Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

It's also interesting that they will achieve the required 75% majority mandate to sell if 51% of the shareholders vote in favour. Like everything that goes on down there, it's bent as fook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also interesting that they will achieve the required 75% majority mandate to sell if 51% of the shareholders vote in favour. Like everything that goes on down there, it's bent as fook.

 

No, that's not right.

 

75% of the shareholder votes are needed to approve the sale but the trust votes with one voice based on the simple majority voting of its members (who are not shareholders themselves). The trust owns just under half the shares so if the trust votes "no" it can block the deal. If trust votes yes then the trust shareholding plus about half the "Presidential" shareholding will reach the 75% mark and approve the deal.

 

That seems quite sensible and there's nothing bent about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems almost inevitable that they will sell, will be interesting to see the divide in the fan base particularly if the mickey mouse club doesn't work out and the club needs to be rescued again. If I was a pompey fan I'd be voting against this chap doesn't seem to have the financial muscle and commitment necessary to bail them out of the mess they are in so will almost certainly leave them high and dry in a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not right.

 

75% of the shareholder votes are needed to approve the sale but the trust votes with one voice based on the simple majority voting of its members (who are not shareholders themselves). The trust owns just under half the shares so if the trust votes "no" it can block the deal. If trust votes yes then the trust shareholding plus about half the "Presidential" shareholding will reach the 75% mark and approve the deal.

 

That seems quite sensible and there's nothing bent about that.

Really? So 51% of the trust members and 51% of the real shareholders will meet the required majority. I think we're agreed on that.

 

Why pretend it's 75% and that it's some kind of safeguard against new dodgy owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micah is for it:

 

https://micahhall.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/reality-cheques

 

And he says why.

Perhaps I missed it in my hasty skim read through, but I can't see where they are aiming to repay all the creditors that sacrificed 96 pence in the pound just to keep the cesspit of a football club alive in some shape or form. Surely the honourable thing for a "wealthy investor" such as Eisner to do would be to offer to reimburse those that lost money? A bit like what Liebherr ensured happened when he bought Saints. Or maybe they should just sweep that under the carpet in their efforts to patch up their dump of a ground. Priorities, priorities...

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some idiot has just used the F word and asked how the prospective buyers would react to the word 'scum' !

Obsessed about a move to an SO postcode seems to be the biggest bugbear !

In the end all a bit sad, but rapturous applause and pretty well gauranteed that they will go for it IMO !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did any questions from a 'Trevor Oast' get asked?

 

I sent in some questions like - Are they planning to move to Sholing? Will Balram Chainrai be coming back?

 

However, it sounds like the locals provided plenty of stupid questions anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not listened to any of it. Seems a bit of a mixed response on social media. More positive than negative but certainly more negative than I expected.

 

Apparently the locals have been embarrassing in the questioning

 

TBF, some asked searching questions so it was not a total one way love-in !

Eisner did not give way on any of his previous demands and held his ground !

Was a bit 'honk making' at the beginning though when McInnes said how wonderful the bestest were, then Eisner said how wonderful he was before saying how wonderful the bestest were too !

I got the definite impression that 'negative' questions were not well received by the majority in the hall but I guess I could be wrong on that one as I wasn't actually there !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micah is for it:

 

https://micahhall.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/reality-cheques

 

And he says why.

he suggests Disney will be contractually obliged to come up with the £10m. Interesting that he seems to totally disregard the possibility that none of the current presidents might be interested in investing more, and thus increase their own share. Perhaps that is the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he explain why he won't permit the PST to retain a share or have any representation on the board?

 

At length, he said that for what he needed to spend over time, it was only reasonable that he and his family had total control !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone ask him why his tenure at Disney ended in acrimony?

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2002/08/the_louse_in_the_mouse_house.html

 

The company that he has run since 1984 is sputtering on all cylinders

 

Disney has performed worse than all but three of the Dow stocks

 

Eisner has been living off his early hits for an awful long time. In the past eight years, few bosses have matched Eisner's threefer of massive compensation, poor stock performance, and rotten management. He has committed pretty much every sin in the CEO's Book of Transgressions.

 

Eisner, a control freak, has been unable to share the corporate toys

 

Eisner bought a valuable asset and let its value erode.

 

Disney stumbled in its core business. And it has stumbled in new businesses.

 

Eisner's Disney has also been an exemplar of poor corporate governance

 

popcornparty.gif

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he suggests Disney will be contractually obliged to come up with the £10m. Interesting that he seems to totally disregard the possibility that none of the current presidents might be interested in investing more, and thus increase their own share. Perhaps that is the case.

 

Can someone explain. Why Disney are involved in any way shape or form? I thought Eisner's only connection is that he used to work there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much did the club presidents pay for their share of the club? It seems they are going to get back £6m if I read it correctly.

 

They will get 51.2% of the £5.76m, assuming the deal goes through. That's what they put in, assuming they go for the £1000 a share offer and not the £1 now, up to £2000 later option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain. Why Disney are involved in any way shape or form? I thought Eisner's only connection is that he used to work there?

They are not involved, just use it because I forget the spelling of eisners name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...