archram Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Although the board were probably annoyed about the Newcastle situation, I would have thought they would more likely be considering our collapse at the end of the season with Mac apparently unable to stop it or, at least, turn it around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I once wrote that,because of all the flak the LOG took, I'd be surprised if any of them would get involved in the club again (and I added that it would surely put off any other local investors in the future) MM must have very thick skin and/or a very great love of our club to get involved again.He's put a significant amount of dosh into our club,to enable us to move forward,and what does he get in return? Villification and personal abuse from some quarters,based on tenuous suppositions.I wouldn't say he's been vilified or personally abused on here, just a couple of posters saying they dislike him.Personally I know little about the man, I just trust he makes good decisions based on facts which us supporters are unaware of.Your earlier post with the 2 scenarios was a very good read, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 The only thing we know for certain is that,as at 30/11/14, there were only 3 ordinary shareholders of Global Derby (UK) Ltd; North American Partners LLC (a company,not the individual investors),with over 90%,and 2 minority shareholders in MM and SR. Now since that date MM may or may not have been allowed/encouraged to up his stake from minor to major (a level open to interpretation) ,but he could have done this regardless of being offered the chairmanship.Now let's examine the possibility of a majority stake.If NAP allowed this (and they'd have to),they'd be putting themselves in a position wherein they'd retain a stake,but would be outvoted on any contentious issue.Do you find this scenario likely? Out of curiosity Ramblur do you have a "ballpark" figure of what it would cost for MM to go from say 5% to 50.1%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Out of curiosity Ramblur do you have a "ballpark" figure of what it would cost for MM to go from say 5% to 50.1%?If you mean doing it by buying out part of the existing holdings of NAP (as at 30/11/14),and assuming a price of £5.32/share that he appears to have paid for his existing holding,then to increase his holding to marginally over 50% he'd need to buy out 5,194,813 shares at a total cost of £27,636,405.If you mean doing it by buying additional shares,whilst I'm not in the mood for algebra,a quick glance tells me it'd cost him more than double the figure given above.As I've said before,I see this as a highly unlikely scenario,as the other 49.99% holders would be outvoted on any contentious issue -not very sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 If you mean doing it by buying out part of the existing holdings of NAP (as at 30/11/14),and assuming a price of £5.32/share that he appears to have paid for his existing holding,then to increase his holding to marginally over 50% he'd need to buy out 5,194,813 shares at a total cost of £27,636,405.If you mean doing it by buying additional shares,whilst I'm not in the mood for algebra,a quick glance tells me it'd cost him more than double the figure given above.As I've said before,I see this as a highly unlikely scenario,as the other 49.99% holders would be outvoted on any contentious issue -not very sensible.Thanks. So even up to 60M is within his wealth? I agree with you that it s unlikely, but if he is the chairman now, he must have some decision making abilities to not just be NAP's puppet and I can't think someone of his wealth would want that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I wouldn't say he's been vilified or personally abused on here, just a couple of posters saying they dislike him.Personally I know little about the man, I just trust he makes good decisions based on facts which us supporters are unaware of.Your earlier post with the 2 scenarios was a very good read, btw.Thanks for that -you've reminded me that my spelling has gone to pot,which is a bit of a worry ! I can't believe that I actually wrote 'payed' in a recent post.I just gave 2 scenarios as an illustration,as there were more possibilities.Whatever stance MM and SR may have held,they might already have had support for their views from other investors.This then could fork 2 ways :- not enough support to take them all over 50%,so persuasion of others needed, or enough support and game,set and match.There are other possibilities though.For instance,in recent times SM may have refused to commit fully to us unless he got the transfer budget he needed. I don't know,you don't know,we don't know (reminds me of French lessons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Thanks. So even up to 60M is within his wealth? I agree with you that it s unlikely, but if he is the chairman now, he must have some decision making abilities to not just be NAP's puppet and I can't think someone of his wealth would want that role.I equally can't think that other investors, with considerably more wealth, would want to adopt a subservient position in terms of voting power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I equally can't think that other investors, with considerably more wealth, would want to adopt a subserviant position in terms of voting power.I don't disagree, I am just trying to figure out, in the absence of being the major shareholder, how he has become chairman (if that rumour is true) and what that entails in terms of who makes the big decisions. Perhaps NAP wanted someone local and he was happy to take on that role? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Thanks for that -you've reminded me that my spelling has gone to pot,which is a bit of a worry ! I can't believe that I actually wrote 'payed' in a recent post.I just gave 2 scenarios as an illustration,as there were more possibilities.Whatever stance MM and SR may have held,they might already have had support for their views from other investors.This then could fork 2 ways :- not enough support to take them all over 50%,so persuasion of others needed, or enough support and game,set and match.There are other possibilities though.For instance,in recent times SM may have refused to commit fully to us unless he got the transfer budget he needed. I don't know,you don't know,we don't know (reminds me of French lessons).Now you've got me paranoid, I've read and reread my post and can't see a spelling mistake, at least you could see your mistake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I don't disagree, I am just trying to figure out, in the absence of being the major shareholder, how he has become chairman (if that rumour is true) and what that entails in terms of who makes the big decisions. Perhaps NAP wanted someone local and he was happy to take on that role?I think your last sentence is probably right. If NAP wanted him to take on the role,and if MM were willing to take it on,then that's what would happen. The big decisions would be made by all of them,or by majority vote in the event of a split (and we know what that would mean).If the chairman had the casting vote in the event of a tie -well,quite simply,this situation couldn't arise.A lot of these posts fascinate me,because I could never work out why most fans seemed to think Gadsby was responsible for anything that went wrong in the LOG reign,when he held one sixth of the shares,in common with the other 5.Therefore,in the event of a split,he'd have needed the support of at least 2 others to win the day (before the arrival of AP). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Now you've got me paranoid, I've read and reread my post and can't see a spelling mistake, at least you could see your mistake! Sorry,I meant that seeing your version of 'vilified' alerted me to my own mistake ! I'm having great trouble with double and single l's now,which I never used to have.I'm also forgetting people's names -folks that I meet regularly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloughandtaylor Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 So you single out one board member. As it was morris who held the the crisis talks ,it was morris who got Mac in on Thursday evening for that meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I've found this for you dabber -hope it helps,but bear in mind it's angled towards both public and private companies :-https://www.iod.com/MainWebSite/Resources/Document/roleofthechairman_1006.pdfYou could carry out these duties irrespective of size of personal shareholding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 As it was morris who held the the crisis talks ,it was morris who got Mac in on Thursday evening for that meeting.Perhaps you'd have liked others to jet over to hold a meeting the men already on the ground were capable of conducting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahjames08 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 What are the board up to, Mel knows nothing about football and SM has done a very good job. Another manager is not what we need but stability and to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 What are the board up to, Mel knows nothing about football and SM has done a very good job. Another manager is not what we need but stability and to build. a very good job? Coming 8th when expected to come 1st... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 a very good job? Coming 8th when expected to come 1st...Your Forest-sized false sense of entitlement is showing…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Your Forest-sized false sense of entitlement is showing….what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDeadlySaul Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 what?Before Mac came we were finishing mid table and playing dire football. When he comes in we end up finishing 3rd with practically the same squad and narrowly missing out on promotion.The next season we end up finishing 8th what was disappointing, but we were only expected to win promotion because of Mac. He was a victim of his own success. If his seasons were the other way round he would still be in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Disagree, we have had plenty more funds to spend this season, loaning the likes of mascarell, ibe, bent, lingaard and ince where other clubs couldn't afford to (Bolton said this about ibe) which is also a reason why expectation are higher. The board agree with me anyway since he is going and i think we may be tipped for promotion again without the mac.i'm not knocking the fact he did well in his first season but he's always been a one hit wonder hasn't he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.