der Berliner 3,257 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 God help us now. They own some 3%, don't they? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) With all the comings and goings, I can't remember who owns how much. Does 3% put these parasites in any sort of position to enforce such nightmares as sale/leaseback of assets? Not so far as I am aware. You need 5% to call a general meeting and if you have 25% you can block special resolutions e.g. change the company name etc. You need 50% + 1 to ensure that you carry an ordinary resoltion e.g. appoint or remove directors. At 75% you can do pretty much anything. I think I am correct in saying that providing a director or the Board acts within the law and with due care and diligence etc they can buy and sell any company assets including property but there is a restriction on ‘substantial property transactions’ which are defined as a value of more than £100,000 or 10 per cent of the company’s net asset value as shown in its last accounts; would need shareholder approval, although this refers to sales to or from a director and I'm not sure if it applies in other circumstances which might depend on the articles. Regardless, I very much doubt if even this Board would attempt to sell the stadium or training ground without shareholder approval but then as we have seen the major shareholders support the Board. Sale and Leaseback I doubt would require approval but I may be wrong. Edited January 17, 2014 by BrahimHemdani typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 They own some 3%, don't they? Yes, which made it notifiable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,257 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Yes, which made it notifiable. Indeed, but given the gloomy-stuff you wrote above, do they actually have any power (with those 3% in mind) to do what they are apparently best in? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) Indeed, but given the gloomy-stuff you wrote above, do they actually have any power (with those 3% in mind) to do what they are apparently best in? Not on their own or with their current holding; but they could build that up (which we'll know as they have to report each additional 1%) or could persuade others to their point of view.. One thing is for sure, they are not there with the long term interests of RFC at heart. Edited January 17, 2014 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Looks like a tim wind-up. Old Mutual mentioned as a buyer alongside Damille II on the LSE chat; may not be accurate of course. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Indeed, but given the gloomy-stuff you wrote above, do they actually have any power (with those 3% in mind) to do what they are apparently best in? This worrying precis was posted on the LSE chat yesterday: " The target investments were funds with market caps below £100 million. These would be encouraged to “optimise their balance sheets” and “align management and shareholder interests”. The plan was to make declarable holdings (above 3%) in these stocks and, differentiating themselves from similar funds, they could acquire controlling stakes – a benefit of listing on the SFM. This also allowed them boost their firepower by making investments through special purpose vehicles which could be up to 100% leveraged. The fund itself is permitted to gear up to 15%. To date they have returned 48p per share and the NAV is around 62p per share so they have made money for shareholders but they are a little behind their performance fee target. The shares are trading around asset value." N.B. this phrase "These would be encouraged to “optimise their balance sheets” and “align management and shareholder interests” Damille expects returns within a 2 to 4 year window. I can only see this being achieved at TRIFC via property deals." Not exactly very encouraging. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 That LSE chat is generally hoaching with declans talking crap Brahim. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 The optimise the balance sheet and align shareholder and management interests stuff is from their website 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 That LSE chat is generally hoaching with declans talking crap Brahim. Noted but I think I managed to avoid the worst of it. For example the modus operandi suggested in #187 sounds realistic to me. 0 Quote Link to post 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.