Would it depend how many shares they release though?

If the club are 1 million in debt, and they release 2 million shares worh £1 each. The current board share 1 million and they sell off the other million.

The club will be debt free and owned 50/50 between fans and the existing board. Would that not work? £1 per share for a 2 millionth of a business that will be out of debt and is in a prime position for a franchise sounds ok to me.

you'd have more chance of sticking you quid on the number 7 in todays flying pig race at beverley

Yup i know, sounds ok to me though.

Didnt realise beverley was on today, damn traffic getting back into hull! Wish i was driving a flying pig!

DaveT,

Lets put this in simple terms so everyone can figure it out.

I buy 10 shares in a company for £100, that company also owes me £30 in loan form.

I sell 5 shares at £6, which generates £30 in income.
My loan is paid off, the club now has £0 debt.

I now own 5 shares, that cost me £50, but are now worth £30, so I have lost £20, and 50% of my shareholding, just to clear a debt.

How, in any way, shape, or form, is that attracive to me as a shareholder?

Despite all our arguments I do have some respect for you because you see to have a "business brain". But when you say whats wrong with Plummer I begin to have my doubts!

Let me put it in Simple terms too, the current board of directors dont buy the million pound of shares, they are given them. The million pound investment is used to pay off the directors loans. All 2 millions shares are still owned and are worth £1 each with a solvent club valued at £2 million pound. If a director wants to sell their shares they make £1 per share. Lets keep the directors loans seperate as they are now paid off.

Selling your own shares does not relate to recalling a directors loan.

How does that not work?

surely if they are their own shares whats to stop em selling em?...must admit i havent read the full thread so its just logical to me if you own shares in whatever...and you wanna sell em you can...its just a case of who you sell em to?

If you sell your shares to pay the loan then of course it's related. And who was "given" shares?

But seriously, what examples do you have of his failings, PROVEN examples that is, likewise Kath?

The only one I have a propblem with is Mr Rule, and thats more to do with the Brian Johnson issue than anything.

You arent selling your shares.

If im a director i may be given a percentage of the 1million kept for directors.

The other 1 million that are sold have just been created and are owned by the club not the existing shareholders.

The club sell the extra 1million shares which pay the directors their loans back. Everyones happy? The shareholders have a smaller percentage in the club i suppose but financially i dont see how they are worse off.

I didnt say they couldnt sell them. I just said their shares are seperate to their directors loans been paid off.

Because, by increasing the number of shares, you devalue the ones already in existence.

If a company is "worth" £10 and has 10 shares, each is "worth" £1, you then 'create" 10 new shares and sell them for £1 each, and pay off loans using the income, the company is still "worth" £10, but now has 20 shareholders.

Yeah i understand that, but without 1 million pound of debt the company is effective worth more (double), so the shares would remain their value wouldnt they?

It's not as simple as that, remember FC have no assets either. (Well, Hutchie seems to think we own the School on Gordon Street, but lord alone knows when we bought it if so)

Isnt the asset a profitable SL franchise woth a lot of money? Tangible assets would be contracted players would they? (not great i know)

Contracted players, we don't have many!

SL Franchise, we haven't got one yet.

Also, as a businessman, I would not want to sell shares to customers, it makes no sense.

Dont all companies? I own shares in lots of business that i have become interested in as a customer. Cant you be both?

Large corporations that float a small stake, you are talking about floating £1m worth, probably a good %ge of the club. And people want the shares because they want to have a say, buying shares in business is purely money driven.

you can't really compare a commercial floatation of a consumer corporation to selling a shareholding to fans.

in my mind the float would be 50% or 49% of the club. This would allow the fans to be involved but the board can still pull rank on decisions.

Agree with your last point though to some extent.

Being dispassionate for a moment, do you really think having fans as shareholders would add value at all, and what would that value be?

Debt gone, money into the club. Fans get chance to have a real voice and make decisions.

From a directors point of view you get your loan back (substantial)

Makes it a more attractive business to sell your share.

Negative point would be that a lot of uneducated stupid people would also get a chance to vote for what they want to happen with the club. Hopefully we would have more sensible people to out vote these!

Decisions such as?

Who to vote as chairperson probably the main one.

Would depend what decisions need to go to shareholders. The general day to day running of the club wouldnt be down to the shareholders but they could vote you or I to the role of CEO!

You suggested earlier that 49% of the shareholding be sold, in which case the existing shareholders would veto everything and still do as they please.

Thats what I am getting at, unless 51% was sold to the fans then it would not change anything.

As one SL coach said in the past "If you listen to the people in the stands, you'll soon be stood with them"

Unless a percentage of the exisiting board sided with the fans.

However, my reasoning for contributing to this topic was motivated by the fans having a say, it was more the fans having some ownership and helping us financially.