Casforum • The Leading Castleford Tigers Community

Hudd
Accepted mate.
PS) I never mentioned review of accounts you did.
As you can see every year 1/3rd of directors have to retire by rotation.
That's the main purpose of an AGM.

I don't think an annual meeting is much to ask if only as a moral booster.

The directors of course cannot be moved unless the Fultons want them moving.
Cheers Robbo

Lofthouse Tiger wrote:Not sure how these things work but a few question to see if I can find out.

If the club owe the Fulton’s 2 million pounds then this is something that will be and should be repaid as and when is realistically possible. No problem, seems only right.

If the club are now paying interest on this loan then when was this done, why was it done, who proposed it and who agreed it? We’re ALL the shareholders involved in this process?

If this is the case then why were additional shares given to the Fulton’s in lieu of the outstanding loans? If additional shares were given were these to replace any outstanding debt/loans? If not why were they given? If they were then how is that debt still in place with interest being paid? Cake and eat it scenario.

Is this 2 million loan still going to be repaid as and when possible? If so then what will happen to the additional shares once paid? Will these be kept and possibly sold on? If the shares are cancelled, then what is/was the point of the whole process to begin with?

Seems to me only one person or group is at an advantage whichever way you look at it.

As I said I am not fully au fair with this kind of thing but to the man I the street this is an odd way to run a club and not a good way to treat ALL the shareholders.

The answers must be out there.

oh dear this is a can of worms...........

We do owe them that and I agree about it being repaid. However it should be made clear that the majority of the money Fulton put into the club was a LOAN and not a gift.

Well according to previous directors the loan was to be paid when we sold WR.
However we were told at the AGM 3 years approx. ago ? that a new document had been signed which meant the debt was due on Jacks death. If the club failed to pay we were in default.
It was said at the meeting this had been signed even though it was just a few weeks before Jack died.
My question was who signed it ?
Could we see a copy.
Despite written requests by solicitors no letter or answer was given.
My point was who would in effect jeopardise the future of the club by signing such a document. At some point JF would die and clearly we could not pay at that point.
This is a point by the way raised by me to the BOD many times over 15 years and the AGM meeting was told don't worry its all in hand. ( as we have said the debt would carry on till the ground was sold)

We’re ALL the shareholders involved in this process? ............. Not sure if the above answers this question.

If the loan is repaid the shares issued would come back to the club. If its not by the 5 year review shareholders vote again. Hopefully Fultons cannot vote as I feel that's probably a breach.

If the shares are cancelled, then what is/was the point of the whole process to begin with?

To give fultons FULL CONTROL. Ian said at the meeting shareholders agreed or he was calling the debt in.
I and some others voted against it, and suggested we look to re finance to re pay Ian. I had someone lined up especially as commercial interest was to be paid.


If this is the case then why were additional shares given to the Fulton’s in lieu of the outstanding loans? If additional shares were given were these to replace any outstanding debt/loans? If not why were they given? If they were then how is that debt still in place with interest being paid? Cake and eat it scenario

See above in my opinion a gun was put to shareholders heads.

The fultons were not happy that I forced an EGM because they would not have an agm. Steve G was CEO at the time.
I think in part they thought this will never happen again.

Finally as I have said many times. For years the club kept loosing money and I called for change. JF would not remove the ceo until we forced his hand.
The millions were lost on the watch of those two. Board members were not allowed to comment never mind force change.

Now we have in my opinion a situation worse in so far as the removal of directors ( without the right to a hearing) and the fiasco surrounding Steve Gills departure.

This will not end well.
Robbo

Robbo - you mentioned reviewing financial figures from over a year ago in post 2, hence why I was talking about reviewing the accounts. Apologies if that was misunderstood but that’s why anyway.

Hudd no problem
I meant it was difficult to look back 2 years.
Companies that I invest in tend to hold their AGM a few months post year end.
Anyway now we are on the same page
Week com the 10 th is my guess
Good night
Robbo

A good friend of mine who used to be privy to AGM’s and finance details and still keeps an eye on things remarked that although it’s better run than the Richard Wright day’s and made a tidy profit last year its “a pack of cards” that would fall if the £2,200,000 loan was called in.

He also felt the valuation of the asset (ground/land) was inflated.

Easy Tiger 2 wrote:A good friend of mine who used to be privy to AGM’s and finance details and still keeps an eye on things remarked that although it’s better run than the Richard Wright day’s and made a tidy profit last year its “a pack of cards” that would fall if the £2,200,000 loan was called in.

He also felt the valuation of the asset (ground/land) was inflated.

Stating the obvious there then. Obviously they would hope if it's sold they get there loan back and more.

[quote="Easy Tiger 2"]A good friend of mine who used to be privy to AGM’s and finance details and still keeps an eye on things remarked that although it’s better run than the Richard Wright day’s and made a tidy profit last year its “a pack of cards” that would fall if the £2,200,000 loan was called in.

That applies to a huge number of businesses including loads of sports clubs

fords wrote:

Easy Tiger 2 wrote:A good friend of mine who used to be privy to AGM’s and finance details and still keeps an eye on things remarked that although it’s better run than the Richard Wright day’s and made a tidy profit last year its “a pack of cards” that would fall if the £2,200,000 loan was called in.

He also felt the valuation of the asset (ground/land) was inflated.

Stating the obvious there then. Obviously they would hope if it's sold they get there loan back and more.

If they get their loan back that’s fair enough.

Why would/should they get more?

If shares have been”Given/demanded” to cover the outstanding debt then why is the loan still in place? It appears the club still owe 2 million plus, shares given to alleviate the debt yet the loans are still there and add to that the club are now paying interest on said loans. How can it be that the club seem to be being held by the short and curlies by 1 person?

Why are the club paying interest on the loans? Who put this forward and who decided it should be put in place?

Do any other rugby league clubs pay interest on loans from shareholders like we do?

Let’s hope the value of the ground when sold does cover the £2,000,000 owed then otherwise it could complicate matters further.Personally I think the Fultons have been great owners/backers and if Ian Fulton wants it all his own way as speculated he would have every right to in my eyes when they’ve done as much for the club as they have.

What has Ian Fulton actually done for the club that you feel he is right to do what he has done in the way it has been done then? Holding the club to ransom knowing full well the club can’t pay is poor. Would be very interesting to know when the pay back deal was changed and was their any knowledge that JF was not going to be around much longer when it was changed.

As asked previously who asked for this change and why? Once proposed who agreed it?

What about all the other shareholders?

We also see/hear that the ground isn’t guaranteed to be sold so how would any debts be paid then? All the talk about building a centre of excellence is a smoke screen if you ask me. The ground will be sold if we ever move and some people will make a fortune and disappear.

I think his family saving us time and again from going into administration/bust and throwing good money after bad at Richard Wright bought him that right. I don’t agree in principle that one person should have all the power and say so but after doing all that for the club I can see why he thinks he has the right

It isn’t what he has done but the way in which has done it is grossly unfair on other people that have also helped the club.

He could have followed protocol and bought all the shareholders out and then he has the right to do as he pleases as he would then own the club outright. We know he didn’t do that and for me did it very unfairly knowing the other shareholders had no choice

Looking from the outside and listening to what has been said he hasn’t done himself any favours and it will end in a bad way. To threaten to call a loan on knowing full well it can’t be paid back is not right. Taking shares in lieu of said loans may be an alternative if the loan is cleared. But. To take shares, leave the loans in place and then to take interest on it is beyond belief if you ask me.

When you look at the recent full back situation does anyone think that the main man dealt with it well?

It would be interesting to know which super league clubs wouldn't go under if their owners left. If there would be supporters willing to take the debt, especially in a sport which makes little money.

Hudds, Leeds, Wigan, saints, wire, Salford, kr, Hull Catalans and wakey are all privately owned. If the owner wants their money and wanted to be problematic, they'd be gone. London, I'm not so sure how they work.

Football has the same problem and fans find out quite regularly that by good luck, finding a rich owner, is a godsend.

Not disputing that most if not all clubs would be in trouble if the owners left and took their money elsewhere, it’s just the way that some people behave with disregard to others that I am asking questions about. Does anyone believe that Jack Fulton would have done this?

How does anyone know there isn’t a new owner or group out there that would be interested in taking over a club? It has been said many times that Cas have turned people away and run a self preservation society over the years.

Lofthouse Tiger wrote:Not disputing that most if not all clubs would be in trouble if the owners left and took their money elsewhere, it’s just the way that some people behave with disregard to others that I am asking questions about. Does anyone believe that Jack Fulton would have done this?

How does anyone know there isn’t a new owner or group out there that would be interested in taking over a club? It has been said many times that Cas have turned people away and run a self preservation society over the years.

For the first part, I don't know ian or his family. I didn't know how Jack did his business.

For the second, we have relatively low debts, and all to one family. Also we have an asset in the ground and our players to some extent. To buy them out might cost but a lot less than hudds at 14m and no ground. All the renters have very little. On that basis we should be alright.

The debt has occurred by poor decisions made by previous directors although they were made in good faith of which Jack Fulton was Charman of directors and he basically loaned the club money against the ground to make up for the unintentional poor decisions
The new generation Fulton’s basically loaded and cocked a gun and asked give us interest on the loan and all the unsold shares or we call the loan in and close the club
The siblings of jack are now charging around 2% interest above base rate getting a nice little earner but to add insult they are not taking the interest they are adding it to the debt so to earn more money for themselves year on year
This increasing debt makes it more difficult to sign a marque player or indeed improve the grounds infrastructure for the fans to benefit from
Please don’t say we don’t need to improve the infrastructure because we are moving to a new ground we fans are charged around the same as other fans that can use acceptable facility’s
COYF

charging 2 per cent interest above base rate but not taking the interest,so if thats true making a lot of money for themselves while the debt on the club grows
i must have misunderstood that cant be rate surely

Are the Fulton’s taking the P?

If Manchester Utd, Manchester City, Liverpool.......in fact any premier league club had their debts called in they would fold too

Some seem very quick to turn on the Fulton's, Do you think the Fulton's were taking the P? when they handed the club millions of pounds to keep the club competitive, and keep us in business, If Ian Fulton had called the loans in, Cas would have folded. and the ground would be a new housing estate.