If the Trust own 20% of the club, can it ditch PASB

[Greenblooded1]

What is the point of having non voting shares?

It's a scam, a gesture to pacify the simple, whilst raising money to soften the financial burden of others. IMHO.

Just thought I'd step in here...

In no way is the club's offer a "scam", that would be harsh to say the least almost bordering on slander in fact. What the club is offering is a 20% share in the club without the voting rights of normal share holders; this has always been the case as far as I know. The club hasn't dressed this up as a 20% say in Argyle’s decision making process; a scam would imply a lie on the club's part whereby the Trust is to be told it's buying voting shares when in fact they are buying non-voting shares. This isn't the case; the Trust knows exactly what has been offered and exactly what they will receive should they accept the offer.

Maybe the trust does now know they are buying non-voting shares, but it's not the trust that's coming up with the money is it, it's the fans?
Perhaps I missed the part in the original announcement that the shares would be non voting, I apologise if so, if not I would suggest the goalposts are moving.

I'm also now wondering why you are being defensive, what have you to lose, surely after the experiences of the past we should be questioning everything?

 

[Ollieargyle9]

What is the point of having non voting shares?

It's a scam, a gesture to pacify the simple, whilst raising money to soften the financial burden of others. IMHO.

Just thought I'd step in here...

In no way is the club's offer a "scam", that would be harsh to say the least almost bordering on slander in fact. What the club is offering is a 20% share in the club without the voting rights of normal share holders; this has always been the case as far as I know. The club hasn't dressed this up as a 20% say in Argyle’s decision making process; a scam would imply a lie on the club's part whereby the Trust is to be told it's buying voting shares when in fact they are buying non-voting shares. This isn't the case; the Trust knows exactly what has been offered and exactly what they will receive should they accept the offer.

Maybe the trust does now know they are buying non-voting shares, but it's not the trust that's coming up with the money is it, it's the fans?
Perhaps I missed the part in the original announcement that the shares would be non voting, I apologise if so, if not I would suggest the goalposts are moving.

I'm also now wondering why you are being defensive, what have you to lose, surely after the experiences of the past we should be questioning everything?

Sorry GB1 I didn't mean to come across as defensive, I just seem to remember it being mentioned before that the shares on offer were non-voting shares and so I thought I'd join in the discussion to confirm that things hadn't been changed by either side to my knowledge.

Just to confirm I have nothing to lose or gain, just like you I simply want what's best for Argyle and for us as fans. My only intention was to ensure we did not go down to route of turning questioning into libel or slander which I'm sure wasn't your intention but words like "scam" do seem to ruffle a few people's feathers...

Again, sorry if I came across as a bit off with you

 

[Tim Chown]

Hi,

These are largely good points and observations. And exactly the right questions to ask.

The offer is very genuine. James has put the terms forward and has been kind enough to allow us a number of meetings to explore the options, and to allow the Trust time to get the required advice from many sources.

As Gareth says, the members will ultimately decide. We're just ordering the pre-paid envelopes for the consultation this week, so that will happen very soon now.

If you want to read more about the issues raised to date, by various advisors as well as our own members, please read our earlier discussion document (PDF) and the Supporters Direct Football Licensing Proposal (PDF) which our text refers to.

We have updated that discussion document, and a more concise version will be sent out with the voting papers, which will essentially ask members to indicate whether they support

a) Purchasing shares (loan notes) in the club, which may vary from 5% for £100,000 (minimum) up to 20% for £400,000 (maximum).
b) Negotiating a golden/supporter share agreement with the club
c) Working with the club to identify and pursue a Community Share Scheme for a project to benefit the club and community.

The stake in the club is not sufficient in itself to have 'power', as others have observed above. But there is a large emotional attraction.

The golden/supporter share approach is being used by a handful of other clubs, and in its 'basic' form would give supporters a say over significant changes to the club. The challenge is that the club directors at the same time need to be able to act freely in the interests of the club.

The Community Share Scheme would be similar to the scheme used by FC United to raise £1.6M for their facilities. It has the great advantage that those putting money in have that money ring-fenced, and may recover it under certain conditions later. It may also have tax concessions applied. But use of such a scheme is, by all the advice we have received, not appropriate for a minority share purchase.

More will be released on this topic in the next week or so.

Tim

 

[ejh]

Why is Brent adamant the Trust doesn't get a vote? If a director were to front capital for 20% of the shares, they would get a vote. So if the trust were to raise and invest in £500k's worth of shares, I think that ought to entitle it to have a voting representative in on board meetings! It is dubious why the trust is being treated differently; and I don't see why the Trust should or would go ahead with this proposal.

Someone perhaps with a business background needs to explain Brent's thinking to me. From a distance, along with the actions of others, it seems like many at Home Park are trying to take to the trust with an axe.

 

[Mark Pedlar]

I think the club feel that the Trust is just one body that represents supporters hence the PASB. Whether the Trust should be the focus for supporters rather than other bodies is a moot point. If it were then perhaps it would gain more support from the wider fan body, have more (and better IMO) candidates for their elections and act less like the Parish Council from Dibley!

Why it isn't really needs to be addressed to messers Brent, Webb and the remaining members of the board - after all they're the only ones who can explain why they feel the need for PASB when the Trust, properly constituted, could fulfil the role.

It would be nice to have some proper engagement and leadership from the club on these matters rather than let poor old Tim try and explain things on their behalf.

Posted in a personal capacity - before PASOTI is accused of trying to kill the Trust, the PASB, the club, Kennedy .....

 

[Greenblooded1]

What is the point of having non voting shares?

It's a scam, a gesture to pacify the simple, whilst raising money to soften the financial burden of others. IMHO.

Just thought I'd step in here...

In no way is the club's offer a "scam", that would be harsh to say the least almost bordering on slander in fact. What the club is offering is a 20% share in the club without the voting rights of normal share holders; this has always been the case as far as I know. The club hasn't dressed this up as a 20% say in Argyle’s decision making process; a scam would imply a lie on the club's part whereby the Trust is to be told it's buying voting shares when in fact they are buying non-voting shares. This isn't the case; the Trust knows exactly what has been offered and exactly what they will receive should they accept the offer.

Maybe the trust does now know they are buying non-voting shares, but it's not the trust that's coming up with the money is it, it's the fans?
Perhaps I missed the part in the original announcement that the shares would be non voting, I apologise if so, if not I would suggest the goalposts are moving.

I'm also now wondering why you are being defensive, what have you to lose, surely after the experiences of the past we should be questioning everything?

Sorry GB1 I didn't mean to come across as defensive, I just seem to remember it being mentioned before that the shares on offer were non-voting shares and so I thought I'd join in the discussion to confirm that things hadn't been changed by either side to my knowledge.

Just to confirm I have nothing to lose or gain, just like you I simply want what's best for Argyle and for us as fans. My only intention was to ensure we did not go down to route of turning questioning into libel or slander which I'm sure wasn't your intention but words like "scam" do seem to ruffle a few people's feathers...

Again, sorry if I came across as a bit off with you

I apologise too. I am trying to "ruffle a few feathers" as I believe now is the time for us fans to remain strong & negotiate a position of strength, rather than "cosy up" & be palmed off with things like a useless non voting share option:

The stake in the club is not sufficient in itself to have 'power', as others have observed above. But there is a large emotional attraction.

Gimme a break!! Emotional attraction is why we buy mugs & shirts, not invest serious money into the club for others to benefit.

Our experience from the well run "previous trust" (thanks JV etc) shows what can be achieved & how easily it can be abused & wasted by our clubs owners, firstly using our money to hide their problem (cashflow) then to squander it in a "regulatory" PC sport scheme. Where is that fans money now I wonder, as it should be used to help fund this scheme....

We, the fans, now have a chance to establish a position "within the club" to help secure our clubs future by way of influence & information. If we look back at the recent shinanaguns (M7), if the people involved couldn't hide the truth of the clubs plight, we wouldn't have got into such a mess.

I strongly believe the trust & its shareholding should be used as a tool to hold the clubs owners to account, not as a nicety for friendly dialogue. It's a fact of human life that power corrupts, we all need "corrective mechanisms" to keep us on the straight & narrow, the clubs owners need to be held to account for their decisions & actions, constantly questioned & never trusted. That doesn't mean to say it should be a hostile, unco-operative or unsupportive relationship, but one of mutual respect.

We now as fans of PAFC have the chance of a lifetime, how much money will really be raised towards an "emotional attraction" compared to a significant stake with voting rights in our club? I know it won't be easy, with many disputes, both within the fans (who will represent us) and between trust & club, but make no mistake, in the real world shareholders in small businesses don't always see eye to eye either & disputes are all part of getting to the correct decisions.

PAFC now has a real chance of becoming something special, a new grandstand, stable finances, a receptive, progressive & smart owner and with a big & widespread fanbase. The club could be put on such a good footing for future generations, or can slip back into bouncing between tier 2 & 3, once the money has been made on the redevelopments.

I suggest we grab the chance while we can.

 

[Mark Pedlar]

I think the club feel that the Trust is just one body that represents supporters hence the PASB. Whether the Trust should be the focus for supporters rather than other bodies is a moot point. If it were then perhaps it would gain more support from the wider fan body, have more (and better IMO) candidates for their elections and act less like the Parish Council from Dibley!

Why it isn't really needs to be addressed to messers Brent, Webb and the remaining members of the board - after all they're the only ones who can explain why they feel the need for PASB when the Trust, properly constituted, could fulfil the role.

It would be nice to have some proper engagement and leadership from the club on these matters rather than let poor old Tim try and explain things on their behalf.

Posted in a personal capacity - before PASOTI is accused of trying to kill the Trust, the PASB, the club, Kennedy .....

You only have to look at how the Trust has been treated to see why people might be reluctant to put themselves forward.

Deep Throat has a lot to answer for. It has fundamentally undermined the positions of those at the top of the club, those who run Pasoti and the democratic process at the heart of the Trust.

Bit rich that the person who could be accurately described as "king of the multis" is calling for exposure of people who had multis!!

There is only one person who hasn't admitted their participation in the 'deep throat' posts. They know who they are - they could have, and still could, do the decent thing and admit it as others have done. The fact that they haven't is not to their credit.