|
|
Post by atheringtongull on Oct 15, 2008 16:46:03 GMT
Forgive me if I'm being a bit thick here, but can someone tell me who actually owns Torquay United these days. If my memory is correct Roberts had 39% of the shares, which Bateson took back when Roberts defaulted on his payments. The present Board took these over, but who owns the other 61%?
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Oct 15, 2008 17:40:49 GMT
The consortium own 51% that Is all they need to run and control the club, Saddler the man who used his pension fund to enable Roberts to get his deal of the ground, owns I believe 47% I could be slightly wrong on that figure. The odd shares are owned by others, I'm sure Jon could explain better.
Saddler's shares are just worthless to him and I do not think the board would ever consider buying them, as they simply do not need them to run the affairs Of the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by crispygull on Oct 15, 2008 17:44:15 GMT
As you correctly state Dave, 51% is owned by the consortium - which is all they need to run the club. I believe Mick Sadler owns 34% (value effectively nothing!) and the remaining 15% is owned by various fans of the football club - including the likes of Mervyn Benney, Dan McCauley and Ian Hayman if memory serves me right - the rest just regular fans.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Oct 15, 2008 17:45:28 GMT
Thanks crispy thats what happens when you get older, brain cells do not do the maths so well ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by atheringtongull on Oct 15, 2008 18:03:51 GMT
Thanks for that. I thought there was a 30 something in there somewhere! Still it's only a 1% majority. Don't worry Dave, when you get to my age using slow brain cells as an excuse can be very useful. (That's if you can remember to use it as an excuse!)
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Oct 15, 2008 18:17:20 GMT
Yes It may be only 1% as you say, but they could never lose control. The 51% Is owned on block by the consortium and no one person has any shares Of the 51%. This means (If I know what I'm talking about) that no one could join up with Sadler and add their shares with his to get control.
Not sure how It works If one was to leave the consortium, but I would expect It would be just a cash pay up and no shares would be part Of any leaving settlement.
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,869
|
Post by Jon on Oct 17, 2008 16:10:11 GMT
Crispy has got it spot on with the shareholdings (the only point I'd question is whether Desperate Dan is a fan). One other point is that several of the Board, including both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, have their own small shareholdings - though none as big as Ian Hayman’s. That is a clear sign to anyone that the consortium’s involvement is a continuation of and a stepping-up of a very long-term commitment to and passion for TUFC – not some whim or passing fad.
Dave is right about the 51% effectively being a block vote. The consortium did not pick up bits of the 51% individually. They bought shares in a new company called “Plainmoor Ltd” and Plainmoor Ltd bought the 51% holding in TUFC Ltd. As a result the majority view in Plainmoor Ltd will then command the full 51% vote in TUFC Ltd. If the Board were split 60/40, the whole 51% would go with the 60 and not be split in two.
It is worth remembering that that the sizes of shareholdings in Plainmoor Ltd are almost certainly not equal, so a majority of people would not necessarily equate to a majority of shares. Having said that, I fully suspect that the man with a disproportionately high shareholding happens to be the one least likely to want to have a disproportionately big say in the running of the club.
|
|
jamie
TFF member
Posts: 354
|
Post by jamie on Oct 20, 2008 21:27:05 GMT
Thanks Jon, good post, well explained and appreciated by the likes of me.
|
|
