cp40 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No, not under the way it's structured (as I understand it) You and I could put in £1500 each and have more say in theory. Is the right answer. Each person gets a vote and an equal voice. Only to an extent though. It depends which decisions will be made by shareholders and which will be made by the elected board. Once the board is in place it's probable that the majority of the decisions will be made by them, so if Moat takes a place on the board obviously his say increases over yours and mine. i see, the important decision made by the board appointed by the big investors. The little share holders vote on the prices in the cafes and bars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No, not under the way it's structured (as I understand it) You and I could put in £1500 each and have more say in theory. Is the right answer. Each person gets a vote and an equal voice. Only to an extent though. It depends which decisions will be made by shareholders and which will be made by the elected board. Once the board is in place it's probable that the majority of the decisions will be made by them, so if Moat takes a place on the board obviously his say increases over yours and mine. Which I think is the correct approach. Fans should just vote on who to appoint as chairman really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No it's 1 vote per person no matter how much they invest Is it? then it wouldnt be worth the forum clubbing together, wed be better off buying ourselves, or for example 2 or 3 people clubbing together to raise 1500. Er no, We all chip in then vote on a rep. That rep then votes on what gets agreed here. That person attends the meetings etc. yeah with 1 vote. instead of dozens if we invest individually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Emailed me too. I wonder if any forums gave out a s*** load of emails? I cant seem to think of any other way they could have got our details Ive emailed them to find out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No, not under the way it's structured (as I understand it) You and I could put in £1500 each and have more say in theory. Is the right answer. Each person gets a vote and an equal voice. Only to an extent though. It depends which decisions will be made by shareholders and which will be made by the elected board. Once the board is in place it's probable that the majority of the decisions will be made by them, so if Moat takes a place on the board obviously his say increases over yours and mine. Which I think is the correct approach. Fans should just vote on who to appoint as chairman really. Absolutely, it couldn't work any other way. It'll need to be made clear (as I'm sure it will be) exactly what say people are getting. There seems to be a gap at the minute between what people think will happen & what will actually be the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Not sure why everyone is so excited about them getting hold of the e-mail addresses - I get a ton of emails every day offering to enlarge my cock, and to keep it enlarged, and I definitely didn't ask for it. So what if a group trying to do something good for the club managed to get hold of some email addresses, it hasn't harmed my day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No it's 1 vote per person no matter how much they invest Is it? then it wouldnt be worth the forum clubbing together, wed be better off buying ourselves, or for example 2 or 3 people clubbing together to raise 1500. Er no, We all chip in then vote on a rep. That rep then votes on what gets agreed here. That person attends the meetings etc. yeah with 1 vote. instead of dozens if we invest individually. I thought the idea would be: we all chip in and get, say £15k, thus allowing us 10 individual shares, n'est pas? We can have 10 individuals to lodge these stakes, if needs be, to satisfy NUST's criteria. However, we vote collectively (and votes could be weighed against monies invested, so cp40 would get 1000 votes, and I'd get 1) and the majority decision is carried through: i.e. all 10 votes are cast accordingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpinho Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I have been reading the NUST website and still don't really get how it works for someone who doesn't have any money. If I can not afford to pay the fees, am I then totally ignored even if I go every week? I like the idea, its very very optimistic but its better than MA or like others said faceless corporations. I am just worried that if I don't have the money then I am not included and can't vote etc. I imagine there are a hell of a lot of similar fans who do not have the money. So basically my question is how does the voting for these presidents, decisions etc apply to people without the large sums of money required to acquire a vote? Sorry if I have missed something obvious in the blurb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No, not under the way it's structured (as I understand it) You and I could put in £1500 each and have more say in theory. Is the right answer. Each person gets a vote and an equal voice. Only to an extent though. It depends which decisions will be made by shareholders and which will be made by the elected board. Once the board is in place it's probable that the majority of the decisions will be made by them, so if Moat takes a place on the board obviously his say increases over yours and mine. Which I think is the correct approach. Fans should just vote on who to appoint as chairman really. Absolutely, it couldn't work any other way. It'll need to be made clear (as I'm sure it will be) exactly what say people are getting. There seems to be a gap at the minute between what people think will happen & what will actually be the case. The investers appoint a board to run the club who make decisions, the board are answerable to the investers/fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No it's 1 vote per person no matter how much they invest Is it? then it wouldnt be worth the forum clubbing together, wed be better off buying ourselves, or for example 2 or 3 people clubbing together to raise 1500. Er no, We all chip in then vote on a rep. That rep then votes on what gets agreed here. That person attends the meetings etc. yeah with 1 vote. instead of dozens if we invest individually. I thought the idea would be: we all chip in and get, say £15k, thus allowing us 10 individual shares, n'est pas? We can have 10 individuals to lodge these stakes, if needs be, to satisfy NUST's criteria. However, we vote collectively (and votes could be weighed against monies invested, so cp40 would get 1000 votes, and I'd get 1) and the majority decision is carried through: i.e. all 10 votes are cast accordingly. hey man im skint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Not that 10 shares would be any use at all, like. Be it'd be good fun! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I have been reading the NUST website and still don't really get how it works for someone who doesn't have any money. If I can not afford to pay the fees, am I then totally ignored even if I go every week? I like the idea, its very very optimistic but its better than MA or like others said faceless corporations. I am just worried that if I don't have the money then I am not included and can't vote etc. I imagine there are a hell of a lot of similar fans who do not have the money. So basically my question is how does the voting for these presidents, decisions etc apply to people without the large sums of money required to acquire a vote? Sorry if I have missed something obvious in the blurb. Even if you are not an investor and have little money but attend the meetings i'm sure they'd listen to your opinion. WAY WAY better then Ashley and Shepherd put together. I'm sure there are thousands of fans like you who are short at the minute but would love to invest in the future of nufc. You'd have a voice am sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No, not under the way it's structured (as I understand it) You and I could put in £1500 each and have more say in theory. Is the right answer. Each person gets a vote and an equal voice. Only to an extent though. It depends which decisions will be made by shareholders and which will be made by the elected board. Once the board is in place it's probable that the majority of the decisions will be made by them, so if Moat takes a place on the board obviously his say increases over yours and mine. Which I think is the correct approach. Fans should just vote on who to appoint as chairman really. Absolutely, it couldn't work any other way. It'll need to be made clear (as I'm sure it will be) exactly what say people are getting. There seems to be a gap at the minute between what people think will happen & what will actually be the case. Agree entirely. I think people are actually put off by the notion that 20 randomly selected tubby, replica shirt clad fans will be running the whole thing when that doesn't seem to be the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No, not under the way it's structured (as I understand it) You and I could put in £1500 each and have more say in theory. Is the right answer. Each person gets a vote and an equal voice. Only to an extent though. It depends which decisions will be made by shareholders and which will be made by the elected board. Once the board is in place it's probable that the majority of the decisions will be made by them, so if Moat takes a place on the board obviously his say increases over yours and mine. Which I think is the correct approach. Fans should just vote on who to appoint as chairman really. Absolutely, it couldn't work any other way. It'll need to be made clear (as I'm sure it will be) exactly what say people are getting. There seems to be a gap at the minute between what people think will happen & what will actually be the case. Agree entirely. I think people are actually put off by the notion that 20 randomly selected tubby, replica shirt clad fans will be running the whole thing when that doesn't seem to be the case. Yup it would have to be professional, this could be the chance for everyone who loves NUFC to save the club and put it back to be running as a football club. The one that we know and love. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 If, for example, Barry Moat puts in £60m: will he have the controlling vote? I know it's an extreme example. No, not under the way it's structured (as I understand it) You and I could put in £1500 each and have more say in theory. Is the right answer. Each person gets a vote and an equal voice. Only to an extent though. It depends which decisions will be made by shareholders and which will be made by the elected board. Once the board is in place it's probable that the majority of the decisions will be made by them, so if Moat takes a place on the board obviously his say increases over yours and mine. Which I think is the correct approach. Fans should just vote on who to appoint as chairman really. Absolutely, it couldn't work any other way. It'll need to be made clear (as I'm sure it will be) exactly what say people are getting. There seems to be a gap at the minute between what people think will happen & what will actually be the case. Agree entirely. I think people are actually put off by the notion that 20 randomly selected tubby, replica shirt clad fans will be running the whole thing when that doesn't seem to be the case. Yup it would have to be professional, this could be the chance for everyone who loves NUFC to save the club and put it back to be running as a football club. The one that we know and love. cue beautiful music.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I have been reading the NUST website and still don't really get how it works for someone who doesn't have any money. If I can not afford to pay the fees, am I then totally ignored even if I go every week? I like the idea, its very very optimistic but its better than MA or like others said faceless corporations. I am just worried that if I don't have the money then I am not included and can't vote etc. I imagine there are a hell of a lot of similar fans who do not have the money. So basically my question is how does the voting for these presidents, decisions etc apply to people without the large sums of money required to acquire a vote? Sorry if I have missed something obvious in the blurb. In the questions and answers section is says you can donate to to NUST from as little as £10. Your money will be then added to other people likes yourselves and between you, you will get 1 vote. So everyone can have their say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I have been reading the NUST website and still don't really get how it works for someone who doesn't have any money. If I can not afford to pay the fees, am I then totally ignored even if I go every week? I like the idea, its very very optimistic but its better than MA or like others said faceless corporations. I am just worried that if I don't have the money then I am not included and can't vote etc. I imagine there are a hell of a lot of similar fans who do not have the money. So basically my question is how does the voting for these presidents, decisions etc apply to people without the large sums of money required to acquire a vote? Sorry if I have missed something obvious in the blurb. In the questions and answers section is says you can donate to to NUST from as little as £10. Your money will be then added to other people likes yourselves and between you, you will get 1 vote. So everyone can have their say. right, but if you did it through here, you would have a forum to discuss with the people you share the investment with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I have been reading the NUST website and still don't really get how it works for someone who doesn't have any money. If I can not afford to pay the fees, am I then totally ignored even if I go every week? I like the idea, its very very optimistic but its better than MA or like others said faceless corporations. I am just worried that if I don't have the money then I am not included and can't vote etc. I imagine there are a hell of a lot of similar fans who do not have the money. So basically my question is how does the voting for these presidents, decisions etc apply to people without the large sums of money required to acquire a vote? Sorry if I have missed something obvious in the blurb. In the questions and answers section is says you can donate to to NUST from as little as £10. Your money will be then added to other people likes yourselves and between you, you will get 1 vote. So everyone can have their say. right, but if you did it through here, you would have a forum to discuss with the people you share the investment with. That's true if a forum thing did happen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin 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. 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 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. 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 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin 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...
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 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. Loaning money in what way ? Because it's pensionable you mean ? 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