000 (Uh oh!)

[RobertT]

Bape wasn't related bu I think the likelihood is it was someone with close links to Sturrock, quite possibly on the coaching side.  I think banbury ended-up knowing who it was.

[Sussex]

Shame Bape dissappeared shortly after Sturrock went to Plymouth...

luggys daughter maybe

You been intercepting pm's between Batch and me at the weekend?!  

Doubt it though, whenever asked for info, Bape always said they'd try and find out the next day, ie: in da club, rather than whilst having dinner with dad.

[STFC4LIFE]

Banburys replied.
He hasn't really commented on it.
Just seems in a really good mood.

[Maverick]

on what basis can the board demand a cut of future profit from redevelopment? they don't own any of the land and they've made zero progress on any plans... i don't get it.

It's not the board it is Wills & Diamandis that are being greedy end of - Wills (via Diamandis) may beleive he is due some money back with all the money he has put in, I'm sure he will not see back all the loans he has outstanding, this is probably a good way for him to get something back or the only way but I'm sure they probably want a bigger slice of the pie.

With a Ground Redev there is money to be made if done correct and Diamandis can see a pay day however far in the future but he does not deserve anything as he is only a minority shareholder in the holding co but has enough to cause a problem and obviously he hould nto be left with those shares, and probably wants more than £1....he has got Dunwoody to keep aloat you know !

I think that wills and diamandis want a big slice of the pie with regards to a future ground redevelopment and this is going to kill any takeover, they need to cut their losses accept they are going to get nothing and walk away, wills could walk away with a little bit of dignity, blow this takeover though and he will totally lose any dignity and will be seen in the same light as diamandis imo.

Sorry for being thick - but I am with sonic on this one unless I am missing something?

Ground redevelopment is wholly up to the Council to agree to. They have a duty to get best value for the local taxpayer or face investigation from the auditors and all the ensuing penalties that can carry.

Best that anyone else could hope for would be a partnership arrangement and as I understood it from other threads and "word on the street" ... there is no way that the Council would consider any partnership with the current incumbents.

I would think that SSW will want some undertaking about getting something back on the money he has put in over the years, based around a % of any future profits, which is probably not unreasonable.

As long as SSW and AF are talking face to face without an intermediary then that has to be positive as I am absolutely convinced that SSW would never want to be forever known as the man who took STFC into oblivion ...... nobody can be sure of any other person worrying about that aspect in this debacle.

[STFC_Chris]

Banburys replied.
He hasn't really commented on it.
Just seems in a really good mood.

For those of you who don't want to trawl through the rubbish....

SSW has run out of money.  

The walls are closing in.

This is the last chance for the Wills family. Once hero's now potential villans.

"Don't sell SSW, please don't sell cries Diamond."
"I can get your money back."

Sadly no time with additional pressure to be called next week.

A message to SSW - Blood on your hands. You WILL be held responsible if the Club folds. One more week to reddem your sins.

Judgement Day approaches and we have a mutual friend.  ha ha.

[Dazzza]

It's probably been mentioned and apologies for being thick but what is Fitton attempting to take over; the football club from the holding company or the holding company in its entirety?

I understand Mike Diamandis has a significant shareholding via a proxy but what stake does he have from the McMoan shares he bought for £1 in the club?

Diamandis only owns 26% of the holding company and my remedial maths tells me that the Wills own about 51% so again with a simplistic take on it surely the Wills have the majority stake and could sell the football club to Fitton and bypass Diamandis altogether.

[swindonbob]

Bape was reliable in my opinion but as for 000 i'm not sure he doesn't seem very reliable, he could be right this time though or he could be on a wind up.

Yeah from ive heard, the takeover might collapse....then again it might go through.

We might get Martin Allen as our manager - but the flip side is he wont be our manager.


Its good to have a definate opinion about something.....

[wheretherealredsare]

If the 26% MD holding is correct there is the problem. I believe Fitton needs 75% to gain unconditional control of the holding co., so with the Wills 51% plus the remaining 23% held by a.n. others the maximum he can attain without MD's block is 74%.

[flammableBen]

If the 26% MD holding is correct there is the problem. I believe Fitton needs 75% to gain unconditional control of the holding co., so with the Wills 51% plus the remaining 23% held by a.n. others the maximum he can attain without MD's block is 74%.

So he is trying to buy the holding company?

[speculation ]
I'd imagine he could just buy the club from the holding company. I'm guess that Wills' 51% share would be enough for him to sell from the holding company.

There'd probably be some complications from that though. I'd imagine/guess/speculate that MD as a shareholder would be entitled to any money gained by the holding company. Also, I'd i/g/s that a lot of our debts go through the holding company to the club. So just taking the club from the holding company would leave a potential sketchy middle man in between STFC and it's debts.
[/speculation]

I really don't have any clue though, so that's all guesses. I wonder if anybody more knowledgeable can tell be how badly I've cut myself whilst stabbing in the dark.

[Dazzza]

I think 25% does give you the option to block so Diamandis has it by a whisker even if you include Bill and Phil's shares he can block the sale of either company which I think is classed as passing a 'special resolution' in law gubbins.

There may be provisions under the articles of association or the shareholders agreement, which stipulate something to the contrary or what may be classed as a ‘special resolution’ but I’m firmly prodding away at my leg with a pitchfork there.

[wheretherealredsare]

I understand that holding co. owns 70% of the club. Therefore Wills 51% of holding co. = 35.7% of the club. MD's reported 26% of hc = 18.2% of club PLUS any other shares he has in the club which, if when combined give him more than 25% of the club, means AF cannot achieve unconditional control of the club either.

This is my understanding based on info posted here and elsewhere. Quite frankly it means sweet f. a. as the only thing that matters is whether the deal completes or not.

[flammableBen]

Does the holding companies shares match up with the ownership of STFC? Is it not the case that the holding company owns  the club, and depending on the rules either SirS's 51% is enough to sell or he needs MD's 20something%.

If the holding club owns 70% of the club then I wouldn't have thought in real terms the holding companies shares directly go down into that 70%. Basically I'm saying that nobody has these 70% shares in the club apart from the holding company. The directors of the holding company can make decisions but it doesn't directly filter through.

I'm not sure I've made myself very clear, but with this 25% Diamandis rule it probably doesn't make any different.

[wheretherealredsare]

You are right. Both times.

[Lumps]

As far as I can understand it from the constant froth of rumour and gossip that circulates both here and elsewhere, the situation is along these lines:


Although buying the Wills family shares will give Mr Fitton control, that isn't enough for him as, quite sensibly, he doesn't want Mr D to continue to have any material interest in the club. He doesn't want to have to deal with him in the future and wants him out.

That is going to be difficult to acheive if the man insists in holding on to his shares.

[Phil_S]

I assume they have told AF That Bill P owns 22/23/32/33% of the shares. After all they are going to court on that basis. That could be why diamandis is able to cause a problem. Solution , AF talk to Bill, or club admist they are wrong & bill is right.