AGM on Saturday

[michael]

Anyone going?

Not quite sure I understand the mechanics behind how they are going to strengthen the balance sheet, but given that I struggle with iTunes, and finding Whole Nutmeg then I am sure there is little surprise among my peers on here.

Feel free to explain it to me...

[Batch]

I will go if the Mrs is over her bug.

It confuses me too. Si Pie must know!

I think what they are saying is that they will reduce the nominal value of a share (i.e. the paper value, obviously shares aren't really worth anything)  from 50p per share to 1p per share. Thus the liability on paper (the amount to buy all the shares in existence) is reduced -  they aren't actually going to buy them of course, the holding co own 75% anyway.

Is that right?

[Samdy Gray]

They're also making a propsal to abolish future AGM's. Obviously they'll be a vote, but the board have enough votes to carry the motion no matter what the rest of the shareholders vote.

[Simon Pieman]

I will be attending. If anyone fancies joining me for breaky at a Wetherspoons beforehand then give me a shout. I'll be the midget looking one wearing a rose on the breast of my jacket.

Onto the boring stuff:

They're proposing to reduce the nominal value to 1p as you say Batch. This reduces the 'called up share capital' amount in the balance sheet and also removes the 'share premium reserve' in the balance sheet. As these gets reduced, the 'profit and loss reserve' will increase in the balance sheet.

So in other words, this event will remove large defecits brought forward from years of trading at a loss.

The next part he talks about is to make a rights issue. A rights issue is where the company give you an opportunity to buy x amount of shares for every y amount of shares you own (e.g. a 1 in 5 rights issue will give you the chance to buy 1 extra share for evey 5 you own). This will provide the club with additional funds.

I think Fitton has worked it out so that the slate will be wiped clean initially, i.e. there will be no defecits and thereafter try and trade above water. Not sure what the rights issue will be, but Spacey is a wanker, even if it's a 1 for 2 rights issue @ 10p (as a stupidly simple example), it should give the club shy of £900k extra cash should people take up their rights. Given the fact 75% is owned by Fitton's consortium, then this seems a fair way for them to pump some cash into the club.

Hope that makes some sort of sense. No doubt I'll read it back at some stage and realise I've typed a load of tosh 

[Bogus Dave]

They're also making a propsal to abolish future AGM's. Obviously they'll be a vote, but the board have enough votes to carry the motion no matter what the rest of the shareholders vote.

Is that not a bad thing?

[Samdy Gray]

I see at as being a bad thing, yes. The AGM is about the only time the small shareholders (i.e. the fans) get to hold the board to account.

[Simon Pieman]

If it's been more than 12 months since the last AGM, only 5% of shareholders need to ask for a meeting to get one. 10% if it has only been 12 months or less.

I'd wager if there was anything we needed further accountability, we could force a meeting anyway.

I must say, I'd much prefer one. Obviously I'd expect some decent commentary and documents to be sent our way in place of a meeting.

[pauld]

If it's been more than 12 months since the last AGM, only 5% of shareholders need to ask for a meeting to get one. 10% if it has only been 12 months or less.
I'd wager if there was anything we needed further accountability, we could force a meeting anyway.

With the holding Co owning 75% of the shares and the Wills family 23% (ie 98% between them), that "only" 5% is effectively unobtainable by genuine small shareholders, though. And given the history of this club, do you really want to "wager" we could force accountability? Don't necessarily think it's likely to be an issue under the current board tbh, but safeguards, once removed, aren't usually reinstated

[flammableBen]

With the holding Co owning 75% of the shares and the Wills family 23% (ie 98% between them), that "only" 5% is effectively unobtainable by genuine small shareholders, though. And given the history of this club, do you really want to "wager" we could force accountability? Don't necessarily think it's likely to be an issue under the current board tbh, but safeguards, once removed, aren't usually reinstated

Might give us an excuse to get the coffin out again though, I sort of miss the save our club spirit even if some of the fans thought we were a bit mental.

Do you still tell us on here when you're having trust meetings Paul? I don't check my emails that often any more and apart from the podcasts you've been a bit quiet. I think the trust is still important so I hate to think of it fading away as the urgency dies out.

[spacey]

It's just another example of the bourgeoisie using the blood of the workers to oil the wheels of capitalism.

I will be attending. If anyone fancies joining me for breaky at a Wetherspoons beforehand then give me a shout. I'll be the midget looking one wearing a rose on the breast of my jacket.

Onto the boring stuff:

They're proposing to reduce the nominal value to 1p as you say Batch. This reduces the 'called up share capital' amount in the balance sheet and also removes the 'share premium reserve' in the balance sheet. As these gets reduced, the 'profit and loss reserve' will increase in the balance sheet.

So in other words, this event will remove large defecits brought forward from years of trading at a loss.

The next part he talks about is to make a rights issue. A rights issue is where the company give you an opportunity to buy x amount of shares for every y amount of shares you own (e.g. a 1 in 5 rights issue will give you the chance to buy 1 extra share for evey 5 you own). This will provide the club with additional funds.

I think Fitton has worked it out so that the slate will be wiped clean initially, i.e. there will be no defecits and thereafter try and trade above water. Not sure what the rights issue will be, but even if it's a 1 for 2 rights issue @ 10p (as a stupidly simple example), it should give the club shy of £900k extra cash should people take up their rights. Given the fact 75% is owned by Fitton's consortium, then this seems a fair way for them to pump some cash into the club.

Hope that makes some sort of sense. No doubt I'll read it back at some stage and realise I've typed a load of tosh 

I'm going to have Mrs spacey check that and if it turns out you're talking shite then......well I wouldn't want to be in your plimsolls.

[pauld]

Might give us an excuse to get the coffin out again though, I sort of miss the save our club spirit even if some of the fans thought we were a bit mental.

Do you still tell us on here when you're having trust meetings Paul? I don't check my emails that often any more and apart from the podcasts you've been a bit quiet. I think the trust is still important so I hate to think of it fading away as the urgency dies out.

Well to save you the trouble of rummaging thru your inbox, the next scheduled Trust meeting is the Trust AGM on Mon Nov 17th. I might put forward a motion to abolish all future AGMs to stoke some controversy and boost the attendance!

[yeo]

It's just another example of the bourgeoisie using the blood of the workers to oil the wheels of capitalism.



I'm going to have Mrs spacey check that and if it turns out you're talking shite then......well I wouldn't want to be in your plimsolls.

hahaha

[Batch]

They're also making a propsal to abolish future AGM's. Obviously they'll be a vote, but the board have enough votes to carry the motion no matter what the rest of the shareholders vote.

Really? That sucks. I'll vote against it. Though I only have 1 share I bet Fitton shits it.

[pauld]

Really? That sucks. I'll vote against it. Though I only have 1 share I bet Fitton shits it.

It's certainly worth attending to listen to the arguments put forward - I understand AF intends to explain more fully the reasoning behind it. It may be that there is a perfectly good rationale which will make perfect sense once we hear it explained in full. At the moment we're relying on the bald statement in the AGM notification, there may be subtleties to it that put it in a different light.

Incidentally, the provision to allow small companies to dispense with automatically holding AGMs was introduced in the Companies Act 2006 and is intended to allow small businesses to avoid the hassle and expense of having to hold AGMs where they only serve as expensive and inconvenient red tape. Which probably makes sense for a lot of small businesses but in lieu of having heard a fuller explanation, I'd argue that it's a bit different for football clubs where there is a genuine wider interest from small shareholders who've invested not as a business opportunity but to take a stake in their club.

[donkey]

It's certainly worth attending to listen to the arguments put forward - I understand AF intends to explain more fully the reasoning behind it. It may be that there is a perfectly good rationale which will make perfect sense once we hear it explained in full. At the moment we're relying on the bald statement in the AGM notification, there may be subtleties to it that put it in a different light.

Incidentally, the provision to allow small companies to dispense with automatically holding AGMs was introduced in the Companies Act 2006 and is intended to allow small businesses to avoid the hassle and expense of having to hold AGMs where they only serve as expensive and inconvenient red tape. Which probably makes sense for a lot of small businesses but in lieu of having heard a fuller explanation, I'd argue that it's a bit different for football clubs where there is a genuine wider interest from small shareholders who've invested not as a business opportunity but to take a stake in their club.

And on top of that we've not exactly been blessed with the most 'open' owners in the past.  Personally this scares me a bit, once dispensed of it may be difficult to get it back...and if we trust the current owners, who's to say that the next owners won't be as trustworthy...meaning we're right up the creek.  Bad idea, imho (without hearing the rationale behind it).