derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Valiant indeed. In a Light Brigade sort of way. But people being people, they will need more than 7000 shares to rally around. Most people here could buy that many out of their current account today. What any move would need to succeed would be for a MAJOR player, let's say Leon for example, to set up something like this and see what can rally around him from there. This noble effort is doomed imho but I wish them all well. What is required is more planning by some big players. But I suspect they have done their thinking and counting and realise they cannot touch the status quo right now. And this club has been blighted too long by 'gesture politics' and a complete lack of substance. I could buy 2m today if I wanted to and they were available, but I'd be bloody daft to spend that sort of money on SLH shares. I would buy some to support this initiative.
SaintRobbie Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Two guys with 7000 shares between them. Can't see Rupert being blown of course by that. Add the Saints Trust, Corbett and Crouch and how many more would you need?
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Add the Saints Trust, Corbett and Crouch and how many more would you need? Saints Trust own about 20000 shares. A non-entity. Look at it this way. It took Wilde,Corbett,Crouch,McMenemy,Trant,Singh and all other disgruntled shareholders to be certain of getting Lowe out. Lowe group and Wilde were sure certain that they could walk back in whenever they wanted.The Lowe group -Wilde tandem is untouchable unless one of the "investors" in the Lowe group breaks rank, which they won't.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Popular myth.:smt037:smt037:smt037:smt037:smt037 Do the maths. About 5% unissued. Lowe and co have less than 50% of the rest. If you have a list and accurate figures, stick them on here. I did have the figures but I can't place them.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 I could buy 2m today if I wanted to and they were available, but I'd be bloody daft to spend that sort of money on SLH shares. I would buy some to support this initiative. But there aren't 2 million share available at 20p or whatever it is. If there were Crouch would have (in theory) snapped them up ages ago to boost his personal holding to 23% or so .
Micky Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Just a quick observation, but as this is being billed solely as a 'Shareholders Meeting', then Rupert Lowe would be also welcome to attend. Perhaps not 'welcome' then - but surely eligable?
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Saints Trust own about 20000 shares. A non-entity. Look at it this way. It took Wilde,Corbett,Crouch,McMenemy,Trant,Singh and all other disgruntled shareholders to be certain of getting Lowe out. Lowe group and Wilde were sure certain that they could walk back in whenever they wanted.The Lowe group -Wilde tandem is untouchable unless one of the "investors" in the Lowe group breaks rank, which they won't. Or the 25-30% of shares not owned by either group is brought into a voting block. Then it would be interesting.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 But there aren't 2 million share available at 20p or whatever it is. If there were Crouch would have (in theory) snapped them up ages ago to boost his personal holding to 23% or so . What I said. about 100k shifted in the last week or so I believe.
trousers Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Then the two groups have a common purpose, if not a common method, that could move both inititiaves in the right direction. Aye...that was my train of thought too...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Or the 25-30% of shares not owned by either group is brought into a voting block. Then it would be interesting. Most of them are dormant or hidden deep deep behind nominees and offshore companies. If buying a controlling interest in SFC was so easy (added to Crouch and Corbett) then it would have happened long long ago.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Just a quick observation, but as this is being billed solely as a 'Shareholders Meeting', then Rupert Lowe would be also welcome to attend. Perhaps not 'welcome' then - but surely eligable? Now wouldn't that be something. I could sell tickets for that. All shareholders is what it said.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 What I said. about 100k shifted in the last week or so I believe. As I've told you, Mike Withers reduced his holding by 125000 shares in the recent past. They probably went straight into the portfolio of another Lowe ally.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Most of them are dormant or hidden deep deep behind nominees and offshore companies. If buying a controlling interest in SFC was so easy (added to Crouch and Corbett) then it would have happened long long ago. Or small unrepresented shareholders. They should have sponsored a referendum based association to hold the proxies and give the small shareholders a voice. Irrespective of who owns more than 50% of the shares, Lowe and co don't. If enough are anti Lowe he could be ousted.
Micky Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Now wouldn't that be something. I could sell tickets for that. All shareholders is what it said. I wouldn't expect the man himself to make an appearance, (as interesting as it would make the meeting...!) but if this thing gathers pace - then it wouldn't surprise me if he has an 'ear in the room' somewhere.
bridge too far Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Significant Shareholders Shareholders who hold more than 3%Amount% Holding Michael Gordon Wilde 4,622,470 16.46 Leon Adrian Crouch 2,794,230 9.95 Rupert James Lowe 1,577,969 5.62 Guy Askham 1,120,000 3.99R M Withers 1,000,000 3.56 Cheviot Asset Management 934,100 3.33 Michael Richards 873,000 3.11 from http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp
fos1 Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Saints Trust own about 20000 shares. A non-entity. Look at it this way. It took Wilde,Corbett,Crouch,McMenemy,Trant,Singh and all other disgruntled shareholders to be certain of getting Lowe out. Lowe group and Wilde were sure certain that they could walk back in whenever they wanted.The Lowe group -Wilde tandem is untouchable unless one of the "investors" in the Lowe group breaks rank, which they won't. This is why pressure should be put on Wlde, the man is running scared,that is why he left the ground at the first hint of anti Lowe chants on Saturday.He is reasponsible for allowing Lowe back, he should now do the right thing before its to late. Come on Wilde be a man for once in your life !!
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 (edited) Or small unrepresented shareholders. They should have sponsored a referendum based association to hold the proxies and give the small shareholders a voice. Irrespective of who owns more than 50% of the shares, Lowe and co don't. If enough are anti Lowe he could be ousted. I'll take your word for it then Derry, you're obviously convinced you're right whilst I believe otherwise. Pointless discussion really.I say that SLH PLC will never be the subject of a hostile take over whilst the Lowe-Wilde axis functions. I have my reasons for that but I'm keeping them to myself. Believe whatever you like about the distribution of the share issue. Edited 23 January, 2009 by Window Cleaner
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Significant Shareholders Shareholders who hold more than 3%Amount% Holding Michael Gordon Wilde 4,622,470 16.46 Leon Adrian Crouch 2,794,230 9.95 Rupert James Lowe 1,577,969 5.62 Guy Askham 1,120,000 3.99R M Withers 1,000,000 3.56 Cheviot Asset Management 934,100 3.33 Michael Richards 873,000 3.11 from http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp So you see as I said Withers has reduced from 4% (1,125000) to 3.56% (1,000000) in the recent past. The 3.08% controlled by the investment broker Charley Stanley no longer shows up.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Significant Shareholders Shareholders who hold more than 3%Amount% Holding Michael Gordon Wilde 4,622,470 16.46 Leon Adrian Crouch 2,794,230 9.95 Rupert James Lowe 1,577,969 5.62 Guy Askham 1,120,000 3.99R M Withers 1,000,000 3.56 Cheviot Asset Management 934,100 3.33 Michael Richards 873,000 3.11 from http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp That leaves about 54% unissued or unaccountable.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 That leaves about 54% unissued or unaccountable. Yes but then you have to take away all the rest of the "Lowe camp". The Die inheritors, Windsor Clive, Marland etc etc.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 I'll take your word for it then Derry, you're obviously convinced you're right whilst I believe otherwise. Pointless discussion really.I say that SLH PLC will never be the subject of a hostile taken over whilst the Lowe-Wilde axis functions. I have my reasons for that but I'm keeping them to myself. Believe whatever you like about the distribution of the share issue. Not convinced at all, but I would like to see the figures as they don't add up at the moment. The published figures when there looked like being a vote, left about 25-30% unaccounted for. Then seeing that only 17% changed the balance of power, the other shareholders never got involved. I believe about 5% not issued.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Yes but then you have to take away all the rest of the "Lowe camp". The Die inheritors, Windsor Clive, Marland etc etc. That's precisely what I'm having a problem with, who owns the outstanding balance, how many and are they aligned. The published Lowe camp only have about 36%, how many unpublished do they control and what is Corbett family holding? I thought that was about 6% but it's not shown.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 That's precisely what I'm having a problem with, who owns the outstanding balance, how many and are they aligned. The published Lowe camp only have about 36%, how many unpublished do they control and what is Corbett family holding? I thought that was about 6% but it's not shown. You'll just have to take my word for it Derry, Lowe owns SLH PLC whilst he has the support of his axis and Mike Wilde, the rest doesn't matter and I'm not going into it any more. We drove him out, he was always going to come back at the first opportunity,he just waited for the Wilde/Crouch lute to rip itself apart by continual infighting (do not forget Crouch tried to take over the PLC for nothing by a back door method, if that hadn't happened we'd probably now have a Lowe/Crouch tandem). Lowe dealt with that like making a naughty child stand in the corner in class,
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 That's precisely what I'm having a problem with, who owns the outstanding balance, how many and are they aligned. The published Lowe camp only have about 36%, how many unpublished do they control and what is Corbett family holding? I thought that was about 6% but it's not shown. Because it's an inheritance from Mr John Corbett who took up 3.94% of the original share issue plus his share of the rights issue. A total of about 5% (but probably not 6%). These shares were left to his immediate family on his death. I can't recall the names, I know there's Mary,Peter, and Sarah (who no longer bears the name Corbett) but I think there's a fourth child as well. How the shares are split amongst them I have no idea.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 You'll just have to take my word for it Derry, Lowe owns SLH PLC whilst he has the support of his axis and Mike Wilde, the rest doesn't matter and I'm not going into it any more. We drove him out, he was always going to come back at the first opportunity,he just waited for the Wilde/Crouch lute to rip itself apart by continual infighting (do not forget Crouch tried to take over the PLC for nothing by a back door method, if that hadn't happened we'd probably now have a Lowe/Crouch tandem). Lowe dealt with that like making a naughty child stand in the corner in class, I'll just have to take your word for it, but the maths just don't add up. If this and subsequent meetings and initiatives unite all the anti shareholders it will be interesting to see the figures.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Because it's an inheritance from Mr John Corbett who took up 3.94% of the original share issue plus his share of the rights issue. A total of about 5% (but probably not 6%). These shares were left to his immediate family on his death. I can't recall the names, I know there's Mary,Peter, and Sarah (who no longer bears the name Corbett) but I think there's a fourth child as well. How the shares are split amongst them I have no idea. Thanks.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 I'll just have to take your word for it, but the maths just don't add up. If this and subsequent meetings and initiatives unite all the anti shareholders it will be interesting to see the figures. The maths do add up but you need a PhD in Applied Maths to understand them. Dormant or hidden, the result is the same thing. The club is unbuyable until Lowe and Wilde decide otherwise.
hamster Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 This is why pressure should be put on Wlde, the man is running scared, Agreed, he's tried siding with Crouch, he's tried siding with Lowe, whatr wuld the implications be if he joined the 'abstained' gang? I'm not good with numbers, but would that not make it a fair fight whereby this new group or/and The Trust might have enough clout to bring about changes?
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 (edited) Agreed, he's tried siding with Crouch, he's tried siding with Lowe, whatr wuld the implications be if he joined the 'abstained' gang? I'm not good with numbers, but would that not make it a fair fight whereby this new group or/and The Trust might have enough clout to bring about changes? No it wouldn't. The only way that he can go against Lowe is by opposing him. You've got to think laterally about all this. Why has no-one (we're told there have been suitors) bought out the club? I mean if you buy out Wilde,Crouch and The Corbetts you're over 30% right so that's more than half the battle, just find out who owns all those little bits of the puzzle and you can get to 51% easy as pie, if Lowe refuses your offer well screw him,you've got control right?. Ah but you can't find them,that's the problem so you can't obscure Lowe (and his cronies) from the picture for ever.Wilde and Crouch tried, cost them a pretty penny and what have they got for their trouble, yep Lowe is still lording it over them and their money, yet neither can destroy his stranglehold with love nor money. The conclusion is obvious, until you buy out Rupert Lowe and his axis of evil (some would call it that) you will never,ever control SLH PLC thus Southampton Football Club. There's only no way of getting rid of Lowe and that needs money, lots of it and then some.Do not forget,if we believe half of what we hear Lowe and Wilde have been offered significant sums for their shareholding in the recent past, so are they going to then,having turned those sums down, let the club slide into administration and lose out that way?? Of course they aren't, but then again they don't want to inject cash either, but if push comes to shove they will, but the less of their own money the better. Players will be sold as a last resort, who and for how much I've no idea. Edited 23 January, 2009 by Window Cleaner
jam Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 No it wouldn't. The only way that he can go against Lowe is by opposing him. You've got to think laterally about all this. Why has no-one (we're told there have been suitors) bought out the club? I mean if you buy out Wilde,Crouch and The Corbetts you're over 30% right so that's more than half the battle, just find out who owns all those little bits of the puzzle and you can get to 51% easy as pie, if Lowe refuses your offer well screw him,you've got control right?. Ah but you can't find them,that's the problem so you can't obscure Lowe (and his cronies) from the picture for ever.Wilde and Crouch tried, cost them a pretty penny and what have they got for their trouble, yep Lowe is still lording it over them and their money, yet neither can destroy his stranglehold with love nor money. The conclusion is obvious, until you buy out Rupert Lowe and his axis of evil (some would call it that) you will never,ever control SLH PLC thus Southampton Football Club. There's only no way of getting rid of Lowe and that needs money, lots of it and then some.Do not forget,if we believe half of what we hear Lowe and Wilde have been offered significant sums for their shareholding in the recent past, so are they going to then,having turned those sums down, let the club slide into administration and lose out that way?? Of course they aren't, but then again they don't want to inject cash either, but if push comes to shove they will, but the less of their own money the better. Players will be sold as a last resort, who and for how much I've no idea. A random thought, but if Wilde, Crouch or someone new on the scene bought enough shares in the club to get voting control, is it legally possible for them to sell the football club and stadium etc. from the PLC to another company that they owned? Taking as read that it was all done in the open and at a fair (independantly audited) price, of course. Cue the people who actually KNOW about comapny law to tear this to shreds..!
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 A random thought, but if Wilde, Crouch or someone new on the scene bought enough shares in the club to get voting control, is it legally possible for them to sell the football club and stadium etc. from the PLC to another company that they owned? Taking as read that it was all done in the open and at a fair (independantly audited) price, of course. Cue the people who actually KNOW about comapny law to tear this to shreds..! Would depend what the bond note holder had to say about it wouldn't it. If you want to sell your house in theory you have to pay up the mortgage before you do. Obviously your solicitor pays the outstanding balnce from the money he receives for it on completion day. This would probably be the same thing. Do not forget Wilde+Crouch=26.41% of the share issue. If that figure goes over 30% even in the context of a concert party then they have to bid for the entire share issue at the most elevated price paid for any of the shares, ie 65p,Crouch nearly dropped them in it first time round, that's why Wilde learned not to trust Crouch's "enthusiasm" and he got the reputation of bumbling loose cannon ."It is Paul Allen" in the Echo sure didn't help.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 No it wouldn't. The only way that he can go against Lowe is by opposing him. You've got to think laterally about all this. Why has no-one (we're told there have been suitors) bought out the club? I mean if you buy out Wilde,Crouch and The Corbetts you're over 30% right so that's more than half the battle, just find out who owns all those little bits of the puzzle and you can get to 51% easy as pie, if Lowe refuses your offer well screw him,you've got control right?. Ah but you can't find them,that's the problem so you can't obscure Lowe (and his cronies) from the picture for ever.Wilde and Crouch tried, cost them a pretty penny and what have they got for their trouble, yep Lowe is still lording it over them and their money, yet neither can destroy his stranglehold with love nor money. The conclusion is obvious, until you buy out Rupert Lowe and his axis of evil (some would call it that) you will never,ever control SLH PLC thus Southampton Football Club. There's only no way of getting rid of Lowe and that needs money, lots of it and then some.Do not forget,if we believe half of what we hear Lowe and Wilde have been offered significant sums for their shareholding in the recent past, so are they going to then,having turned those sums down, let the club slide into administration and lose out that way?? Of course they aren't, but then again they don't want to inject cash either, but if push comes to shove they will, but the less of their own money the better. Players will be sold as a last resort, who and for how much I've no idea. I've got some figures now, about 40 shareholdings hold about 80%, the balance is owned by many small shareholders. In many cases it is impossible to see which shareholder supports which side. However, if the shareholders owning the shares are abstaining there will be no change. If an initiative persuades the non aligned shareholders to support a change it could become very interesting.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 I've got some figures now, about 40 shareholdings hold about 80%, the balance is owned by many small shareholders. In many cases it is impossible to see which shareholder supports which side. However, if the shareholders owning the shares are abstaining there will be no change. If an initiative persuades the non aligned shareholders to support a change it could become very interesting. Keep on thinking that way then Derry.I would wager that some of the 20% are well and truly "aligned". I studied this for a long ,long time,just out of interest really,even looked up the family connections of some of the "non-entitys". You'd be surprised.Obviously they're all independant people backing their judgement in each case :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 I've got some figures now, about 40 shareholdings hold about 80%, the balance is owned by many small shareholders. In many cases it is impossible to see which shareholder supports which side. However, if the shareholders owning the shares are abstaining there will be no change. If an initiative persuades the non aligned shareholders to support a change it could become very interesting. And of course friend Fulthorpe hasn't the figures that you've managed to obtain of course??
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 I have pretty much come to the same conclusion. It needs interested parties to come forward. Of course if some of the 40 were added to some of the 20% then that might be a sizeable figure. The easy way is Wilde bailing out.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 I can't really see how there could be a takeover, unless there was an offer for all the shares that was too good to refuse.
landford.saint Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Lowe and his 'friends' hold the control of power in SLH/SFC. One of these I know is Wilde with about 16% of the shares. Who are the other persons allied to Lowe?, and what are roughly are their share holdings?, and could they also be persuaded to side with another person instead of Lowe.? Sorry if I'm the only one who doesn't know the above, but just in case there is someone else out there who is not aware, could some one simply explain the Lowe 'powergroup'.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 I have pretty much come to the same conclusion. It needs interested parties to come forward. Of course if some of the 40 were added to some of the 20% then that might be a sizeable figure. The easy way is Wilde bailing out. Yep but he won't. When Crouch tried to usurp control back in July 2007 who did he try and put in as Chairman, yep Paul Thompson (or is it Thomson) now where does he fit into the puzzle, underwrote the rights issue, sold out to Wilde, kept a few shares and then Crouch tries to resuscitate him for no apparent reason rather than say a figurehead like Mike Richards or even Mary Corbett.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Lowe and his 'friends' hold the control of power in SLH/SFC. One of these I know is Wilde with about 16% of the shares. Who are the other persons allied to Lowe?, and what are roughly are their share holdings?, and could they also be persuaded to side with another person instead of Lowe.? Sorry if I'm the only one who doesn't know the above, but just in case there is someone else out there who is not aware, could some one simply explain the Lowe 'powergroup'. Publicly Askham,Withers,Windsor Clive,Cowan, Inheritors of Tony Dye,perhaps Richards,whoever Tom Scott sold the 550K shares he took off Lowe's Old Man and probably a bit from Singh as well to(nobody probably, probably just buried in an offshore maze) Marland is mixed up in there somewhere, other "business associates" of Lowe and or any of the bunch named above, Lowe's family, their family, family's of all of aforenamed etc etc.Don't forget the rights issue wasn't fully taken up by the "rightees".A lot probably got spirited away into dark dank places where no-one would ever think of looking for them. Singh has cashed in who know where those 4.62% went etc etc.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 Publicly Askham,Withers,Windsor Clive,Cowan, Inheritors of Tony Dye,perhaps Richards,whoever Tom Scott sold the 550K shares he took off Lowe's Old Man and probably a bit from Singh as well to(nobody probably, probably just buried in an offshore maze) Marland is mixed up in there somewhere, other "business associates" of Lowe and or any of the bunch named above, Lowe's family, their family, family's of all of aforenamed etc etc.Don't forget the rights issue wasn't fully taken up by the "rightees".A lot probably got spirited away into dark dank places where no-one would ever think of looking for them. Singh has cashed in who know where those 4.62% went etc etc. In other words, an unholy mess, that allows a
trousers Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 In other words, an unholy mess, that allows a Nail. Head. (p.s. you're starting to sound like me....no offence!)
Wes Tender Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 . The conclusion is obvious, until you buy out Rupert Lowe and his axis of evil (some would call it that) you will never,ever control SLH PLC thus Southampton Football Club. There's only no way of getting rid of Lowe and that needs money, lots of it and then some.Do not forget,if we believe half of what we hear Lowe and Wilde have been offered significant sums for their shareholding in the recent past, so are they going to then,having turned those sums down, let the club slide into administration and lose out that way?? Of course they aren't, but then again they don't want to inject cash either, but if push comes to shove they will, but the less of their own money the better. Players will be sold as a last resort, who and for how much I've no idea. If you mean by that getting rid of Lowe as a shareholder, then maybe. If you meant getting rid of Lowe (and indeed Wilde) from the board, then there is obviously another way of achieving that. The only effective way to achieve that end is to put the gun against his head by staging the mass boycott that would have him gone in a very short time, as if he didn't fall on his sword, administration and total loss of his share value would concentrate his mind wonderfully. It could be done as a form of Russian roulette, one match boycott after another until he goes. I reckon he'd be gone after the second boycott if numbers fell below 10,000. Even if he was stubborn, the bank and loan note holder would tell him to go, to be replaced by a less divisive Chairman and Board. This would be more effective of course if the bank and loan note holder had an idea of who would take over those roles, or they might even have people in mind already in the event of such a happening. Also helpful if they had assurances that the campaigners would return after his departure and that many would also be renewing lapsed STs.
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Posted 23 January, 2009 If you mean by that getting rid of Lowe as a shareholder, then maybe. If you meant getting rid of Lowe (and indeed Wilde) from the board, then there is obviously another way of achieving that. The only effective way to achieve that end is to put the gun against his head by staging the mass boycott that would have him gone in a very short time, as if he didn't fall on his sword, administration and total loss of his share value would concentrate his mind wonderfully. It could be done as a form of Russian roulette, one match boycott after another until he goes. I reckon he'd be gone after the second boycott if numbers fell below 10,000. Even if he was stubborn, the bank and loan note holder would tell him to go, to be replaced by a less divisive Chairman and Board. This would be more effective of course if the bank and loan note holder had an idea of who would take over those roles, or they might even have people in mind already in the event of such a happening. Also helpful if they had assurances that the campaigners would return after his departure and that many would also be renewing lapsed STs. I think the pot is beginning to boil, a demonstration. shares initiatives (de vere, website), calls for a boycott, it would need the non season ticket holders to not go.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 If you mean by that getting rid of Lowe as a shareholder, then maybe. If you meant getting rid of Lowe (and indeed Wilde) from the board, then there is obviously another way of achieving that. The only effective way to achieve that end is to put the gun against his head by staging the mass boycott that would have him gone in a very short time, as if he didn't fall on his sword, administration and total loss of his share value would concentrate his mind wonderfully. It could be done as a form of Russian roulette, one match boycott after another until he goes. I reckon he'd be gone after the second boycott if numbers fell below 10,000. Even if he was stubborn, the bank and loan note holder would tell him to go, to be replaced by a less divisive Chairman and Board. This would be more effective of course if the bank and loan note holder had an idea of who would take over those roles, or they might even have people in mind already in the event of such a happening. Also helpful if they had assurances that the campaigners would return after his departure and that many would also be renewing lapsed STs. You keep right on believing that Wes, it won't work, didn't work before ,won't work now.At best he'll blow the fuse (Jan) which will buy him a bit more time. We'll have worked ourselves into a position where we don't need to sell millions of season tickets, a lot more contracts are up in June, the academy is full of hopefuls. Lowe has just 1 objective this season, survival, he doesn't give a rats arse about the rest.We will survive financially,he will make it so. If we can stay in the CCC there is a whole new gravy train next season. +£3 million in guaranteed extra TV money is worth almost 9000 ST sold to moaning minnies in the stands, he wants that revenue stream,he will take the measures necessary to obtain it,; with or without the fans. Then if you want to see football next season well you'll have to buy a ticket for each match.ST prices will probably be so attractive in March that hardcore fans will fall over themselves to get them. Lowe isn't an amateur, the people organising all these protests probably are.
landford.saint Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 (edited) Thanks Window Cleaner. So if i get this right , and knowing nothing about companies:-.. LOWE 6%, is allied by Wilde 16%, Askham and Withers 4% each and a group of perhaps 4 or 5 others who own no more than 3% each (say 12% the group) total 6 +16 + 4+ 4+ 12 = 42% ish. Crouch is the next biggest with 9.5%. If Wilde were to turn again and Ally with Crouch that would be 26% W/C to 26% Lowe/Friends. If the Corbetts and a few others with a few shares join W/C they might just get 30% enough to make things awkward but not enough to control things. Lowe at 42 ish % could control power. But W/C et al would have problems at 30%. Therefore a person or group with control of say 2,800,000 shares (10 %) could hold the control of power at SLH/SFC. I know i am thinking crazily, but could a group of 50 so small shareholder collectively put that many shares together? Just a mad thought whilst stuck at home with flu and daytime TV. Edited 23 January, 2009 by landford.saint
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Thanks Window Cleaner. So if i get this right , and knowing nothing about companies:-.. LOWE 6%, is allied by Wilde 16%, Askham and Withers 4% each and a group of perhaps 4 or 5 others who own no more than 3% each (say 12% the group) total 6 +16 + 4+ 4+ 12 = 42% ish. Crouch is the next biggest with 9.5%. If Wilde were to turn again and Ally with Crouch that would be 26% W/C to 26% Lowe/Friends. If the Corbetts and a few others with a few shares join W/C they might just get 30% enough to make things awkward but not enough to control things. Lowe at 42 ish % could control power. But W/C et al would have problems at 30%. Therefore a person or group with control of say 2,800,000 shares (10 %) could hold the control of power at SLH/SFC. I know i am thinking crazily, but could a group of 50 so small shareholder collectively put that many shares together? Just a mad thought whilst stuck at home with flu and daytime TV. Crouch wants total control or nothing, he tried to take it once with some scheme or other.Wilde will never ally himself with Crouch again. Crouch has money,or so they say,why has he never tried to buy outright control? because he knows that withoutout Wilde and without Lowe (by that I mean his axis) it is unacheivalbe. The only way SISU could do it was by diluting the unknown holdings by a restricted rights issue, diluting the holdings of everybody else by creating new shares only accessible to themselves. Wilde obviously feared a similar manoeuvre at some time because when the famous 2 million was in question he stipulated that in the event of any rights issue those 2million would be converted into new shares owned by himself.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Venn diagram anyone? Did Digory Venn do diagrams, I thought he sold reddle (red sheep dye)
Snowballs2 Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Venn diagram anyone? Is that like a Dutch Cap ?
landford.saint Posted 23 January, 2009 Posted 23 January, 2009 Is that like a Dutch Cap ? No but JP is 'Dutch Cr@p'
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now