|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 21, 2017 17:20:14 GMT
So the major issue is on top of the negotiations with the FC president about the number of directors the sc has on the board. Blimey...wonder what it can be...the loss of a director is pretty major I would have thought. it's alright we will find out in due course apparently
if it is a major issue, for what reason can't it be disclosed? and if it can't be disclosed why did Jim even mention it with absolutely no detail
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 21, 2017 17:38:53 GMT
So the major issue is on top of the negotiations with the FC president about the number of directors the sc has on the board. Blimey...wonder what it can be...the loss of a director is pretty major I would have thought. it's alright we will find out in due course apparently
if it is a major issue, for what reason can't it be disclosed? and if it can't be disclosed why did Jim even mention it with absolutely no detail
Everyone ITK wants in on the act. Makes them feel more important than us plebs. Also, the best way to help the club, if you are proper Rovers fans, (not just rose tinters with your head in the sand who need to wake up) is to only leak out tiny little snippets of information. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 21, 2017 17:59:47 GMT
So the major issue is on top of the negotiations with the FC president about the number of directors the sc has on the board. Blimey...wonder what it can be...the loss of a director is pretty major I would have thought. it's alright we will find out in due course apparently
if it is a major issue, for what reason can't it be disclosed? and if it can't be disclosed why did Jim even mention it with absolutely no detail
Because he's a pr@t? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 18:25:25 GMT
So the major issue is on top of the negotiations with the FC president about the number of directors the sc has on the board. Blimey...wonder what it can be...the loss of a director is pretty major I would have thought. it's alright we will find out in due course apparently
if it is a major issue, for what reason can't it be disclosed? and if it can't be disclosed why did Jim even mention it with absolutely no detail
So ,really the major issue should not have even been mentioned .As without telling members what it is there was no point in stating there was a hush hush thing.
As therefore they must want people to ponder or guess what this major issue is.
So my GUESS is.....the club want new investors and therefore will issue more shares. Perhaps leaving the Al Qadis with 52%. This would mean the SC agreeing to the issue of more shares which would in turn reduce the SC % down from 8% to something like 4.5% Meaning a new investor could purchase 43.25% of the shares.
With a reduced shareholding it would stand to reason the SC would then only be allowed one director on the board.
How does that sound ?
New money means training ground and stadium can move forward again.......
So it ties up the rumours of....consortiums/overseas investors....one sc director.....major issue at sc.....why projects are on go slow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 21, 2017 18:29:39 GMT
it's alright we will find out in due course apparently
if it is a major issue, for what reason can't it be disclosed? and if it can't be disclosed why did Jim even mention it with absolutely no detail
So ,really the major issue should not have even been mentioned .As without telling members what it is there was no point in stating there was a hush hush thing.
As therefore they must want people to ponder or guess what this major issue is.
So my GUESS is.....the club want new investors and therefore will issue more shares. Perhaps leaving the Al Qadis with 52%. This would mean the SC agreeing to the issue of more shares which would in turn reduce the SC % down from 8% to something like 4.5% Meaning a new investor could purchase 43.25% of the shares.
With a reduced shareholding it would stand to reason the SC would then only be allowed one director on the board.
How does that sound ?
New money means training ground and stadium can move forward again.......
I will guess that the AQs want to buy out the SCs shares and bring the SC in house. |
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Nov 21, 2017 18:39:58 GMT
it's alright we will find out in due course apparently
if it is a major issue, for what reason can't it be disclosed? and if it can't be disclosed why did Jim even mention it with absolutely no detail
So ,really the major issue should not have even been mentioned .As without telling members what it is there was no point in stating there was a hush hush thing.
As therefore they must want people to ponder or guess what this major issue is.
So my GUESS is.....the club want new investors and therefore will issue more shares. Perhaps leaving the Al Qadis with 52%. This would mean the SC agreeing to the issue of more shares which would in turn reduce the SC % down from 8% to something like 4.5% Meaning a new investor could purchase 43.25% of the shares.
With a reduced shareholding it would stand to reason the SC would then only be allowed one director on the board.
How does that sound ?
New money means training ground and stadium can move forward again.......
So it ties up the rumours of....consortiums/overseas investors....one sc director.....major issue at sc.....why projects are on go slow.
A feasible reply |
|
|
|
Post by tommym9 on Nov 21, 2017 19:06:29 GMT
Could the SC work as part of the club? At the moment they cover the programmes and arrange travel, both things the club are capable of doing.
I would like to see the SC be independent of the club and hold the board to account when we aren't getting answers.
I'm not sure if that is what the SC is meant to be doing now or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 21, 2017 19:12:21 GMT
So ,really the major issue should not have even been mentioned .As without telling members what it is there was no point in stating there was a hush hush thing.
As therefore they must want people to ponder or guess what this major issue is.
So my GUESS is.....the club want new investors and therefore will issue more shares. Perhaps leaving the Al Qadis with 52%. This would mean the SC agreeing to the issue of more shares which would in turn reduce the SC % down from 8% to something like 4.5% Meaning a new investor could purchase 43.25% of the shares.
With a reduced shareholding it would stand to reason the SC would then only be allowed one director on the board.
How does that sound ?
New money means training ground and stadium can move forward again.......
I will guess that the AQs want to buy out the SCs shares and bring the SC in house. But then there wouldn't be any need for even one FD on the BoD plus it would cost the ALQ's money, so the other explanation is more plausible although if there was any truth in that wouldn't it have already been mentioned by somebody ITK and the apparent power struggle with EW wouldn't be taking place. Although the major issue could be something like the SC shop is closing etc. |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Nov 21, 2017 21:51:56 GMT
Nah think he discovered the link between the films, titanic and sixth sense  |
|
|
|
Post by dinsdale on Nov 21, 2017 21:54:49 GMT
Could the SC work as part of the club? At the moment they cover the programmes and arrange travel, both things the club are capable of doing. I would like to see the SC be independent of the club and hold the board to account when we aren't getting answers. I'm not sure if that is what the SC is meant to be doing now or what? They should have supported the club not the board |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 22, 2017 11:56:01 GMT
Nah think he discovered the link between the films, titanic and sixth sense They go down on the deceased? Bit vile if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 22, 2017 12:10:16 GMT
Nah think he discovered the link between the films, titanic and sixth sense They go down on the deceased? Bit vile if you ask me. InB4 rotten lady garden joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Nov 22, 2017 18:09:26 GMT
Nah think he discovered the link between the films, titanic and sixth sense Icy dead people? |
|
|
|
Post by wider on Nov 24, 2017 9:28:20 GMT
Are you sure this is even current? The Jim remark about becoming apparent in due course sounds very much like the reference to embezzlement of SC funds that was subject to court proceedings and thus couldn’t be mentioned?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Nov 24, 2017 9:32:40 GMT
Are you sure this is even current? The Jim remark about becoming apparent in due course sounds very much like the reference to embezzlement of SC funds that was subject to court proceedings and thus couldn’t be mentioned? Talking of replacing BSS who left more recently than the thieving incident. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 24, 2017 9:46:56 GMT
Are you sure this is even current? The Jim remark about becoming apparent in due course sounds very much like the reference to embezzlement of SC funds that was subject to court proceedings and thus couldn’t be mentioned? It was dated Nov 19 |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Nov 24, 2017 10:50:46 GMT
Are you sure this is even current? The Jim remark about becoming apparent in due course sounds very much like the reference to embezzlement of SC funds that was subject to court proceedings and thus couldn’t be mentioned? look at the first post on this thread and follow the link |
|
