strikes me as being a bit wrong.

From what little I know about the way private companies limited by share work, a lot of them have a clause in the company's constitution regarding pre-emption rights. That being that existing shares can't be sold to third parties without first being offered to the existing shareholders (on a proportional basis).

Now I seem to remember that such a clause was mentioned as one off the reasons why the whole "Buy a share with a donation to the Prospect" had to be handled the way it was (quite apart from the fact that advertising to the general public to buy shares in a company not listed on the stock market is a bit naughty).

Now if that is the case and there is such a clause in the company's constitution can I ask if anybody out there was a shareholder of any signicance at the time of uncle Mike's little deal, and if they were offered any of those 52,000 shares, and also ask if not then why not?

I guess the same could be asked about the "shares" "sold" to Bill Power. An even more secretive little deal as even Bill didn't know anything about it. Where did they come from without anybody noticing?
Logged
Fred Elliot
I REST MY FUCKING CASE

Offline Offline

Posts: 15736





Ignore
« Reply #1 on: Friday, October 19, 2007, 19:25:17 »

Nah Nah Nah Lumps !!!!!

It's ok because he only did it for a fucking laugh !!!!!!


Nothing serious ..................




In all honesty, over to you SiPie
Logged
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker

Offline Offline

Posts: 36319




« Reply #2 on: Friday, October 19, 2007, 19:25:21 »

I expect there's a difference because Diamandis' shares are in the holding company and not the football club itself.

Otherwise I don't know...
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #3 on: Friday, October 19, 2007, 19:30:03 »

McMahon got his shares when there was a share  issue.....David Hempleman Adams also had 52000.....the deal was existing shareholders could get a proportional increase and Wills picked up the rest.....Rikki Hunt talked McMuck and DHA into thinking they might at some point in the future be worth something.....I increased my shareholding, but am still waiting for a dividend.....I'd have given macca a tenner.
Logged
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker

Offline Offline

Posts: 36319




« Reply #4 on: Friday, October 19, 2007, 19:33:45 »

Ah there's the difference. If it's a new issue of shares then that's where the pre-emptive part comes into it.

Some good history there Reg
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: