RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 9 minutes ago, Van_damage said: Not for too much longer though as if the FSS continue to invest more then their shareholding will soon drop below 20%. As will the Patrons... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 1 minute ago, RC_Bairn said: As will the Patrons... Of course it will, unless off course the patrons group grows as well. Either way it’s a positive thing having these two fan led organisations eventually having a majority shareholding in the club between them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 1 minute ago, RC_Bairn said: As will the Patrons... Yeh everyone’s shareholding will dilute but think the patrons have more shares than the Rawlins so be longer before they drop below 20%. Also the Patrons seats are not reliant on shares held. Similar to the FSS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 9 minutes ago, strichener said: How much %age shareholding does each respective party hold? That is the true indication of power/influence, not board seats. Again that is not correct as in reality unless you have 50% of the shares or even 75% of the shares to push some things through you can’t do anything with the fundamentals of the club. That is the whole point of the three legged stool. The Patrons appointed two people to the Board, you saw them in action last night. FSS has been given 2 Board seats immediately (without the required shareholding) to match that. Hardly an organisation determined to “run” the club on their own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 5 minutes ago, Van_damage said: Yeh everyone’s shareholding will dilute but think the patrons have more shares than the Rawlins so be longer before they drop below 20%. Also the Patrons seats are not reliant on shares held. Similar to the FSS. No they don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: No they don't. Your wrong here. The patrons do now hold a larger shareholding the the Rawlins. Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 1 minute ago, LatapyBairn. said: The patrons do now hold a larger shareholding the the Rawlins. Why let the facts get in the way. Patrons Group 1,004,659 shares 25.1% Stellar Blue Ltd 851,250 shares 21.3% 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 4 minutes ago, LatapyBairn. said: Your wrong here. The patrons do now hold a larger shareholding the the Rawlins. Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group. In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group. In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group. The point was shares owned. Didn’t mention shares purchased however all shares were purchased at some point in time by those members so no less significant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group. In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group. Many of the patrons also had excising shares pre the recent share issue of which they transferred to the group, there was no “loan” of shares, don’t see why that would be an issue anyway. Why would when the shares were bought make any difference to the percentage overall shareholding which is what we were discussing. Edited October 4, 2022 by LatapyBairn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 Just now, RC_Bairn said: Only if you include the existing shareholders who 'loaned' their shares to the Patrons Group. In terms of shares purchased, the Rawlins purchased far more than the Patrons Group. Loaned? So the previous purchase of share don’t mean anything or shouldn’t be counted? I and others haven’t loaned any shares to anyone they are in my name whether I bought them last December or years ago (incidentally paid a lot more then too). We are part of a group that believes in this model and the people helping to run it on behalf of the supporters as a whole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said: Loaned? So the previous purchase of share don’t mean anything or shouldn’t be counted? I and others haven’t loaned any shares to anyone they are in my name whether I bought them last December or years ago (incidentally paid a lot more then too). We are part of a group that believes in this model and the people helping to run it on behalf of the supporters as a whole. You've made my point for me. You are part of a group of people who have pooled their shares together. You can withdraw your shares from that pot at any time (although there is a notice period). That is the definition of a loan. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brockvillenomore Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: You've made my point for me. You are part of a group of people who have pooled their shares together. You can withdraw your shares from that pot at any time (although there is a notice period). That is the definition of a loan. This Edited October 4, 2022 by Brockvillenomore 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: You've made my point for me. You are part of a group of people who have pooled their shares together. You can withdraw your shares from that pot at any time (although there is a notice period). That is the definition of a loan. Sorry but your point was the patrons group having less shares than the Rawlins. Who those shares belong to doesn’t matter. The group itself currently has more shares than the Rawlins. That’s what you refuted. For what it’s worth too, the Rawlins don’t have any shares in their own name. They’re held by a holding company which has 3 directors, 2 of which are the Rawlins and the other is Gary Mellor. Edited October 4, 2022 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 6 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: You've made my point for me. You are part of a group of people who have pooled their shares together. You can withdraw your shares from that pot at any time (although there is a notice period). That is the definition of a loan. What @Brockvillenomoresaid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 1 minute ago, Back Post Misses said: What @Brockvillenomoresaid. Conveniently ignoring the underlying point. The PG is a group of individuals who have pooled their shareholdings and those shares can be taken back by those individuals at any point. The harsh reality is that the PG does not 'own' any shares. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatapyBairn. Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: Conveniently ignoring the underlying point. The PG is a group of individuals who have pooled their shareholdings and those shares can be taken back by those individuals at any point. The harsh reality is that the PG does not 'own' any shares. There is a 12 month notice period to resign from the group, so no, patrons cannot just “take back” they’re shares at any point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC_Bairn Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 Just now, LatapyBairn. said: There is a 12 month notice period to resign from the group, so no, patrons cannot just “take back” they’re shares at any point. As I already mentioned a few posts ago... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 5 minutes ago, RC_Bairn said: Conveniently ignoring the underlying point. The PG is a group of individuals who have pooled their shareholdings and those shares can be taken back by those individuals at any point. The harsh reality is that the PG does not 'own' any shares. So you are not a fan then? What’s your vision for the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted October 4, 2022 Share Posted October 4, 2022 8 minutes ago, Back Post Misses said: So you are not a fan then? What’s your vision for the club? He’s just another one with an agenda against the current regime. We really do have some of the worst “fans” in the country. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.