S.A.F.C. - the future

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
With a rights issue the club would issue more shares -every shareholder has the right to buy the new shares subject to the percentage owned - if they do not take these new shares, the other shareholders can buy them.

An example you own 50% of the shares and I own 50% shares we then decide to double the number of shares but I am skint so you buy your share of the additional shares and mine.

You now own 75% and I 25% of shares.

That's what I thought , although I am pretty ignorant in these matters. The question then, for someone more clued up on them, would be when, and at whose instigation would any share issue take place? Would it need all the shareholders to agree to it, or would a percentage of some sort be required ?
 
looking more likely that we are stuck with the twat ain't it :headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

see bob over the road now claiming he was never gonna sell to Mark Campbell aye that's why he took him to wembley and let him pick his office ect at the AOL you liar
 
Last edited:
looking more likely that we are stuck with the twat ain't it :headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
Well we know gray’s attempt was almost unlawful but did happen
The club have said zz top isn’t viable
We know Campbell failed
We know a party from turkey had a good look
We know Donald messed fpp around last time
But we also know nothing is happening according to some

as said throughout this thread he has to sell, it’s gonna happen
 
With the amount of unfilled senior positions, it has to be happening.

Donald has no love, or ambition, for the club, other than the money it can make him.

As this is his only consideration you'd think he'd be doing something, anything, to protect his 'investment'.

He's doing nothing, in fact less than nothing because his absence is proving destructive to the club.

He's been dragging out his departure since he first tried to turn us over for a profit.

As the Fulwell End used to sing to a red carded player ...

... "Time to go, time to go, time to go!"
 
That's what I thought , although I am pretty ignorant in these matters. The question then, for someone more clued up on them, would be when, and at whose instigation would any share issue take place? Would it need all the shareholders to agree to it, or would a percentage of some sort be required ?
75% would be needed but it can depend on the company paperwork and if there are any shareholder agreements in place which could alter this %.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rowley
You would like to think so. But the dysfunction at this club knows no bounds, so anything is possible.

No business could operate long term without that amount of senior positions filled. Even 6th or 7th tier teams have people in these roles where applicable.
 
Dont mistake our penny pinching c@@t of an owner with planning for a takeover. Not filling senior positions is more to do with the tosser not wanting to spend any more money than anything else imo.

If it was one or two positions I'd be inclined to agree with you, but not the amount we have.

If it's not a takeover, we are going out of business.
 
If it was one or two positions I'd be inclined to agree with you, but not the amount we have.

If it's not a takeover, we are going out of business.

Tbh I dont see anything in not having a Chairman installed, I dont even think Newcastle operate with one? There is an Academy manager position to be filled but apart from that I cannot see a lot more gaping holes in top positions...Obvs the change at the top we all want tho