NickG Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Think someone broke this down before but think its getting relevant again. Does anyone know how many shares are owned/influenced by the various camps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Think someone broke this down before but think its getting relevant again. Does anyone know how many shares are owned/influenced by the various camps? I have 100 and I am in the "get rid of all 3 " camp. Our camp is a nice row of pretty pink tents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 January, 2009 will wait and see how many the others have but guessing you don't have quite enough for a hostile takeover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Who are the significant shareholders? Think someone broke this down before but think its getting relevant again. Does anyone know how many shares are owned/influenced by the various camps? I believe there is a public list of 'major' shareholder but I think the most significant list would be the '2nd tier' shareholders....i.e. those with not quite enough to be counted in with the big boys but hold enough shares to make a difference in collaboration with others. In other words, those with, say, a 6 figure shareholding (as opposed to the 7 or 8 figures held by the top table) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Significant Shareholders Shareholders who hold more than 3% Amount % Holding Michael Gordon Wilde 4,622,470 16.46 Leon Adrian Crouch 2,794,230 9.95 Rupert James Lowe 1,577,969 5.62 Guy Askham 1,120,000 3.99 R M Withers 1,000,000 3.56 Cheviot Asset Management 934,100 3.33 Michael Richards 873,000 3.11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 January, 2009 so about 54% of shares are held by holders with less than 3% stake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 so about 54% of shares are held by holders with less than 3% stake Yep about that and you need 30% to start a hostile take over so if you could aranage for all the small groups of Share Holders to either come together or sell their shares then your onto a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 January, 2009 sounds easy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 sounds easy! Theoretically yes the value in share capital is about £6-7M so if all the fans with shares either donated their shares or sold them for the market value to a (newly setup company for instance) then once 30% was hit we would then be able to make an offer for the full allocation of shares. Which as more and more come into the company the more Lowe and co will need to actually be forced to give up their shares at the allotted price which would be no more than 30p at the highest level. If this was to happen what I would suggest is that the new company would be run by nominated people with influence and completly new to the board room at SMS. People like Saltz / fulthorpe and such like. (this could then be used to start afresh bring a new chairman into sms and then sweep out the cobwebs and get the club back) As I say in therory it is easy but it just needs people to start the balls rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Forgive me for seeking clarification, as I am sure it has been answered elsewhere, but how did Mr Lowe get 95% of the shareholders votes at the AGM. Presume it was only votes cast that counted. So lots of small shareholders who were too lazy to vote (like me I am afraid to say) would not be counted. Interesting to know who are the Capital Management people. Presume any commercial organisation with any sense would not risk shareholders funds in a Championship football club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Forgive me for seeking clarification, as I am sure it has been answered elsewhere, but how did Mr Lowe get 95% of the shareholders votes at the AGM. Presume it was only votes cast that counted. So lots of small shareholders who were too lazy to vote (like me I am afraid to say) would not be counted. Interesting to know who are the Capital Management people. Presume any commercial organisation with any sense would not risk shareholders funds in a Championship football club Basically it was 95% of the shareholders in the room. All other share holders had left before the vote so it was lowe and his mates and then any other postal or other votes. (basically all the other major share holders that would of voted left before they had a achance to as there would not of been much point) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 I've just seen some figures, about 80% of the shares are held by about 40 shareholders but many of these are held by nominee accounts. It is difficult to pick out who owns what. The remainder are held by many (possibly thousands) small shareholders. It would need Wilde to turn or all the minor shareholders plus Crouch, Corbetts, etc to combine with enough of the non Lowe axis to bring a change. The sheer complexity of the shareholdings is the biggest problem. Most are just uncontactable in the normal way, it would only be if enough wanted change and came forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 I've just seen some figures, about 80% of the shares are held by about 40 shareholders but many of these are held by nominee accounts. It is difficult to pick out who owns what. The remainder are held by many (possibly thousands) small shareholders. It would need Wilde to turn or all the minor shareholders plus Crouch, Corbetts, etc to combine with enough of the non Lowe axis to bring a change. The sheer complexity of the shareholdings is the biggest problem. Most are just uncontactable in the normal way, it would only be if enough wanted change and came forward. So 'someone' needs to 'leak' the names/contact details of the '2nd tier' shareholders for this 'non-Lowe camp' share collaboration initiative to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Basically it was 95% of the shareholders in the room. All other share holders had left before the vote so it was lowe and his mates and then any other postal or other votes. (basically all the other major share holders that would of voted left before they had a achance to as there would not of been much point) The very fact that happened still leaves me livid. They are against him yet chose not to officially log it. Utterly f**king rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 It would need Wilde to turn or all the minor shareholders plus Crouch, Corbetts, etc to combine with enough of the non Lowe axis to bring a change. The sheer complexity of the shareholdings is the biggest problem. Most are just uncontactable in the normal way, it would only be if enough wanted change and came forward. Is this not what I told you ? except the uncontactable are uncontactable for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 The very fact that happened still leaves me livid. They are against him yet chose not to officially log it. . Because they KNOW that it makes no f*cking difference. They know the workings and mechanics of the PLC. Did someone not say after seeing the books and all the kerphumph that there are unfathomable mechanisms in place. LLS perhaps or St David, idiots yes, but knowledgeable idiots all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Is this not what I told you ? except the uncontactable are uncontactable for a reason. The figures and the detail available led me to the same conclusion. Prior to being given the detail, I was working from memory and just the knowledge of the major shareholders. I didn't realise until now the complexity of the shareholdings. It looks pretty impossible to takeover unless a really good offer is made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Because they KNOW that it makes no f*cking difference. They know the workings and mechanics of the PLC. Did someone not say after seeing the books and all the kerphumph that there are unfathomable mechanisms in place. LLS perhaps or St David, idiots yes, but knowledgeable idiots all the same. So RL has stitched it all up and made it bomb proof eh? I'm so very, very sad about what's happening to this club. The original founders must be turning in their graves. Started off as a christian association and it has fallen prey to Mammon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 So RL has stitched it all up and made it bomb proof eh? I'm so very, very sad about what's happening to this club. The original founders must be turning in their graves. Started off as a christian association and it has fallen prey to Mammon I think in total there are over 4000 shareholders accounting for 80% Many anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 The very fact that happened still leaves me livid. They are against him yet chose not to officially log it. Utterly f**king rediculous. I suspect it would have given Lowe more pleasure to have 'won' by a much smaller margin with those present voting that it did to win by a landslide due to the large number of abstaintees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 So RL has stitched it all up and made it bomb proof eh? I'm so very, very sad about what's happening to this club. The original founders must be turning in their graves. Started off as a christian association and it has fallen prey to Mammon When blokes like Lowe take over something it doesn't get untaken over for buttons and peanuts, which is about all we've ever learnt from the whole Crouch+Wilde charade.They thought they could ride into town with a couple of beer bottle caps in their saddlebags (albeit 4 million or so) sweet talk a few people in the saloon and run the show. Didn't work Never works on Al Swearengen in Deadwood either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 As stated above if it was possible to create a company which was basically run to purchase the club and run as custodians of the club enableing either a possible "proper" takeover or to enable furture investment into the clube from donations and at the same time removing the diversive share nature and de-listing the compnay. (almost like a charity organisation if you will as SFC the charity) If it was possible to get all supporters with shares to give / sell at a nominal fee to this company (at the same time this will bring the share price down and at the same time bringing the market value down and therfore theoretically makes the club cheaper to purchase RL & MW loosing more money in the process). From there on you tarhet the larger share holders to either sell at a nominal fee or donate them to the new company (possible with an insentive to be part of the new company). So basically what I am saying if people want to get rid of RL for good we need to setup a company. Get all the fans with shares to give them up or sell them really low and then we can start a hostile take over to remove RL and Co once and for all with no chance of ever getting back in. So first question anyone know anyone who may have the insanity required to start such a movement. And do it properly. We all know we need investment but we need to get rid of RL and co before we can do that. So I know it will not bring new money into the club (however it seems that the banks are ok with us at the moment_ but it could well be the start of getting the club on the right track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 So basically what I am saying if people want to get rid of RL for good we need to setup a company. Get all the fans with shares to give them up or sell them really low and then we can start a hostile take over to remove RL and Co once and for all with no chance of ever getting back in. /QUOTE] Oh jeez, how many more times do I have to explain this. The people who own the vast majority of the shares aren't fans, not like you or I, they're investors. They're not going to give the shares to any hack fans collective. People with big money to buy big blocks of shares don't give them away. They're not skint so they'll pucker up and ride out the storm.A lot of "fans' jumped on the bandwaggon when Paul Allen was in focus (even though he wasn't) they sold their birthright for a handful of 60ps (or whatever) Big hitters concentrated their holding under all sorts of whingles and wangles hoping for the big payday in the not too distant future. A lot of them still have those shares and they're not going to give them to the PFJ or whatever for nothing.We needed desperately to curb our wage bill, that's being done.We needed to get rid of a lot of disruptive influences who'd outlived their usefulness ,that's being done as well.But don't dream on anyone removing Lowe with halfbaked schemes in the near future, it just won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 January, 2009 agree. Its Wilde or no change IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 its going to be VERY hard for anyone to get control without Wilde's shares. He will have to be bought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 its going to be VERY hard for anyone to get control without Wilde's shares. He will have to be bought out. And not at 12p a share either. If someone wants them they'll have to pay 40p (I bet he's already on a promise from Lowe, well not Lowe, someone else who knows Lowe's brother's, sister in law's housemaid's daughter's stableboy's father -in law) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewell Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Wasn't there some Asian investor who bought a 10% stake when rumours of a takeover were happening a few years back? I seem to recall he bought them at the 50-60 pence mark although I may be wrong. Did he later sell or does he still own them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Wasn't there some Asian investor who bought a 10% stake when rumours of a takeover were happening a few years back? I seem to recall he bought them at the 50-60 pence mark although I may be wrong. Did he later sell or does he still own them? I think he sold some of his investment if not all to another company but I can't find the news story on that anymore as the lse website won't go that far back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 Wasn't there some Asian investor who bought a 10% stake when rumours of a takeover were happening a few years back? I seem to recall he bought them at the 50-60 pence mark although I may be wrong. Did he later sell or does he still own them? Sarwan Singh, about 5% at the height of his activity. A former Southampton resident he's now a farmer in the Punjab. A pure investment, has sold most of his holding but not all. Shifted quite a bit out during PAmania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handyman Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 If 30,000 fans bought 200 shares each = 6,000,000. shares. Would that make a difference? or am I being totally niave. I know nothing of these things. Not my field at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 January, 2009 Share Posted 23 January, 2009 If 30,000 fans bought 200 shares each = 6,000,000. shares. Would that make a difference? or am I being totally niave. I know nothing of these things. Not my field at all. Who from ??? If there were 6 million traceable shares currently for sale, Crouch would have bought them, so would Fulthorpe or whoever. 6 million shares is a 20% or so holding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now