Livingston - all the threads merged

[qos_75]

I'm not bothered about Livi dying but something thats not been said is the amount of players who basically stole highly inflated wages from these clubs knowing they never had the money to support it.

Same happened at Gr£tna, football mercenaries who went for the quick buck then just walked away when it went tits up. Most are still plying their trade at other clubs today.

Livi will die and the SFA/SFL will still not learn a single thing.

Massone your a cock.

I'm not sure you can really blame the players here. Past or present, the same goes for Gretna. If someone is prepared to pay these wages and you are offered them, you would be a fool not to take them (Of course you could argue those that signed for Gretna were motivated more by money, than ambition, given most of them were estblished SPL players at the time). I would argue though, the Gretna situation was much more of of an oddity. Given a lot of the players were being paid SPL wages (or as near as dammit) in the 3rd Division. Livingston, I think offered wages similar to their peers, depending on the league Livi were in at the time.

Again, I'm not sure what the SFA/SFL could have done to avoid this, perhaps it's me that's missing something here, as this has been mentioned a few times.

In terms of Massone. I would agree with your assessment of him.

[pacman]

Well they had been going along quite nicely since the 40's or 50's, when I believe they were founded. There were two pre-Mileson seasons, where they finished in respectable mid table positions, with a good nucleus of the staff and players from the non-league days, with a few 3rd Division standard players, joining as well, so they were not exactly overstretching at that point. As has been well documented, Super-Ro, was manager, kitman, groundsman, the lot.

Of course McGregor was hoodwinked, as were quite a few more. I remember Brian Fulton, he used to be a referee in the Dumfries and District Amatuer League, and as nice a man you could not hope to meet (Despite him booking me more than once!) I think he was on the board for a while, he might even have been Chairman and I can tell you, he we no flash Harry and had no delusions of grandeur, he just loved his football.

Sadly it was people like Brian and indeed McGregor that were ultimately seduced by Mileson's phoney millions and for that I'm sure they have a lot of regret. However, I can't see anything other than a well run club before Mileson and as Pacman suggests later on, they would probably still be here now if he hadn't came along. That is the sad part about it, however, these are the choices that sometimes present themselves, and as I say, who is to say the guardians of our club would not have made the same decision, had he flashed them his wad.

Founded in 1946.

Fulton was the chairman for a time, yes. IIRC he was McGregor's predecessor.

[Skyline Drifter]

I would imagine it's by means of a shareholders' agreement.

As for the rather precise 26%, aren't there certain benefits to owning 75% or more of a company?

EDIT: yes - a company can be delisted from the stock exchange (not relevant, of course) and, more crucially, the investor can transfer their debt - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4540939.stm

That's because Manchester United are a plc. Dundee FC aren't.

Yes, 26% gives the power to veto Special Resolutions being passed so there are benefits. It's not a general veto though. Special Resolutions are things like changing the name of the company (club), changing the articles or memorandum of association, increasing the authorised share capital, authorising a share issue, that kind of thing. It certainly does not in normal circumstances allow a general veto of normal running decisions. It doesn't allow the veto of director appointments, it would prevent the board taking the club into debt if they want to, it wouldn't prevent the sale of the actual ground and relocation of the club per se. Etc, etc, etc.

Now that's not to say the Dundee board wouldn't consult the Trust before any such decision (I am aware a Trust member sits on the board) of course. But there's certainly no automatic right that they have to do so.

There may well be a private agreement of some sort in place requiring them to do so specifically in Dundee's case. This is why I asked? I'd be curious as to the vehicle that could make it work though. If there is such an arrangement are there any links to details?

[vikingTON]

This is surely a wind up, yeah? How can you blame the players? At the end of the day, they were made an offer and they took it. If you have a mortgage, bills to pay etc and a company wants to pay you a silly wage, you're going to take it, aren't you? Would you worry about the state of the company making the offer? I don't think so.

The players have got bills, families to feed and all the other expenses that life has, like everyone else.

Chris Innes spent all of last summer hawking himself between at least three First division clubs (while out of contract, and thus earning no money for his family) in order to squeeze every last penny for his merenary wares.

It seems Dundee and Morton had a lucky escape, as he brings financial implosion on the wind to mismanaged clubs...

Sympathy? None at all.

Edited July 28, 2009 by vikingTON

[Skyline Drifter]

If Mileson had persuaded the Queens shareholders to elect him to the Board - who's to say that he couldn't have persuaded the existing shareholders to also sell him their shares and have got a majority 51% in time? Of course it is speculation, but the threat would have been there and he might have been able to seduce say the Harkness family that he had the best interests of the club at heart.

I meant 25% of shares. A 25% shareholder can block special resolutions but not ordinary resolutions.

A 25% shareholder can block nothing at all.

A 25.1% shareholder can block special resolutions but not ordinary resolutions.

I have no doubt if he wanted to Mileson could easily have got himself on the Queens board. I doubt generally that he'd have persuaded that many shareholders to sell their shares as very few bought them for investment purposes but yes, theoretically he could have done so. He wouldn't have done so quickly and easily though which was rather the point. He could of course have gotten us into the same mess without actually owning the club. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Just that I don't think that was ever his interest. He wanted to start at the bottom and build the thing himself.

[pacman]

Where I go that idea from then is a complete mystery. :-) Thanks for clearing up.

I have heard that story banded about though. I think to be honest it was probably Super Ro himself that started it making himself look an even bigger hero for bringing in Mileson and "saving" the club.

[Skyline Drifter]

I'd like to hope that if Calum Melville wanted to for example groundshare with Dundeed United or move to a new stadium or (extreme example) merge the two Dundee clubs - he'd need to bring a special resolution to the shareholders and the Dee4life vote could block this. I'm not sure this is the case though.

It certainly wouldn't require a special resolution to move playing location or sell the existing stadium. Those are running issues. It probably wouldn't even directly require an ordinary resolution. It wouldn't require any direct shareholder approval at all.

It would of course require a special resolution to merge with another company though.

[qos_75]

All good stuff - but the combination of Mileson and Alexander proved a dangerous cocktail - their ego's seemed to egg each other on. I'd argue that a well-run club might mean one that would never have allowed this scenario to happen in the first place.

I would agree with the ego thing KFTS, however, I think they (Gretna) got in too deep, before they even knew where they were. I realise this backs up your argument, although I can't see how you would disagree that they were well run up until Mileson came on to the scene. Obviously decisions were made after his arrival that were seriously flawed and would have consequences they probably could never have imagined.

Edited July 28, 2009 by qos_75

[TheDoctor]

Chris Innes spent all of last summer hawking himself between at least three First division clubs (while out of contract, and thus earning no money for his family) in order to squeeze every last penny for his merenary wares.

It seems Dundee and Morton had a lucky escape, as he brings financial implosion on the wind to mismanaged clubs...

Sympathy? None at all.

So the fault's not at the feet of Angelo Massone, it's Chris Innes' fault

That must be really strong shit you're smoking

[Yoss]

Yes, that's unfortunately a fair point. On reflection, that's probably right.

Regardless, I maintain that through devloping our youngsters in recent years, we have benefitted Scottish Football in the long run.

This was a couple of pages ago but I'd like to acknowledge it. Fair play.

[KingfaetheSooth]

It certainly wouldn't require a special resolution to move playing location or sell the existing stadium. Those are running issues. It probably wouldn't even directly require an ordinary resolution. It wouldn't require any direct shareholder approval at all.

It would of course require a special resolution to merge with another company though.

Thanks for the clarification. Well, there lies the problem. What's to stop Melville agreeing to a share a stadium with Dundee United - based on the edge of the city and paid for by enabling development or as a community asset - while both clubs sell-off the existing sites and the money is trousered? Fantasy? Maybe, but we've seen similar property deals done or attempted many times with football clubs. Of course, Melville may only be interested in Dundee FC and their progress - but with him being into property development, I have my doubts.

A large percentage of the fans of both Dundee clubs would be up in arms - but you have just clarified that there is nothing that the Dee4life, Arab trust or wider Dundee/Dundee United fans could do about it.

I don't envy the Dundee fans living their dream with their new Aberdonian owner and I wouldn't trust his motives one little bit. Time will tell.....

But they're debt-free don't you know!

[Guest Flash]

It certainly wouldn't require a special resolution to move playing location or sell the existing stadium. Those are running issues. It probably wouldn't even directly require an ordinary resolution. It wouldn't require any direct shareholder approval at all.

It would of course require a special resolution to merge with another company though.

Do the Articles not dictate the type of decisions which require to be voted on? Would it not be prudent for the Articles of a football club to prevent the directors from having sole power over whether or not the club relocated?

And even if the Articles didn't cater for such things, if it was decided by directors against the wishes of the majority of shareholders, the shareholders could vote them out. So, although an ordinary resolution isn't required for the matters you have listed, it effectively is required because directors operating against the wishes of the majority of shareholders will ultimately be sacked.

[Skyline Drifter]

Thanks for the clarification. Well, there lies the problem. What's to stop Melville agreeing to a share a stadium with Dundee United - based on the edge of the city and paid for by enabling development or as a community asset - while both clubs sell-off the existing sites and the money is trousered? Fantasy? Maybe, but we've seen similar property deals done or attempted many times with football clubs. Of course, Melville may only be interested in Dundee FC and their progress - but with him being into property development, I have my doubts.

A large percentage of the fans of both Dundee clubs would be up in arms - but you have just clarified that there is nothing that the Dee4life, Arab trust or wider Dundee/Dundee United fans could do about it.

I did no such thing. I've said that generally in law that would be the case.

What I do not know is whether the Dundee Trust do indeed actually have some sort of veto power by agreement on certain issues or whether this suggestion is simply a misunderstanding of what a 26% shareholding means by some of their fans. I'd have thought the latter is more likely but that is why I've asked the question more than once. I suspect the lack of any responses other than conjecture and "I think" type answers probably means they don't though.

[abner doubleday]

Regarding possible promotions of Airdrie United and Cowdenbeath:

Have to agree with Skyline Drifter:

-the SFL cannot have their top league running with only four games per week.

-compensation paid to SFL3 would be a lot less.

And cannot see the bookies being chuffed at having one VOID on their coupons every week (SFL3 hardly features at the best of times - neither does half of SFL2 for that matter)

[Skyline Drifter]

Do the Articles not dictate the type of decisions which require to be voted on? Would it not be prudent for the Articles of a football club to prevent the directors from having sole power over whether or not the club relocated?

And even if the Articles didn't cater for such things, if it was decided by directors against the wishes of the majority of shareholders, the shareholders could vote them out. So, although an ordinary resolution isn't required for the matters you have listed, it effectively is required because directors operating against the wishes of the majority of shareholders will ultimately be sacked.

I don't see how corporate articles could reasonably dictate the site at which business takes place. I've never heard of them doing so. Ours certainly don't.

Directors of course could be voted out if they couldn't gather 50% support for their actions. Hence the use of the word "direct" in the previous post. But by then the deed is done. If the board of directors lawfully sell a stadium to a developer and sign a contract to build a new one elsewhere or share one with someone else, voting the particular directors out six months down the line (or even calling an EGM for a motion of no-confidence) isn't going to change what's done provided they didn't act "ultra vires" in the first place.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Skyline Drifter

[KingfaetheSooth]

I would agree with the ego thing KFTS, however, I think they (Gretna) got in too deep, before they even knew where they were. I realise this backs up your argument, although I can't see how you would disagree that they were well run up until Mileson came on to the scene. Obviously decisions were made after his arrival that were seriously flawed and would have consequences they probably could never have imagined.

The problem with Gretna was always sustainability IMHO. There is no way on earth that a village the size of Gretna could sustain SPL football. I think they realised that - and tried to throw away promotion - Davie Irons and the players had other ideas though! The rot had set in during that season and I think that Alexander's tantrum at their home game where we gubbed them was the tipping point. (as an aside, I'd love to see footage of that game but don't think it was ever released by Gretna ) Other things like their eco-stadium, really was pie in the sky - the whole thing was in free-fall long before that. I do think that Alexander has an ego the size of Jupiter - but he was never properly managed by Mileson. The documentary thing on the BBC with the Rev Graham Muir appearing fairly clueless showed the whole thing up as the farce it had become.

Of course, we'll probably never really know the ins and outs now Mileson senior has left this mortal coil... there is a book and maybe even a film in there somewhere that needs writing.

[The Master]

And cannot see the bookies being chuffed at having one VOID on their coupons every week (SFL3 hardly features at the best of times - neither does half of SFL2 for that matter)

You mean the Pools, surely?

At both Ladbrokes and Hills, the "quickslip" features all 8 divisions across Scotland and England (plus any cup games).

[KingfaetheSooth]

I did no such thing. I've said that generally in law that would be the case.

What I do not know is whether the Dundee Trust do indeed actually have some sort of veto power by agreement on certain issues or whether this suggestion is simply a misunderstanding of what a 26% shareholding means by some of their fans. I'd have thought the latter is more likely but that is why I've asked the question more than once. I suspect the lack of any responses other than conjecture and "I think" type answers probably means they don't though.

Well ultimately, the case in law is all that really matters surely.

I seriously doubt that the Dee4Life trust has any sort of veto over a ground-share with United or moving to new stadium or indeed any other major issue. I also think that any suggestion they have is a misunderstanding by some of the fans who post here possibly based on some platitudes put across by Melville to the fans that mean very little in reality.

The implications are for the Dee4life trust, their members and the wider Dundee FC fans to wrestle with.

[Numbers]

Quote

On the morning of that game I was getting texts, telling me to put as much money as I could afford on a Queens win. Remember we were pretty long odds on for this away game, however, the talk of the town before it was that we would definitely win this match.

Unquote

That could be interpreted as the match was fixed. I think you may wish to end this particular part of the thread.

[qos_75]

I think you may wish to end this particular part of the thread.

On reflection I think you're right. I have removed the post.