Benwell Lad Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If this campaign gathers momentum, would NUST view any subsequent offer to buy the club from Ashley as a rival bid ? In the future would they be sympathetic to a serious bid from serious investors or do they now see themselves as the only way forward ? This is what happened at Notts County, isn't it? The trust took a vote and flogged the club to a Middle East lot. Was it sold at a profit, if so any idea what happened to the surplus/profit - did the trust/shareholders trouser it ? That would make it a more attractive proposition for anyone thinking investing pension money etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Anyway. Would they accept that? Surely, if that were the case the likes of Moat (or whoever) could stump up £50m and wangle it through 'individuals' and buy control of the club? Is what I'm thinking, he could easily do this to get control and just pay the "individuals" a bit to make them vote his way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'd imagine that it would work around buying shares in the club, and having a vote on who you'd want to appoint as chairman, or "president" to use the continental method. If there's a chance to attend meetings as a shareholder, I'd imagine it would only be to hear the pitch of potential chairmen. Unfortunately I think voting on everyday issues are just pipe dreams at the minute. As I've said before I think it's fortunately rather than unfortunately that we can't vote on everyday issues I meant unfortunately in regards to some who might think there's more than just an annual vote involved with being an investor. Theres always the sorry scenario that those wealthy enough to invest aren't too clued up on football and where the best interests of a club lie. Sound familiar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 It sounds like there would be two categories of investor the £1500 ones who would get a vote, and the large investors from big city institutions who I would assume would be effectively lending the money at a rate of interest. As others have pointed out, the second type of investor wouldnt be prepared to invest a large amount of money if they were going to be outvoted by two people whod invested £1500 each. They would need to be getting something else for their money, in the form of interest payments. In which case, wed be at a Glazer-type model where the owners of the club (ie the fans) are borrowing money at interest in order to finance the purchase and / or investment in the playing staff. In which case who would be liable for any debt? And would any major lender take the risk on what looks like a very amateur set-up? The model that they seem to be wanting to avoid is the PLC, presumably because smaller investors would not get much of a say in decision-making, and theyre trying to hook people in on a democratic model. This is all aside from the equally important issue of whether any of the people at NUST have any kind of senior experience in big business or financial management. It feels to me like theyre way out of their depth. Loaning money in what way ? Because it's pensionable you mean ? I don't think the smaller £1500 investors will be lending money. The model seems to be that they would be the owners, and either pay themselves some kind of dividend or not, depending on the democratic vote. The lenders would be the larger financial institutions. I've classified them in a different way because I can't see that they would want to own an institution and therefore be liable for its debts if they could be easily outvoted by smaller investors. That's the whole reason why PLCs work the way they do - the more you invest, the more say you have. The NUST blurb is very vague in this area. Obviously, the larger the amount that they can obtain from fans chipping in £1500, the less dependent they are on outside investment. But they really would have to raise a lot from fans to attract any serious outside investment, as far as I can see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If this campaign gathers momentum, would NUST view any subsequent offer to buy the club from Ashley as a rival bid ? In the future would they be sympathetic to a serious bid from serious investors or do they now see themselves as the only way forward ? This is what happened at Notts County, isn't it? The trust took a vote and flogged the club to a Middle East lot. Was it sold at a profit, if so any idea what happened to the surplus/profit - did the trust/shareholders trouser it ? That would make it a more attractive proposition for anyone thinking investing pension money etc. Not sure on the details, but I imagine this model is what NUST are looking at. However, the trust at Notts only owned 60% of the club, I believe, and I wonder if this is not the route that NUST would go down, with Moat (or whoever) stumping up the rest of the dough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 It sounds like there would be two categories of investor – the £1500 ones who would get a vote, and the large investors from big city institutions who I would assume would be effectively lending the money at a rate of interest. As others have pointed out, the second type of investor wouldn’t be prepared to invest a large amount of money if they were going to be outvoted by two people who’d invested £1500 each. They would need to be getting something else for their money, in the form of interest payments. In which case, we’d be at a Glazer-type model where the owners of the club (ie the fans) are borrowing money at interest in order to finance the purchase and / or investment in the playing staff. In which case who would be liable for any debt? And would any major lender take the risk on what looks like a very amateur set-up? The model that they seem to be wanting to avoid is the PLC, presumably because smaller investors would not get much of a say in decision-making, and they’re trying to hook people in on a democratic model. This is all aside from the equally important issue of whether any of the people at NUST have any kind of senior experience in big business or financial management. It feels to me like they’re way out of their depth. That kind of confuses me too. I must be missing something ?? They want investors of £1500 minimum, but any size of investment equals only one vote, so why would I invest more that £1500 unless I'm going to see a return on my investment as I would in a PLC. This should not be confused with the model in Germany/Spain where you are a club member for a small (possibly €10 annual subscription) and much like a working men's club you get to vote for a committee and on certain issues. This seems more akin to what happened a few years ago when a flotation took place and we all bought shares in the belief we'd live happily ever after, except this time it won't be floated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 It sounds like there would be two categories of investor the £1500 ones who would get a vote, and the large investors from big city institutions who I would assume would be effectively lending the money at a rate of interest. As others have pointed out, the second type of investor wouldnt be prepared to invest a large amount of money if they were going to be outvoted by two people whod invested £1500 each. They would need to be getting something else for their money, in the form of interest payments. In which case, wed be at a Glazer-type model where the owners of the club (ie the fans) are borrowing money at interest in order to finance the purchase and / or investment in the playing staff. In which case who would be liable for any debt? And would any major lender take the risk on what looks like a very amateur set-up? The model that they seem to be wanting to avoid is the PLC, presumably because smaller investors would not get much of a say in decision-making, and theyre trying to hook people in on a democratic model. This is all aside from the equally important issue of whether any of the people at NUST have any kind of senior experience in big business or financial management. It feels to me like theyre way out of their depth. Loaning money in what way ? Because it's pensionable you mean ? I don't think the smaller £1500 investors will be lending money. The model seems to be that they would be the owners, and either pay themselves some kind of dividend or not, depending on the democratic vote. The lenders would be the larger financial institutions. I've classified them in a different way because I can't see that they would want to own an institution and therefore be liable for its debts if they could be easily outvoted by smaller investors. That's the whole reason why PLCs work the way they do - the more you invest, the more say you have. The NUST blurb is very vague in this area. Obviously, the larger the amount that they can obtain from fans chipping in £1500, the less dependent they are on outside investment. But they really would have to raise a lot from fans to attract any serious outside investment, as far as I can see. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 It sounds like there would be two categories of investor the £1500 ones who would get a vote, and the large investors from big city institutions who I would assume would be effectively lending the money at a rate of interest. As others have pointed out, the second type of investor wouldnt be prepared to invest a large amount of money if they were going to be outvoted by two people whod invested £1500 each. They would need to be getting something else for their money, in the form of interest payments. In which case, wed be at a Glazer-type model where the owners of the club (ie the fans) are borrowing money at interest in order to finance the purchase and / or investment in the playing staff. In which case who would be liable for any debt? And would any major lender take the risk on what looks like a very amateur set-up? The model that they seem to be wanting to avoid is the PLC, presumably because smaller investors would not get much of a say in decision-making, and theyre trying to hook people in on a democratic model. This is all aside from the equally important issue of whether any of the people at NUST have any kind of senior experience in big business or financial management. It feels to me like theyre way out of their depth. That kind of confuses me too. I must be missing something ?? They want investors of £1500 minimum, but any size of investment equals only one vote, so why would I invest more that £1500 unless I'm going to see a return on my investment as I would in a PLC. This should not be confused with the model in Germany/Spain where you are a club member for a small (possibly 10 annual subscription) and much like a working men's club you get to vote for a committee and on certain issues. This seems more akin to what happened a few years ago when a flotation took place and we all bought shares in the belief we'd live happily ever after, except this time it won't be floated. I don't think you're missing anything. I think this problem is the reason they're so vague about the structure. It seems like they're trying to have it every which way - empowering the small investor whilst still attracting the large investor. Unfortunately he who pays the piper etc etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shellshock Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 The whole buy out is based on the concept of one share certificate = one vote, regardless of the amount you invest (the minimum investment for a shre certificate is £2500. The larger investors will get a better return, ie: 2% of £25000 is greater than 2% of £2500. The one share certificate = one vote is paramount so that no one person / individual can take over at some point in the future. A properly elected NUST board will look after the trust issues, and a 'president' will be elected by the people who have invested in the buy out, a professional board would be appointed (commercial director, finace director, legal director, SIP investment director, along with 6 democraticaly elected NUST members) to run the club and be responsible for all operational and football matters. This will be communicated as the campaign progresses, it would be too much to produce everything today in one go. All that is asked at the moment is that investors place 10% of their pledged investment into an escrow account, set up and managed independtly from the NUST by a local credible legal firm. If the buy out does not go ahead, then the deposit would be returned less admin fes, there has to be admin fees, up to now everybody has basically worked pro bono (for nowt!!), but we are now asking financial institutions and businesses to become involed in large money moving tansacations etc, so there will be fees, thats normal in business. Please keep asking the questions, and please keep reading up on whats happening with the campaign, and hopefully you will be persuaded to invest and help move the club forward, or if you cant invest due to financial reasons then at least back us in what we are trying to do. Cheers guys and girls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What 'return' are you referring to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 £2,500? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 £2,500? Yes, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 The whole buy out is based on the concept of one share certificate = one vote, regardless of the amount you invest (the minimum investment for a shre certificate is £2500. The larger investors will get a better return, ie: 2% of £25000 is greater than 2% of £2500. The one share certificate = one vote is paramount so that no one person / individual can take over at some point in the future. A properly elected NUST board will look after the trust issues, and a 'president' will be elected by the people who have invested in the buy out, a professional board would be appointed (commercial director, finace director, legal director, SIP investment director, along with 6 democraticaly elected NUST members) to run the club and be responsible for all operational and football matters. This will be communicated as the campaign progresses, it would be too much to produce everything today in one go. All that is asked at the moment is that investors place 10% of their pledged investment into an escrow account, set up and managed independtly from the NUST by a local credible legal firm. If the buy out does not go ahead, then the deposit would be returned less admin fes, there has to be admin fees, up to now everybody has basically worked pro bono (for nowt!!), but we are now asking financial institutions and businesses to become involed in large money moving tansacations etc, so there will be fees, thats normal in business. Please keep asking the questions, and please keep reading up on whats happening with the campaign, and hopefully you will be persuaded to invest and help move the club forward, or if you cant invest due to financial reasons then at least back us in what we are trying to do. Cheers guys and girls. It's £1,500 now, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm not sure why the fans on the board should only be allowed to be selected from NUSC members. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Right, so if i go and raid my pension fund for this, how much do i need to put in to help/invest in the clubs future? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Yet you are happy for none elected wankers to run a group of nations called the EU. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Assuming Mike Ashley is dead last fan ownership is a step up, surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Assuming Mike Ashley is dead last fan ownership is a step up, surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Assuming Mike Ashley is dead last fan ownership is a step up, surely? Even if its doing badly at least its accountable to the fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Assuming Mike Ashley is dead last fan ownership is a step up, surely? I would wager that even at this point having Mike Ashley is better than NUST running the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Assuming Mike Ashley is dead last fan ownership is a step up, surely? I would wager that even at this point having Mike Ashley is better than NUST running the club. Fuck off Anyone but Mike Ashley, fans included, could do a better job of running this club. For one we wouldn't have been relegated last season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm not sure why the fans on the board should only be allowed to be selected from NUSC members. I'm pretty sure anyone stumping up £1500+ would have the £10 subs waived and automatically become a member of the NUST. Or would you want someone on the board who wasn't willing to put up even £1500? If I were voting on board members I'd certainly want them to be materially invested in it. What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Specifically who and specifically why? Or are you just basing that statement on the anti-NUSC propaganda spread about by Ashley sympathisers last year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm not sure why the fans on the board should only be allowed to be selected from NUSC members. I'm pretty sure anyone stumping up £1500+ would have the £10 subs waived and automatically become a member of the NUST. Or would you want someone on the board who wasn't willing to put up even £1500? If I were voting on board members I'd certainly want them to be materially invested in it. What a bad bad idea. These are some of the last people I would want in charge of this club. Specifically who and specifically why? Or are you just basing that statement on the anti-NUSC propaganda spread about last by Ashley sympathisers last year? UV, Burnip knows all and knows best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 The whole buy out is based on the concept of one share certificate = one vote, regardless of the amount you invest (the minimum investment for a shre certificate is £2500. The larger investors will get a better return, ie: 2% of £25000 is greater than 2% of £2500. The one share certificate = one vote is paramount so that no one person / individual can take over at some point in the future. A properly elected NUST board will look after the trust issues, and a 'president' will be elected by the people who have invested in the buy out, a professional board would be appointed (commercial director, finace director, legal director, SIP investment director, along with 6 democraticaly elected NUST members) to run the club and be responsible for all operational and football matters. This will be communicated as the campaign progresses, it would be too much to produce everything today in one go. All that is asked at the moment is that investors place 10% of their pledged investment into an escrow account, set up and managed independtly from the NUST by a local credible legal firm. If the buy out does not go ahead, then the deposit would be returned less admin fes, there has to be admin fees, up to now everybody has basically worked pro bono (for nowt!!), but we are now asking financial institutions and businesses to become involed in large money moving tansacations etc, so there will be fees, thats normal in business. Please keep asking the questions, and please keep reading up on whats happening with the campaign, and hopefully you will be persuaded to invest and help move the club forward, or if you cant invest due to financial reasons then at least back us in what we are trying to do. Cheers guys and girls. As has been mentioned you say £2500 the site says £1500, which is right ? And where does the 2% return come from ? Link to post 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