its a complement for flat capper, a step up in the social standings for him. I really did get fed up of waiting for him in the glass blower, the things he was going to do , oh well the coward has your backing, maybe he will start with the threats againduke street 10 wrote:He hasn't been back long and he's insulting people with words like retard. [-X
AGM for 2017
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 06 Dec 2018, 13:19
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2191
- Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 00:20
- Location: On the brink
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
There are 4 mistakes if we are actually counting OP1.oldplayer 1 wrote:well I take it back nobody spotted the mistake lololdplayer 1 wrote:You are kidding some people on here are up to a degree level at english. They even spend there own time going through every body smelling and correct in itRonnieGibbs'forearm wrote:It's reading threads on like this which reminds me why I rarely bother coming on here. Some absolute remedials knocking about
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 06 Dec 2018, 13:19
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
I can still taste your bittterness robbo. do you think you would have done better?Robbo wrote:I said back then and I still say it now, any club owner is not going to run the club in a way that reduces the value of his holding, whether you like that or not is your problem.
It is their property and they will run it in the clubs (and their own) best interest.
QUOTE FROM Vinnie
When Fulton and Wright started the club had a net worth of £500k plus the value of the ground.
When RW went and Jack sadly passed away we owed the Fulton Family approx. 2.5m Quid.
So to answer the above statement They did almost run the club into the ground.
To boot we were relegated twice and suffered some of our lowest attendances and had some shocking results.
We appointed players who played the odd match and coaches who were not up to the task. Ian Millward being probably the worst.
Anyway moving on the Fulton Family have now got 96% of the shares,( in my opinion the value of shareholders has gone for ever ) and the debt remains growing each year by the 3% above base rate or whatever the rate is set at. Its not a problem as they don't take it its just compounded to the loan amount.
So my time at Cas tigers is up.
As a fan I will watch when I can.
I am not prepared to be involved with people like this.
One thing is for sure.
Cas Tigers will be in massive trouble in the next few years because when they start to fall out and they will ,its the club that will suffer.
Have a wonderful Christmas and peaceful new year everyone ..........you too Vinnie.
Very best
Robbo
- steadygetyerboots-on
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1134
- Joined: 29 May 2007, 12:01
- Location: Working in the belly of the beast
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
Could you tell me what the six resolutions that we’re voted on, were?Robbo wrote:
Anyway moving on the Fulton Family have now got 96% of the shares,( in my opinion the value of shareholders has gone for ever ) and the debt remains growing each year by the 3% above base rate or whatever the rate is set at. Its not a problem as they don't take it its just compounded to the loan amount.
So my time at Cas tigers is up.
As a fan I will watch when I can.
I am not prepared to be involved with people like this.
Very best
Robbo
"Stand by me as I stand by you, be brave and dare to dream".
-
old cas lass Verified
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 23239
- Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 14:29
- Contact:
-
- New member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 09 Dec 2016, 12:48
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
Jeez I think if I was this ignorant toilet I would quickly go back into hiding!thedogvinnie wrote:I can still taste your bittterness robbo. do you think you would have done better?Robbo wrote:I said back then and I still say it now, any club owner is not going to run the club in a way that reduces the value of his holding, whether you like that or not is your problem.
It is their property and they will run it in the clubs (and their own) best interest.
QUOTE FROM Vinnie
When Fulton and Wright started the club had a net worth of £500k plus the value of the ground.
When RW went and Jack sadly passed away we owed the Fulton Family approx. 2.5m Quid.
So to answer the above statement They did almost run the club into the ground.
To boot we were relegated twice and suffered some of our lowest attendances and had some shocking results.
We appointed players who played the odd match and coaches who were not up to the task. Ian Millward being probably the worst.
Anyway moving on the Fulton Family have now got 96% of the shares,( in my opinion the value of shareholders has gone for ever ) and the debt remains growing each year by the 3% above base rate or whatever the rate is set at. Its not a problem as they don't take it its just compounded to the loan amount.
So my time at Cas tigers is up.
As a fan I will watch when I can.
I am not prepared to be involved with people like this.
One thing is for sure.
Cas Tigers will be in massive trouble in the next few years because when they start to fall out and they will ,its the club that will suffer.
Have a wonderful Christmas and peaceful new year everyone ..........you too Vinnie.
Very best
Robbo
Re: AGM for 2017
If Robbos theory of the future of Cas is right then what benefit would it be to Ian Fulton, he would lose all his money if that were to happen
Re: AGM for 2017
It's not difficult to understand the massive percentage of shareholders votes in favour of the motions when the beneficiaries of those motions are the very people who hold the majority of the shares... :dance: :dance: :dance:
Whatever happened to directors avoiding a conflict of interest? Looks like a tier 1 conflict to me - I won't pretend to be an expert in company law - just Google searches
Whatever happened to directors avoiding a conflict of interest? Looks like a tier 1 conflict to me - I won't pretend to be an expert in company law - just Google searches
You don't want to do it like that!
- Tigerade
- League One Player
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: 11 Dec 2014, 13:18
- Location: Larging it in Lagentium
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
If you are alluding that the vote is weighted to the number of shares you hold then you are wrong. 36 shareholders voted and each vote counted as one 36th regardless of the number of shares held.It's not difficult to understand the massive percentage of shareholders votes in favour of the motions when the beneficiaries of those motions are the very people who hold the majority of the shares...
Re: AGM for 2017
I found sixRonnieGibbs'forearm wrote:There are 4 mistakes if we are actually counting OP1.oldplayer 1 wrote:well I take it back nobody spotted the mistake lololdplayer 1 wrote:You are kidding some people on here are up to a degree level at english. They even spend there own time going through every body smelling and correct in itRonnieGibbs'forearm wrote:It's reading threads on like this which reminds me why I rarely bother coming on here. Some absolute remedials knocking about
Re: AGM for 2017
Tigerade wrote:If you are alluding that the vote is weighted to the number of shares you hold then you are wrong. 36 shareholders voted and each vote counted as one 36th regardless of the number of shares held.It's not difficult to understand the massive percentage of shareholders votes in favour of the motions when the beneficiaries of those motions are the very people who hold the majority of the shares...
incorrect Sir that's not how it worked. It was decided on shares owned. Not the number of shareholders.
Half the shareholders still think the loan was paid off with the issue of the first lot of shares.
Some of the Shareholders who backed Fulton issuing himself free shares the first time were absent at the meeting this year.
robbo
Truth is always best !
Re: AGM for 2017
"So my time at Cas tigers is up."Robbo wrote:I said back then and I still say it now, any club owner is not going to run the club in a way that reduces the value of his holding, whether you like that or not is your problem.
It is their property and they will run it in the clubs (and their own) best interest.
QUOTE FROM Vinnie
When Fulton and Wright started the club had a net worth of £500k plus the value of the ground.
When RW went and Jack sadly passed away we owed the Fulton Family approx. 2.5m Quid.
So to answer the above statement They did almost run the club into the ground.
To boot we were relegated twice and suffered some of our lowest attendances and had some shocking results.
We appointed players who played the odd match and coaches who were not up to the task. Ian Millward being probably the worst.
Anyway moving on the Fulton Family have now got 96% of the shares,( in my opinion the value of shareholders has gone for ever ) and the debt remains growing each year by the 3% above base rate or whatever the rate is set at. Its not a problem as they don't take it its just compounded to the loan amount.
So my time at Cas tigers is up.
As a fan I will watch when I can.
I am not prepared to be involved with people like this.
One thing is for sure.
Cas Tigers will be in massive trouble in the next few years because when they start to fall out and they will ,its the club that will suffer.
Have a wonderful Christmas and peaceful new year everyone ..........you too Vinnie.
Very best
Robbo
So if you were involved (no idea to what capacity like) why did you not try to do something about it then ? rather than coming on here and spouting about how badly run the club is
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 16:04
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
If you seriously believe people, including Robbo, haven’t done anything then maybe you need to find out these things.
You may not like how someone comes across but believe me they have done more than most to help/keep the club moving forward.
You may not like how someone comes across but believe me they have done more than most to help/keep the club moving forward.
Re: AGM for 2017
Tell us all then... as im seriously fed up of hearing his sh*t about the club on here.Lofthouse Tiger wrote:If you seriously believe people, including Robbo, haven’t done anything then maybe you need to find out these things.
You may not like how someone comes across but believe me they have done more than most to help/keep the club moving forward.
Alot of people on here seem to know more than the people who run the club or claim to.
Re: AGM for 2017
Fords what do you want to know?fords wrote:Tell us all then... as im seriously fed up of hearing his sh*t about the club on here.Lofthouse Tiger wrote:If you seriously believe people, including Robbo, haven’t done anything then maybe you need to find out these things.
You may not like how someone comes across but believe me they have done more than most to help/keep the club moving forward.
Alot of people on here seem to know more than the people who run the club or claim to.
I see this in a simple way.
During the time JF and RW were running the club it went from having cash on the balance sheet to owing Jack fulton approx. 2.5m
The money Jack and family put in was a LOAN not a gift but a loan to be re paid.
This is the first bit I disagree with. They lost the money not you or I, but by not running the club correctly.
The club had 32000 shares I and other bought shares for real cash in an effort to put money into the club.
The loan has now passed to Ian Fulton ,and Janet and interest at approx. 3% is being accrued ( added to the total)
The club
2 years ago issued 48000 shares to Ian and Janet at nil cost giving them voting control.
Shareholders were told " agree or I might call the loan in "
For the record I voted against it.
However confused shareholders thought this was in lieu of the loan. WRONG
At this years AGM the club issued another 420,000 shares for nothing to the Fultons so they now have 96% ( giving them TOTAL control)
This in effect took any value from other shareholders ,and gave it to them.
How can they do this? Because they have voting control,and can vote for whatever they choose.
So a club that started, and for over 80 years had a limit on the % anyone person could own has now given full control away ,we still have a debt ,THAT IS DUE ON THE DEATH OF IAN OR JANET IN FULL ,of 2 plus million quid that increases each year with interest.
Control in the hands of a single person often fails. In my opinion its a dangerous situation.
Robbo
Truth is always best !
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 27 Feb 2018, 21:35
- Contact:
Re: AGM for 2017
Robbo
Can I ask is the idea that we sell the ground when/if the new stadium gets built and that’s when they’ll get their money back?
Otherwise I can’t see how they’ll get it back as most clubs run at a loss and also I have doubts that the ground would sell for enough to pay it off anyway.
Can I ask is the idea that we sell the ground when/if the new stadium gets built and that’s when they’ll get their money back?
Otherwise I can’t see how they’ll get it back as most clubs run at a loss and also I have doubts that the ground would sell for enough to pay it off anyway.
Re: AGM for 2017
oops was reply to @Robbo
What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.
The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.
When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.
The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.
As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.
Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.
I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.
On point B
Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.
Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.
The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.
When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.
The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.
As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.
Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.
I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.
On point B
Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.
Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
Re: AGM for 2017
Simple fact is that Fulton’s had a charge on the assets that’s how you protect your money.Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo
What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.
The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.
When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.
The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.
As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.
Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.
I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.
On point B
Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.
Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
In the event of the club folding the value in WR more than covered the loan. It’s a secured debt.
If the new ground valued at 10m plus is ever built 96% of it is owned by them.
Plus the value of WR
It’s the control that worries me.
I will try to screen shot the document Re the debt to be paid on death.
Cheers Robbo
Truth is always best !
Re: AGM for 2017
Not sure what a charge on assets is? Was the loan secured against the ground in contract? That would need to be voted on and passed,and if so so was this pre or post redistribution of shares? Either way with a sale or CVA the value of the ground would be included as covered in my previous post.Robbo wrote:Simple fact is that Fulton’s had a charge on the assets that’s how you protect your money.Exiled wrote:oops was reply to @Robbo
What has happened is standard business practice. No one would 'invest' £2.5m in to any business with multiple share holders and then leave that money vulnerable by being at the behest of other shareholders. It is prudent as the majority shareholder to issue ordinary shares to ones self and 'water down' the value of all shares to protect yourself should the company fail and go into administration.
The shares issued to the Fulton family will also have been distributed in proportion to amount of investment (or debt that they are owed). This also shows you the disproportion in investment in comparison to other shareholders. They are now also liable to the proportionate amount of debt per share.
When you invest in a private company these are the considerations you must undertake; there can always be a majority shareholder (and 99% of the time this is the case) that will have leverage, either directly or through partners. Not understanding this when 'investing' is naive.
The limit on % of shares owned you mention. Was this voted on or a gentleman's agreement? If the latter it really means nothing in business terms and the former must have been voted upon and passed by the shareholders.
As for the debt: can you show us proof that the debt is due to be paid in full on death of the two parties mentioned? Seems very strange.
Sorry to hear that you and other shareholders were badgered into accepting the distribution of new shares in 2016 however, it shows again, a naivety (or good faith of trusting supporters). At that point if, as you say there was no majority shareholder then the Fulton's would have had to take the company into a CVA (after calling in the loan) to force your hand and with no majority, they risked losing the club to other shareholders.
I understand where you are coming from as a supporter, but looking at it from a business point of view the Fulton's have merely protected their considerable investment:A - from the club going under and B - Should anyone want to buy the club.
On point B
Should the circumstance have arisen that a takeover was put to the shareholders prior to the recent share distribution and agreed upon, then the shareholders would all have been due a disproportionate amount of money per share in relation to the major investor that was owed significant debt. The debt would need to be paid by the new owners or agreed upon in the sale price - which would have been voted on by the shareholders, which wouldn't necessarily have the major shareholders best interest at heart.
Long and short is they have covered their ass in the most normal way possible. You invest in something you take a risk. Especially if you are not business savvy.
In the event of the club folding the value in WR more than covered the loan. It’s a secured debt.
If the new ground valued at 10m plus is ever built 96% of it is owned by them.
Plus the value of WR
It’s the control that worries me.
I will try to screen shot the document Re the debt to be paid on death.
Cheers Robbo
Looking at the distribution of shares and the money paid for those shares initially the 4% of the value of the new ground and the sale of WR would easily be worth more than the original investment. So a win for all.
Not trying to take sides or doubt either view, but just make some sense of it all from a supporters point of view. I do believe that the club could be a little bit more reassuring to the supporters in their disclosure, however they are under no obligation to do so other than the legal requirements.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you do seem a little aggrieved at the situation you find yourself in. Going from, as you see it, an 'equal' shareholder or at least within some sort of trusted parity -to being out muscled into a marginalised minor share holder? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that it is the money that concern's you, rather the control taken over the club by an individual?
I guess every club be it R.L, R.U or football etc would rather be fan owned - Barcelona style. Unfortunately that is rarely the case and most clubs are owned by a single person.
The only real concern I have as a supporter, and one that potentially could have a huge impact on the club is the fact that on death of either one of the two directors that are owed owed money, the club would be forced into an immediate call in of those debts. As mentioned above I find this highly irregular and very concerning.
Re: AGM for 2017
If what robbo says is right and the Fultons have already said vote for this or I might call in the loans and there's a stipulation in place that on death of a director the loan will be called on the club think everybody would find this concerning
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 126 guests