Offers for the club - would this ever filter down to members?

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

I would hope that the Trust would not be wound up and that it would continue and maybe repurchase a shareholding at a later date. However, realistically I can only see the membership decreasing in those circumstances.

I wonder if part of the reason no investors come sniffing round is is because of the stability brought about since Trust ownership. From the outside looking in you're going to assume you have no chance of being able to purchase us, Shirley?

Almost certainly one significant factor.

 

[Egg]

I may be completely mistaken about this but back along, when Tis was manager and various people who'd been high up at Ted Baker came on board at the club, I did wonder whether Tis's mate Ray Kelvin might have been oiling the wheels for some kind of takeover bid.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

I may be completely mistaken about this but back along, when Tis was manager and various people who'd been high up at Ted Baker came on board at the club, I did wonder whether Tis's mate Ray Kelvin might have been oiling the wheels for some kind of takeover bid.

Might have been "hugs all round" then !

 

[SaintJames]

If the suspense account has been cleaned up, surely any non traceable holdings would have reverted to the Club itself not the Trust ?

I don't know but hoping someone can clear it up as I thought I had read that they had reverted to the Trust and increased the shareholding as a result

 

[Martin Lawrence]

I don't know but hoping someone can clear it up as I thought I had read that they had reverted to the Trust and increased the shareholding as a result

The shares don't revert to the Trust. The intention would be that the shares are effectively cancelled. This then raising the % of the Trust shareholding as a result. Whilst work was undertaken to clean up the suspense account, there is a length of time that needs to pass before the shares can be cancelled. I am not sure if that time period has elapsed or not yet. In any case, it is largely incidental as we would only be talking about a small % gain in any case.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

The shares don't revert to the Trust. The intention would be that the shares are effectively cancelled. This then raising the % of the Trust shareholding as a result. Whilst work was undertaken to clean up the suspense account, there is a length of time that needs to pass before the shares can be cancelled. I am not sure if that time period has elapsed or not yet. In any case, it is largely incidental as we would only be talking about a small % gain in any case.

Shirley those shares simply become unallocated ? The authorised total share numbers remain the same, as does the Trust holding.
The only Trust percentage that increases is that of the proportion of the allocated shares ?

 

[STURTZ]

Army surplus and the odd Iron Cross down Fore St?

Actually I was thinking of an old wooden shack over the roundabout from Paris Street on the right on the way to the old swimming baths, Heavitree Road? Endicott sold all kinds of crap in there and had one of the biggest noses this side of Bristol Zoo.

 

[CWH-NYC_]

Actually I was thinking of an old wooden shack over the roundabout from Paris Street on the right on the way to the old swimming baths, Heavitree Road? Endicott sold all kinds of crap in there and had one of the biggest noses this side of Bristol Zoo.

Oh yeah, now I remember that, bought a few items from that spot or at least mother did.

 

[Egg]

Shirley those shares simply become unallocated ? The authorised total share numbers remain the same, as does the Trust holding.
The only Trust percentage that increases is that of the proportion of the allocated shares ?

Imagine a scenario where non-traceable holdings were in the majority... would this not run the risk of there being no majority shareholder able to affect control? If this is the case then Marty L's suggestion that, ultimately, any non-traceable shares are to all intents and purposes cancelled would seem to make more sense.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

Imagine a scenario where non-traceable holdings were in the majority... would this not run the risk of there being no majority shareholder able to affect control? If this is the case then Marty L's suggestion that, ultimately, any non-traceable shares are to all intents and purposes cancelled would seem to make more sense.

I think we are getting caught up in a terminology debate here. Whilst we both have some knoaca ewledge of the issue from our time on the Trust Board, I for one do not consider myself an expert in these matters. Where is Dr Dave when we need him ? Iirc the Club has an authorised share capital of 80k £1 shares. This is not fully subscribed, so there are x number of shares available for sale. If the relatively small number shares with untraceable ownership are cancelled or whatever, then presumably the Club would be entitled to reissue them to another buyer up to the 80k limit ?